Why Do We Do as We Do? How Do We Know What’s Best? Reflecting on the Methodological Challenges of Measurement in Initiatives Using Digital Technologies for Combating Corruption

IF 2.3 2区文学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

American Behavioral Scientist Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1177/00027642241268544

Dale Mineshima-Lowe

{"title":"Why Do We Do as We Do? How Do We Know What’s Best? Reflecting on the Methodological Challenges of Measurement in Initiatives Using Digital Technologies for Combating Corruption","authors":"Dale Mineshima-Lowe","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the methodological challenges in the design of anti-corruption initiatives utilizing digital technologies. In particular, the focus is on the measurement problem. Using anti-corruption initiatives as case studies, two central issues are raised: firstly, examining and unpacking the rationale for how digital technologies are understood (and assumed) as useful for combating corruption. Secondly, identifying motives and drivers within these anti-corruption initiatives. As digital technology is further employed in anti-corruption initiatives, it seems a good point at present, to stop and reflect on how and why such initiatives are designed with digital technologies. The paper concludes that there is a need to include greater discussion about the underlying methodological challenges around measurements. It requires more openness in terms of the principles and the system of methods used for the selection of digital technologies, connecting choice to the identified objective, and the role of measurement to the objective.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Behavioral Scientist","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268544","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses the methodological challenges in the design of anti-corruption initiatives utilizing digital technologies. In particular, the focus is on the measurement problem. Using anti-corruption initiatives as case studies, two central issues are raised: firstly, examining and unpacking the rationale for how digital technologies are understood (and assumed) as useful for combating corruption. Secondly, identifying motives and drivers within these anti-corruption initiatives. As digital technology is further employed in anti-corruption initiatives, it seems a good point at present, to stop and reflect on how and why such initiatives are designed with digital technologies. The paper concludes that there is a need to include greater discussion about the underlying methodological challenges around measurements. It requires more openness in terms of the principles and the system of methods used for the selection of digital technologies, connecting choice to the identified objective, and the role of measurement to the objective.

查看原文本刊更多论文

我们为什么这样做？我们如何知道什么是最好的？反思使用数字技术打击腐败倡议中的衡量方法挑战

本文讨论了利用数字技术设计反腐计划的方法论挑战。重点尤其放在衡量问题上。本文以反腐行动为案例，提出了两个核心问题：第一，研究和解读数字技术如何被理解（和假定）为有助于打击腐败的理由。第二，确定这些反腐行动的动机和驱动力。随着数字技术在反腐行动中的进一步应用，目前似乎是一个很好的时机，停下来反思一下如何以及为什么要利用数字技术来设计这些行动。本文的结论是，有必要更多地讨论有关测量方法的基本挑战。这就要求在选择数字技术的原则和方法体系方面更加开放，将选择与确定的目标联系起来，以及衡量对目标的作用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American Behavioral Scientist Multiple-

CiteScore

6.70

自引率

3.10%

发文量

190

期刊介绍： American Behavioral Scientist has been a valuable source of information for scholars, researchers, professionals, and students, providing in-depth perspectives on intriguing contemporary topics throughout the social and behavioral sciences. Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic, examining such important and diverse arenas as sociology, international and U.S. politics, behavioral sciences, communication and media, economics, education, ethnic and racial studies, terrorism, and public service. The journal"s interdisciplinary approach stimulates creativity and occasionally, controversy within the emerging frontiers of the social sciences, exploring the critical issues that affect our world and challenge our thinking.