Using normative ethics for building a good evaluation of research practices: towards the assessment of researcher’s virtues

Author:

Daraio CinziaORCID,Vaccari Alessio

Abstract

AbstractIn this paper, we propose the adoption of moral philosophy and in particular normative ethics, to clarify the concept of “good” evaluation of “research practices”. Using MacIntyre (1985)’s notion of a practice we argue that research is a form of social practice. As a result of this characterization, we claim that research practice typically requires three typologies of researcher: the leader, the good researcher and the honest researcher. Reflecting on what is a “good” research practice and on what is the role of researchers in it provides insight into some aspects of both the self-assessment process and how this promotes individual improvement. Moreover, this kind of reflection helps us to describe the functions (missions) of the research practices. A “good” evaluation should take into account all the building constituents of a “good” research practice and should be able to discriminate between good and bad research practices, while enforcing the functions of good research practices. We believe that these reflections may be the starting point for a paradigm shift in the evaluation of research practices which replaces an evaluation centred on products with an evaluation focused on the functions of these practices. In the last sections of the paper, we introduce and discuss an important aspect for the implementation of the proposed framework. This relates to the assessment of the virtues of researchers involved in a good research practice. Some examples of questions and preliminary items to include in a questionnaire for the assessment of Virtues in Research Practices are also provided.

Funder

Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

Sapienza Università di Roma

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,General Social Sciences

Reference67 articles.

1. Åkerlind, G. S. (2008). An academic perspective on research and being a researcher: An integration of the literature. Stud. High. Educ., 33(1), 17–31.

2. ALLEA (2017) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, last accessed at https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf on 6 June 2020

3. Ardal, P. S. (1966). Passion and Value in Hume's Treatise. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

4. Annas, J. (2011). Intelligent Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5. Baier, A. (1991). A Progress of Sentiments: Reflections on Hume's Treatise. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3