Value pluralism in research integrity
Abstract Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial pluralism. First, there is metaphysical...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2019-08-01
|
| Series: | Research Integrity and Peer Review |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4 |
| _version_ | 1818840663401168896 |
|---|---|
| author | Rik Peels Jeroen de Ridder Tamarinde Haven Lex Bouter |
| author_facet | Rik Peels Jeroen de Ridder Tamarinde Haven Lex Bouter |
| author_sort | Rik Peels |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial pluralism. First, there is metaphysical pluralism in that codes include values, norms, and virtues. Second, there is axiological pluralism, because there are different categories of values, norms, and virtues: epistemic, moral, professional, social, and legal. Within and between these different categories, norms can be incommensurable or incompatible. Codes of conduct typically do not specify how to handle situations where different norms pull in different directions. We review some attempts to develop an ordering of different sorts of norm violations based on a common measure for their seriousness. We argue that they all fail to give adequate guidance for resolving cases of incommensurable and conflicting norms. We conclude that value pluralism is inherent to codes of conduct in research integrity. The application of codes needs careful reasoning and judgment together with an intellectually humble attitude that acknowledges the inevitability of value pluralism. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T04:13:46Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-fff67a423575451a9a84c0e0de917f6f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2058-8615 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T04:13:46Z |
| publishDate | 2019-08-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Research Integrity and Peer Review |
| spelling | doaj.art-fff67a423575451a9a84c0e0de917f6f2022-12-21T20:36:22ZengBMCResearch Integrity and Peer Review2058-86152019-08-014111310.1186/s41073-019-0076-4Value pluralism in research integrityRik Peels0Jeroen de Ridder1Tamarinde Haven2Lex Bouter3Philosophy Department, Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamPhilosophy Department, Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamPhilosophy Department, Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamPhilosophy Department, Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAbstract Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial pluralism. First, there is metaphysical pluralism in that codes include values, norms, and virtues. Second, there is axiological pluralism, because there are different categories of values, norms, and virtues: epistemic, moral, professional, social, and legal. Within and between these different categories, norms can be incommensurable or incompatible. Codes of conduct typically do not specify how to handle situations where different norms pull in different directions. We review some attempts to develop an ordering of different sorts of norm violations based on a common measure for their seriousness. We argue that they all fail to give adequate guidance for resolving cases of incommensurable and conflicting norms. We conclude that value pluralism is inherent to codes of conduct in research integrity. The application of codes needs careful reasoning and judgment together with an intellectually humble attitude that acknowledges the inevitability of value pluralism.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4Code of conductEpistemologyEthicsPluralismPrincipleValue |
| spellingShingle | Rik Peels Jeroen de Ridder Tamarinde Haven Lex Bouter Value pluralism in research integrity Research Integrity and Peer Review Code of conduct Epistemology Ethics Pluralism Principle Value |
| title | Value pluralism in research integrity |
| title_full | Value pluralism in research integrity |
| title_fullStr | Value pluralism in research integrity |
| title_full_unstemmed | Value pluralism in research integrity |
| title_short | Value pluralism in research integrity |
| title_sort | value pluralism in research integrity |
| topic | Code of conduct Epistemology Ethics Pluralism Principle Value |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rikpeels valuepluralisminresearchintegrity AT jeroenderidder valuepluralisminresearchintegrity AT tamarindehaven valuepluralisminresearchintegrity AT lexbouter valuepluralisminresearchintegrity |