nach oben

Human Studies

Erschienen in:

22.01.2019 | Empirical Study/Analysis

Morality in Scientific Practice: The Relevance and Risks of Situated Scientific Knowledge in Application-Oriented Social Research

verfasst von: Letizia Caronia, André H. Caron

Erschienen in: Human Studies | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

After decades of epistemological inquiry on the social construction of science, we have observed a renewed consensus on empiricism in application-oriented social sciences and a growing trust in evidence-based practice and decision-making. Drawing on the long-standing debate on value-ladenness, evidence and normativity in sciences, this article theoretically discusses and empirically illustrates the Life-World origins of methods in a domain of inquiry strongly characterized by an empiricist epistemic culture and a normative stance: Children and Media Studies. Adopting a reflexive approach to their own research in such an epistemologically underexplored field, the authors analyze a standard research instrument (the codebook for content analysis) and two procedures (operational definitions and intercoder agreement). The analysis illustrates how background assumptions (e.g., moral suitability) shape the research method and how the procedures routinely conceal this work of shaping. In the discussion the authors cast light on the role scientific procedures play in the naturalization of a given moral order, and put forward the question of whether and how this “morality-building” feature of methods should be taken into account in the assessment of their appropriateness. In the conclusion the authors advance that the situated nature of scientific knowledge, rather than discrediting its relevance, is what makes it relevant, here and now, for the larger community the research may impact on. The authors discuss the risks of such a pragmatic outcome and propose the adoption of an oscillating epistemic stance as a way to cope with them.

Vorheriger Artikel Cogitor Ergo Sum: The Origin of Self-awareness in Dyadic Interaction

Nächster Artikel Common Understandings of and Consensus About Collective Action: The Transformation of Specifically Vague Proposals as a Collective Achievement

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Following Kuhn (1962/1970), Longino discusses five constitutive values, i.e., criteria and standards defining what counts as acceptable scientific procedures or methods and, therefore, what counts as scientific knowledge: accuracy, scope, fruitfulness, consistency and simplicity (Longino 1990: 34f., 1996: 41–44, see the analogous concept of epistemic values, Carrier (2013).

Approaches in social sciences that clearly endorsed a constructivistic perspective and claimed for the unavoidable value-saturation of knowledge claims and the constitutive role of the researcher’s culture include: feminist ethnography (Collins 1991; Naples 1996); participatory enquire paradigm (Heron and Reason 1997; Reason 1984a, b); participant comprehension perspective (Collins 1984); activist research (Speed 2006); enactive ethnography (Wacquant 2015); collaborative ethnography (Lassiter 2005). However they do not represent mainstream social science research that is still committed to empiricism. Rather, they are examples of what Longino classifies as “radical” or “oppositional science” (1990: 194–196).

We adopt Carrier’s (2013) “application-oriented research” label as it appears suitable to grasp the fuzzy boundary between fundamental and applied research that is typical of many social sciences. Fundamental research describing typical human behavior, delineates—by definition—what is conforming behavior and what is not and this threshold has clear pragmatic consequences. In many social sciences, constative utterances are performative (i.e., transformative of the reality they describe) as they lead to changes in the way we act. From this standpoint, distinguishing description from prescription appears to be difficult if not misleading (Caronia 2011; Gergen 2015.) On the “looping effect” according to which psychological realities come into existence through social scientists' morally saturated classifications, frame social understanding and produce patterns of social life, see Hacking (1996, 2000), see also Woolgar and Pawluch (1985).

Reflexivity in social sciences is a concept deeply investigated in two different yet related directions. “Methodological reflexivity” addresses the work of transforming the “doing of the research” into a theoretical object, i.e., something to inquire in. The second direction is “epistemic reflexivity” that addresses the issue of scientific research changing what it is supposed to account for. On the double meaning of reflexivity in fieldwork and social sciences, see among others Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009), Ashmore (1989), Lynch (2000), Woolgar (1988), Scholte (1999), Caronia (2018a).

