Analytical decisions pose moral questions.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Mirela Zaneva
{"title":"Analytical decisions pose moral questions.","authors":"Mirela Zaneva","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2024.2425689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How often do we reflect on the potential moral or value implications - what is right, wrong, has value and is (in)appropriate - of seemingly trivial analytical decisions, such as how to dichotomise a variable? I argue that analytical choices relate to multifaceted and oftentimes challenging moral issues that scientists should take into deeper consideration. Here, I illustrate a variety of potential considerations about moral values, including issues like exclusion, marginalisation, autonomy, responsibility, non-maleficence in relation to various common analytical choices and practices, such as the use of thresholds for disease diagnosis or population definition, the use of composite measures in the context of clarifying effects, classification practices, decisions on variable selection, as well as decisions relating to (dis)aggregation of data. I discuss these examples in the context of reasonable theoretical or statistical reservations. I advocate for deeper engagement with the difficult moral implications of analytical decisions, and for a principled and pluralistic science, that is also a more robust science. Such a science can include diverse moral views through a coupled ethical-epistemic approach, sensitivity tests, multiverse analysis, as well as stronger commitments to participatory and mutual learning practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2425689","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How often do we reflect on the potential moral or value implications - what is right, wrong, has value and is (in)appropriate - of seemingly trivial analytical decisions, such as how to dichotomise a variable? I argue that analytical choices relate to multifaceted and oftentimes challenging moral issues that scientists should take into deeper consideration. Here, I illustrate a variety of potential considerations about moral values, including issues like exclusion, marginalisation, autonomy, responsibility, non-maleficence in relation to various common analytical choices and practices, such as the use of thresholds for disease diagnosis or population definition, the use of composite measures in the context of clarifying effects, classification practices, decisions on variable selection, as well as decisions relating to (dis)aggregation of data. I discuss these examples in the context of reasonable theoretical or statistical reservations. I advocate for deeper engagement with the difficult moral implications of analytical decisions, and for a principled and pluralistic science, that is also a more robust science. Such a science can include diverse moral views through a coupled ethical-epistemic approach, sensitivity tests, multiverse analysis, as well as stronger commitments to participatory and mutual learning practices.

分析性决策会提出道德问题。
我们有多少次反思过看似微不足道的分析决定(如如何对变量进行二分法)可能产生的道德或价值影响--什么是对的、错的、有价值的以及(不)适当的?我认为,分析性选择涉及多方面的道德问题,有时甚至是具有挑战性的道德问题,科学家应对此进行更深入的思考。在此,我将举例说明有关道德价值的各种潜在考量,包括与各种常见分析选择和实践相关的排斥、边缘化、自主、责任、非恶意等问题,如在疾病诊断或人口定义中使用阈值、在澄清效应的背景下使用综合测量、分类实践、变量选择决策以及与数据(非)聚合相关的决策。我结合合理的理论或统计保留意见来讨论这些例子。我主张更深入地探讨分析决策所涉及的道德难题,并主张建立一门有原则的多元化科学,同时也是一门更稳健的科学。这样的科学可以通过伦理-认识论相结合的方法、敏感性测试、多元宇宙分析,以及对参与性和相互学习实践的更有力承诺,纳入不同的道德观点。
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
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信