研究中的两极分化:什么是两极分化,为什么会出现问题,如何解决?

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Bjørn Hofmann
{"title":"研究中的两极分化:什么是两极分化,为什么会出现问题,如何解决?","authors":"Bjørn Hofmann","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2440096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Polarized research has become a problem for the trustworthiness and applicability of scientific results. Accordingly, this paper addresses three key questions: 1) What is polarization in scientific research? 2) Why is such polarization problematic? 3) How can the problem be addressed?<b>Methods:</b> The first question is addressed by describing how the polarization has been characterized in the literature and by analysing an example before assessing existing definitions and elaborating a definition of polarization. The second question is answered by describing challenges with polarization found in the literature. The third question is addressed by investigating different explanations for and relevant mechanisms behind polarization in research, such as psychological, structural, epistemic and ontological, evaluative, and social-constructionist explanations. Moreover, several approaches from the philosophy of science are investigated.<b>Results:</b> Polarization in research is characterized by opposing and incommensurable positions that tend to stem from differences in basic values, and that are used to define, differentiate, bolster, and demarcate between groups and for reinforcing their identity. The problem with polarization is that it violates a broad range of basic norms in science, and hampers scientific progress, represents large opportunity costs, undermines trust in science and, subsequently that it undercuts the application of scientific results as well as future funding. There are many potential measures to reduce polarization. However, there are no simple solutions, as polarization is a complex phenomenon deeply rooted in basic human characteristics.<b>Conclusion:</b> Polarization is a ubiquitous phenomenon and a basic challenge for scientific research. It is crucial to increase the awareness of polarization, and a clear definition is key to study and address the problem. However, while there are many ways to actively address the problem of polarization in scientific research, there are no easy solutions. More research is needed to move from what we can do to what we should do.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polarization in research: What is it, why is it problematic, and how can it be addressed?\",\"authors\":\"Bjørn Hofmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2440096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Polarized research has become a problem for the trustworthiness and applicability of scientific results. Accordingly, this paper addresses three key questions: 1) What is polarization in scientific research? 2) Why is such polarization problematic? 3) How can the problem be addressed?<b>Methods:</b> The first question is addressed by describing how the polarization has been characterized in the literature and by analysing an example before assessing existing definitions and elaborating a definition of polarization. The second question is answered by describing challenges with polarization found in the literature. The third question is addressed by investigating different explanations for and relevant mechanisms behind polarization in research, such as psychological, structural, epistemic and ontological, evaluative, and social-constructionist explanations. Moreover, several approaches from the philosophy of science are investigated.<b>Results:</b> Polarization in research is characterized by opposing and incommensurable positions that tend to stem from differences in basic values, and that are used to define, differentiate, bolster, and demarcate between groups and for reinforcing their identity. The problem with polarization is that it violates a broad range of basic norms in science, and hampers scientific progress, represents large opportunity costs, undermines trust in science and, subsequently that it undercuts the application of scientific results as well as future funding. There are many potential measures to reduce polarization. However, there are no simple solutions, as polarization is a complex phenomenon deeply rooted in basic human characteristics.<b>Conclusion:</b> Polarization is a ubiquitous phenomenon and a basic challenge for scientific research. It is crucial to increase the awareness of polarization, and a clear definition is key to study and address the problem. However, while there are many ways to actively address the problem of polarization in scientific research, there are no easy solutions. More research is needed to move from what we can do to what we should do.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2440096\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2440096","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:两极分化的研究已成为影响科学成果可信度和适用性的一个问题。因此,本文探讨了三个关键问题:1) 什么是科学研究中的两极分化?2) 为什么这种两极分化会产生问题?3) 如何解决这个问题?在回答第一个问题时,先介绍文献是如何描述两极分化的,并分析一个例子,然后评估现有的定义并阐述两极分化的定义。在回答第二个问题时,介绍了文献中发现的两极分化所面临的挑战。第三个问题是通过研究极化现象背后的不同解释和相关机制来解决的,如心理、结构、认识论和本体论、评价和社会建构主义解释。此外,还研究了科学哲学的几种方法:研究中两极分化的特点是对立和不可通约的立场,这些立场往往源于基本价值观的差异,并被用来界定、区分、支持和划分不同群体,以及强化他们的身份认同。两极分化的问题在于,它违反了科学领域的一系列基本准则,阻碍了科学进步,带来了巨大的机会成本,破坏了人们对科学的信任,进而削弱了科学成果的应用和未来的资助。减少两极分化的潜在措施有很多。然而,没有简单的解决办法,因为两极分化是一种复杂的现象,深深植根于人类的基本特征之中:两极分化是一种普遍现象,也是科学研究面临的基本挑战。提高对两极分化的认识至关重要,而明确定义则是研究和解决这一问题的关键。然而,虽然有许多方法可以积极解决科学研究中的两极分化问题,但并没有简单的解决 办法。从我们能做什么到我们应该做什么,还需要更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Polarization in research: What is it, why is it problematic, and how can it be addressed?

Background: Polarized research has become a problem for the trustworthiness and applicability of scientific results. Accordingly, this paper addresses three key questions: 1) What is polarization in scientific research? 2) Why is such polarization problematic? 3) How can the problem be addressed?Methods: The first question is addressed by describing how the polarization has been characterized in the literature and by analysing an example before assessing existing definitions and elaborating a definition of polarization. The second question is answered by describing challenges with polarization found in the literature. The third question is addressed by investigating different explanations for and relevant mechanisms behind polarization in research, such as psychological, structural, epistemic and ontological, evaluative, and social-constructionist explanations. Moreover, several approaches from the philosophy of science are investigated.Results: Polarization in research is characterized by opposing and incommensurable positions that tend to stem from differences in basic values, and that are used to define, differentiate, bolster, and demarcate between groups and for reinforcing their identity. The problem with polarization is that it violates a broad range of basic norms in science, and hampers scientific progress, represents large opportunity costs, undermines trust in science and, subsequently that it undercuts the application of scientific results as well as future funding. There are many potential measures to reduce polarization. However, there are no simple solutions, as polarization is a complex phenomenon deeply rooted in basic human characteristics.Conclusion: Polarization is a ubiquitous phenomenon and a basic challenge for scientific research. It is crucial to increase the awareness of polarization, and a clear definition is key to study and address the problem. However, while there are many ways to actively address the problem of polarization in scientific research, there are no easy solutions. More research is needed to move from what we can do to what we should do.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
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