We use the term “morality” to refer to the system of canonical versions of the world and taken-for-granted assumptions concerning “what is right and what is wrong” through which we order our lives on mundane bases (Stivers et al. 2011; Galatolo and Caronia 2018). From this perspective, the concept of “morality” does not coincide with the notion of “the moral responsibilities of scientists” (Douglas 2009: 66) although—as we propose in the conclusion - the two concepts are related.

In Bourdieu’s sense of the term, “arbitrariness” refers to the constituted nature of knowledge claims produced through systems of specific practices that, in turn, depend on a set of conventions (see the notion of the epistemic or constitutive values in Longino’s (1990) and Carrier’s (2013) terms). In such a sense, “arbitrariness” does not evoke independence from any norm or other constraints nor refers to unjustified knowledge claim.

There is something paradoxical in claiming that application-oriented social research needs to neutralize the arbitrariness of its knowledge claims while, simultaneously, proposing a self-reflective account on this issue. This paradox indexes the specific issue at stake: it is only when the researchers step back from the epistemic culture typical of the specific academic community and readership of a given application-oriented social research and adopt different theoretical lenses, that the value-ladenness of the endeavor becomes visible.

Given the debate on localization and globalization in media cultural contents and forms of entertainment, cross-cultural analyses in CMS have a long-standing tradition. Some clusters of variables recur to allow for comparison (see among others Lemish et al. 1998; Livingstone and Bovill 2001; Lemish and Götz 2017). Although cross-cultural studies found differences along categories or themes, research teams should share not only a common list of categories, but moreover, common definitions of the categories used to code the TV content (on the methodological challenge of international comparison of television content for children, see Caronia and Caron 2008).

Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) measures inter-coder agreement for qualitative (nominal) items. As it also accounts for the possibility of agreement by chance, it is considered a more sophisticated measure than simply calculating the percentage of agreement, i.e., how frequently different coders apply the same code or value to the same item.

“Assessment” is an ambivalent term. We deliberately use it and draw on its fluid semantic field to evoke the blurred boundaries between what can be conceived of as mere descriptions (e.g., how many people are present) and what appear to be clearer normative based evaluations (e.g., “positive values”). Drawing a line between description and evaluation is not an easy nor unproblematic task: behind the mere “counting” there is an assessment as to the fact that the number of x is a meaningful cue of something (e.g., it is an index of some qualities of the phenomenon we are coding). In counting x we assume that inferences can be made upon the presence, absence or numerical value of that x. The same fuzziness is implied in the so-called report-formatted assessments (e.g., the character is thin or fat, happy or ugly). In a few words, description and evaluation appear to be profoundly intertwined activities. Following Goodwin and Goodwin (1987), we consider them as poles of a continuum of assessment-relevant activities.

What we are illustrating about the codebook (its being a Life-World driven “system of relevance” applied to reality, Schutz (1967, 1970) can also be claimed for many other social research tools like the interview-grid, observation grid or questionnaire, see Caronia (1997, 2014, 2018b).

We owe this note to an anonymous reviewer who rightly remarks that research tools and procedures encode precise epistemic stances. Insofar as the researcher uses the tools and follows the procedures, he adopts - at least locally - these stances, whether he or she acknowledges such a positioning or not and irrespectively of his or her theoretical agreement.

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (1999). Committee on public education. Media education. Pediatrics, 104(2), 341–343.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2011). Media use by children younger than 2 years. Pediatrics, 128(5), 1–6.

Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Writing sociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27, 3–23.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology (trans: Adamson, M.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brinkmann, S. (2009). Facts, values, and the naturalistic fallacy in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 1–17.

Brinkmann, S. (2011). Psychology as a moral science: Perspectives on normativity. New York: Springer.

Bushman, B. J., & Cantor, J. (2003). Media rating for violence and sex: Implications for policymakers and parents. American Psychologist, 58(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.2.130.

Callister, M. A., Robinson, T., & Clark, B. R. (2007). Media portrayals of the family in children’s television programming during the 2005–2006 season in the US. Journal of Children and Media, 1(2), 142–161.

Canadian Pediatric Society. (2003). Impact of media use on children and youth. Pediatrics and Child Health, 8(5), 301–306.

