检验物理学家的伦理推理:一种新的方法论

Tyler Garcia, Caitlin Solis, Caleb L. Linville, B. Bridges, Wyatt Jones, J. Herington, Scott Tanona, James T. Laverty
{"title":"检验物理学家的伦理推理:一种新的方法论","authors":"Tyler Garcia, Caitlin Solis, Caleb L. Linville, B. Bridges, Wyatt Jones, J. Herington, Scott Tanona, James T. Laverty","doi":"10.1119/perc.2022.pr.garcia","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Researchers across all scientific disciplines routinely face ethical decisions in their work, from addressing conflicts of interest to deciding whether and how to make data available for reproducibility. To help strengthen their ethical reasoning skills, they are encouraged to take online training programs like the CITI program. Ethics training is insufficient for improving ethical behavior. Better understanding of how scientists make decisions and reason about ethics is needed. To develop that understanding, we need expanded, asset-based measures of ethical reasoning that can be applied to open-ended responses and discussions. As part of a year-long intervention on a group of fifteen scientists’ value-based reasoning, we conducted pre/post interviews that included open-ended questions about ethical scenarios. For this paper, we explore an application of three theories of ethical and stakeholder reasoning to those answers, and determine that we can use them to examine quality, principles, and subjects of their reasoning in open responses.","PeriodicalId":253382,"journal":{"name":"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","volume":"436 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining Physicists' Ethical Reasoning: A New Methodology\",\"authors\":\"Tyler Garcia, Caitlin Solis, Caleb L. Linville, B. Bridges, Wyatt Jones, J. Herington, Scott Tanona, James T. Laverty\",\"doi\":\"10.1119/perc.2022.pr.garcia\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Researchers across all scientific disciplines routinely face ethical decisions in their work, from addressing conflicts of interest to deciding whether and how to make data available for reproducibility. To help strengthen their ethical reasoning skills, they are encouraged to take online training programs like the CITI program. Ethics training is insufficient for improving ethical behavior. Better understanding of how scientists make decisions and reason about ethics is needed. To develop that understanding, we need expanded, asset-based measures of ethical reasoning that can be applied to open-ended responses and discussions. As part of a year-long intervention on a group of fifteen scientists’ value-based reasoning, we conducted pre/post interviews that included open-ended questions about ethical scenarios. For this paper, we explore an application of three theories of ethical and stakeholder reasoning to those answers, and determine that we can use them to examine quality, principles, and subjects of their reasoning in open responses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":253382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings\",\"volume\":\"436 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.garcia\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.garcia","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

所有科学学科的研究人员在他们的工作中经常面临伦理决策,从解决利益冲突到决定是否以及如何提供可重复性数据。为了加强他们的道德推理能力,他们被鼓励参加像花旗项目这样的在线培训项目。道德培训不足以提高道德行为。我们需要更好地理解科学家是如何做出决定并对伦理进行推理的。为了发展这种理解,我们需要扩展的、基于资产的道德推理措施,这些措施可以应用于开放式的回应和讨论。作为对15名科学家基于价值的推理进行为期一年的干预的一部分,我们进行了包括关于伦理场景的开放式问题的前后访谈。在本文中,我们探讨了伦理和利益相关者推理的三种理论对这些答案的应用,并确定我们可以使用它们来检查公开回应中他们推理的质量、原则和主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining Physicists' Ethical Reasoning: A New Methodology
Researchers across all scientific disciplines routinely face ethical decisions in their work, from addressing conflicts of interest to deciding whether and how to make data available for reproducibility. To help strengthen their ethical reasoning skills, they are encouraged to take online training programs like the CITI program. Ethics training is insufficient for improving ethical behavior. Better understanding of how scientists make decisions and reason about ethics is needed. To develop that understanding, we need expanded, asset-based measures of ethical reasoning that can be applied to open-ended responses and discussions. As part of a year-long intervention on a group of fifteen scientists’ value-based reasoning, we conducted pre/post interviews that included open-ended questions about ethical scenarios. For this paper, we explore an application of three theories of ethical and stakeholder reasoning to those answers, and determine that we can use them to examine quality, principles, and subjects of their reasoning in open responses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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