I.1. Ontological/Epistemological Priors

Forum rules

We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

Instructions
To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.

For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.

Marcus Kreuzer
Villanova University
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:48 am

Topic 2: Placing DA-RT in the Broader Knowledge Production

PostMon Oct 03, 2016 10:14 pm

There is a widespread perception that the three transparency dimensions (e.g. data access, analytical transparency, production transparency) identified by the DA-RT initiative capture not only a narrow statistical research practices but also cover only the small, test-related stage of the broader knowledge production.
Figure 1 provides a visual summary of the wider range stages of knowledge production. These additional stages include theorizing, philosophy of science, and sociology of knowledge. Figure 1 summarizes transparency related issues that are insufficiently covered by the current DA-RT guidelines
DART.png
DART.png (289.62 KiB) Viewed 481 times

The working group encourages public discussion of the following questions related to this more expansive view of research integrity:
[1] What evaluative criteria are scholars employing to assure the transparency regarding how theorizing, philosophical assumptions, and sociology of knowledge affect the broader integrity of their research?
[2] How do such criteria overlap or differ from those spelled out by DA-RT?
[3] What would be the costs or benefits of incorporating such considerations in DA-RT?

Post Reply


Maria Victoria Murillo
Columbia University
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:15 pm

Re: Topic 2: Placing DA-RT in the Broader Knowledge Production

PostSat Dec 17, 2016 4:36 pm

Marcus Kreuzer wrote:There is a widespread perception that the three transparency dimensions (e.g. data access, analytical transparency, production transparency) identified by the DA-RT initiative capture not only a narrow statistical research practices but also cover only the small, test-related stage of the broader knowledge production.
Figure 1 provides a visual summary of the wider range stages of knowledge production. These additional stages include theorizing, philosophy of science, and sociology of knowledge. Figure 1 summarizes transparency related issues that are insufficiently covered by the current DA-RT guidelines
DART.png

The working group encourages public discussion of the following questions related to this more expansive view of research integrity:
[1] What evaluative criteria are scholars employing to assure the transparency regarding how theorizing, philosophical assumptions, and sociology of knowledge affect the broader integrity of their research?
[2] How do such criteria overlap or differ from those spelled out by DA-RT?
[3] What would be the costs or benefits of incorporating such considerations in DA-RT?



The issues raised here are very important because DA-RT as a part of a model of how to do social sciences with the goal of advancing scholars’ careers does not necessarily coincide with the goal of advancing relevant knowledge all the time. The hurdles imposed by DA-RT, especially for young scholars seeking jobs and tenure, and the short periods discussed to make data available, in addition to the high discretion afforded to editors rather than reviewers in deciding which data the scholar has to provide, may generate unintended consequences for the general integrity of research. Researchers should make the right choice in terms of the evidence they gather, both protecting their subjects and seeking data that may not be easy to gather. The difficulties involved should be rewarded by academia rather than discouraged and thus the process of data sharing should respect the time of publication of those researchers and subsidized it if it involves larger costs than other types of research (for instance, having repositories paying for digitalization of qualitative data rather than imposing the cost on the scholar). If these kinds of issues are not considered we are pushing scholars away from integrity at an earlier stage when they choose the topics and they decide on data collection, which are crucial if we want to produce relevant research. This issues are similar to publication bias. That is, the need to find novelty to publish hinders research that may illuminate the scope conditions of existing theories and the relevance of prior discoveries to understand current problems. Although publication bias is not the same as transparency and is defined by another aspect of integrity both can generate similar incentives that should be considered in defining the terms in which the new rules will be imposed and the level of discretion assigned to editors, which is already very high. The inter-subjective enterprise of producing social science should include more than a single authority and the continuous inter-subjective consideration of what is integrity seems to me should involve different groups of scholars who are more familiar with the research topic, as well as those coming for different academic context. Thus, I think that another important practice from the review process, at least in comparative, is to include reviewers from the academic region where the research takes place. Those reviewers should be less influenced by local networks and more likely to pay attention to the context of research thus, in line with the sociology of knowledge incentives presented in the graph, are likely to diversify the voices judging the process and inform about diverse aspects shaping the integrity and transparency of the process.

Post Reply



Return to “I.1. Ontological/Epistemological Priors”