Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 133 |
| Journal | SYNTHESE |
| Volume | 202 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 21 Oct 2023 |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2023 |
Abstract
While the debate on values in science focuses on normative questions on the level of the individual (e.g. should researchers try to make their work as value free as possible?), comparatively little attention has been paid to the institutional and professional norms that researchers are expected to follow. To address this knowledge gap, we conduct a content analysis of leading national codes of conduct for research integrity of European countries, and structure our analysis around the question: do these documents allow for researchers to be influenced by “non-epistemic” (moral, cultural, commercial, political, etc.) values or do they prohibit such influence in compliance with the value-free ideal (VFI) of science? Our results return a complex picture. On the one hand, codes of conduct consider many non-epistemic values to be a legitimate influence on the decision-making of researchers. On the other, most of these documents include what we call VFI-like positions: passages claiming that researchers should be free and independent from any external influence. This shows that while many research integrity documents do not fully endorse the VFI, they do not reject it and continue to be implicitly influenced by it. This results in internal tensions and underdetermined guidance on non-epistemic values that may limit some of the uses of research integrity codes, especially for purposes of ethical self-regulation. While codes of conduct cannot be expected to decide how researchers should act in every instance, we do suggest that they acknowledge the challenges of how to integrate non-epistemic values in research in a more explicit fashion.
Keywords
- Content analysis, Empirical philosophy, Ethics of research, Research integrity, Self-regulation, Value-free ideal
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- Philosophy
- Social Sciences(all)
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: SYNTHESE, Vol. 202, No. 5, 133, 11.2023.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The value-free ideal in codes of conduct for research integrity
AU - Ambrosj, Jacopo
AU - Desmond, Hugh
AU - Dierickx, Kris
N1 - Funding Information: This research is part of a project funded by the FWO, Research Foundation—Flanders (Grant no. G0D6920N).
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - While the debate on values in science focuses on normative questions on the level of the individual (e.g. should researchers try to make their work as value free as possible?), comparatively little attention has been paid to the institutional and professional norms that researchers are expected to follow. To address this knowledge gap, we conduct a content analysis of leading national codes of conduct for research integrity of European countries, and structure our analysis around the question: do these documents allow for researchers to be influenced by “non-epistemic” (moral, cultural, commercial, political, etc.) values or do they prohibit such influence in compliance with the value-free ideal (VFI) of science? Our results return a complex picture. On the one hand, codes of conduct consider many non-epistemic values to be a legitimate influence on the decision-making of researchers. On the other, most of these documents include what we call VFI-like positions: passages claiming that researchers should be free and independent from any external influence. This shows that while many research integrity documents do not fully endorse the VFI, they do not reject it and continue to be implicitly influenced by it. This results in internal tensions and underdetermined guidance on non-epistemic values that may limit some of the uses of research integrity codes, especially for purposes of ethical self-regulation. While codes of conduct cannot be expected to decide how researchers should act in every instance, we do suggest that they acknowledge the challenges of how to integrate non-epistemic values in research in a more explicit fashion.
AB - While the debate on values in science focuses on normative questions on the level of the individual (e.g. should researchers try to make their work as value free as possible?), comparatively little attention has been paid to the institutional and professional norms that researchers are expected to follow. To address this knowledge gap, we conduct a content analysis of leading national codes of conduct for research integrity of European countries, and structure our analysis around the question: do these documents allow for researchers to be influenced by “non-epistemic” (moral, cultural, commercial, political, etc.) values or do they prohibit such influence in compliance with the value-free ideal (VFI) of science? Our results return a complex picture. On the one hand, codes of conduct consider many non-epistemic values to be a legitimate influence on the decision-making of researchers. On the other, most of these documents include what we call VFI-like positions: passages claiming that researchers should be free and independent from any external influence. This shows that while many research integrity documents do not fully endorse the VFI, they do not reject it and continue to be implicitly influenced by it. This results in internal tensions and underdetermined guidance on non-epistemic values that may limit some of the uses of research integrity codes, especially for purposes of ethical self-regulation. While codes of conduct cannot be expected to decide how researchers should act in every instance, we do suggest that they acknowledge the challenges of how to integrate non-epistemic values in research in a more explicit fashion.
KW - Content analysis
KW - Empirical philosophy
KW - Ethics of research
KW - Research integrity
KW - Self-regulation
KW - Value-free ideal
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85174604042&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11229-023-04377-y
DO - 10.1007/s11229-023-04377-y
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85174604042
VL - 202
JO - SYNTHESE
JF - SYNTHESE
SN - 0039-7857
IS - 5
M1 - 133
ER -