Caron, A. H., & Cohen, R. I. (2013). Regulating screen: Issues in broadcasting and Internet governance for Children. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Caron, A. H., Hwang, J., Caronia, L., & Brummans, B. (2010). National study on children’s television programming in Canada. Montréal: Youth Media Alliance Publications.

Caronia, L. (1997). Costruire la conoscenza. Interazione e interpretazione nella ricerca sul campo in educazione [Constructing knowledge. Interaction and interpretation in educational field research]. Firenze: la Nuova Italia.

Caronia, L. (2011). Rethinking dialogues-in-the-field: The shared responsibility of scientific aesthetics. Language and Dialogue, 1, 293–313.

Caronia, L. (2014). The fabric of certainty: Ignoring interactional details as an epistemic resource in research interviews. In A. Zuckoswki, et al. (Eds.), Communicating certainty and uncertainty in medical, supportive and scientific contexts (249–271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Caronia, L. (2015). Totem and taboo: The embarassing epistemic work of things in the research setting. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 141–165.

Caronia, L. (2018a). How at home is and ethnographer “at-home”? Territories of knowledge and the making of ethnographic understanding. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 7(2), 114–134.

Caronia, L. (2018b). Research interview as social interaction. Epistemic implications. In E. Weigand & I. Kesckes (Eds.), From pragmatics to dialogue (83–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Caronia, L., & Caron, A. H. (2008). Television culture and media socialization across countries: Theoretical issues and methodological approaches. In S. Linvingstone & K. Drotner (Eds.), The international handbook of children, media and culture (271–289). London: Sage.

Caronia, L., & Caron, A. H. (2011). Family morality and cultural identity in parents’ use of the quebec movie rating system. Journal of Children and Media, 2011(5), 20–36.

Caron A. H., & Hwang, J. (2014). Analysis of children’s television characters and media policies. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being (Vol. 4, 1957–1978). New York: Springer.

Carrier, M. (2013). Values and objectivity in science: Value-ladenness, pluralism and the epistemic attitude. Science & Education, 22, 2547–2568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9481-5.

Cochrane, A. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency. Random reflections of health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.

Cohen, A. M., Stavri, P. Z., & Hersh, W. R. (2004). A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of evidence-based medicine. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 73(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2003.11.002.

Collins, H. M. (1984). Researching spoonbending: Concepts and practice of participatory fieldwork. In C. Bell & H. Roberts (Eds.), Social researching: Politics (54–69). London: Problems, Practice, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Collins, P. H. (1991). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology (35–59). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Collins, H. M. (1998). The meaning of data: Open and closed evidential cultures in the search of gravitational Waves. American Journal of Sociology, 104(2), 293–338.

de Muijnck, W. (2011). Normative authority for empirical science. Philosophical Explorations, 14(3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2011.594960.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and the performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., 1–28). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Douglas, H. (2007). Rejecting the ideal of value-free science. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free science? Ideals and illusions (120–141). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy and the value-free ideal. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Comment: Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008021.

Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (1992). Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA, 268(17), 2420–2425. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other Writings. New York: Pantheon Books.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Frings, M. S. (2013). Lifetime: Max scheler’s philosophy of time. Dordrecht: Springer.

Galatolo, R., & Caronia, L. (2018). Morality at dinner time: The sense of Other as a practical accomplishment in family interaction. Discourse and Society, 29(1), 43–62.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Garfinkel, H. (1972/1968). Common sense knowledge of social structure: The documentary method of interpretation. In J. Manis and B. Meltzer (eds) Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology (356–378). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Garfinkel, G., & Liberman, K. (2007). Introduction: The lebenswelt origins of the sciences. Human Studies, 30(1), 3–7.

Garfinkel, H., & Wieder, D. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Studies in ethnomethodology (175–206). Newbury Park: Sage.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., 43–67). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gergen, K. J. (2015). From mirroring to world-making: Research as future forming. Journal For The Theory Of Social Behaviour., 45(3), 287–310.

Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (2003). Social construction: A reader. London: Sage.

Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Articles in Pragmatics, 1(1987), 1–54.

Götz, M., Hofmann, O., Brosius, H.-B., et al. (2008). Gender in children’s television worldwide: Results from a media analysis in 24 countries. Televizion, 21, 4–9.

Grimes, S. M. (2008). Kids’ ad play: Regulating children’s advergames in the converging media context. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 8(12), 162–178.

G.R.J.M./C.Y.M.S (2009). Children’s television programming codebook. University of Montreal. Unpublished manuscript.

Hacking, I. (1996). The looping effects of human kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (351–383). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hacking, I. (2000). The social construction of what. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative inquiry, 10(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403259491.

Husserl, E. (1970)[1936/54]. The crisis of European sciences and trascendental philosophy (trans: Carr, D.). Evantson, Ill. Northwestern University Press.

Husserl, (1983[1913]). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. First Book. General introduction to a pure phenomenology (trans: Kersten, F.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hyder, D., & Rheinberger, H.-J. (2010). Science and the life-world. Essays on Husserl’s crisis of European sciences. Standford: Standford University.

Jordan, A. B. (2008). Children’s media policy. The future of children, 18(1), 235–253.

Jordan, A. B. (2011). Children’s media policy: International perspectives. Journal of Children and Media, 5(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2011.533478.

Jordan, A., Kunkel, D., Manganello, J., & Fishbein, M. (Eds.). (2009). Media messages and public health: A decisions approach to content analysis. New York: Routledge.

Khun, T. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Khun, T. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (1–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kincaid, H., Dupré, J., & Wylie, A. (Eds.). (2007). Value-free science? Ideals and illusions. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manifacture of knowledge. An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1983). The ethnographic study of scientific work: Towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In K. Knorr-Cetina (Ed.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social studies of science (115–140). London: Sage.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kolucki, B., Lemish, D. (2011) Communicating with children: Principles and practices to nurture, inspire, excite, educate and heal. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.

Lassiter, L. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (trans: Catherine, P.). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays in the reality of science studies. Harvard: Harvard Universty Press.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lemish, D. (2013). The Routledge international handbook of children, adolescents, and media. New York: Routledge.

Lemish, D., & Götz, M. (2017). Beyond the stereotypes? Images of boys and girls and their consequences. Goteborg: The International Clearing House on Children, Youth and Media at Nordicom.

Lemish, D., Liebes, K., Drotner, T., et al. (1998). Global culture in practice: A look at children and adolescents in Denmark, France and Israel. European Journal of Communication, 13(4), 539–556.

Livingstone, S. (2006). Does TV advertising make children fat? What the evidence tells us. Public policy research, 13(1), 54–61.

Livingstone, S., & Bovill, M. (Eds.). (2001). Children and their changing media environment: A european comparative study. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Livingstone, S., & Bulger, M. (2014). A global research agenda for children’s rights in the digital age. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.961496.

Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., & Görzig, A. (Eds.). (2012). Children, risk and safety online: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Llovet, C., Karan, M., & Diaz-Bustamante, K. (2017). Are girls sexualized on social networking sites? Ana analysis of comments on Instagram of Kristina Pimenova. In D. Lemish & M. Götz (Eds.), Beyond the stereotypes? Images of Boys and Girls and Their Consequences (131–140). The International Clearing House on Children, Youth and Media at Nordicom: Goteborg.

Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In H. N. Lynn & N. Jack (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (39–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3), 26–54.

Merton, R. K. (Ed.). (1942). The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mondada, L. (2009). Video recording practices and the reflexive constitution of the interactional order: Some systematic uses of the split-screen technique. Human Studies, 32(1), 67–99.

Morrissey, T. W., Dunifon, R. E., & Kalil, A. (2011). Maternal employment, work schedules, and children’s body mass index. Child Development, 82(1), 66–81.

Munari, A. (1993). Il sapere ritrovato. Conoscenza, apprendimento, formazione [Knowledge rediscovered: Understanding, learning, and education]. Milano, Italy: Guerini.

Naples, N. (1996). A feminist revisiting of the insider/outsider debate: The “outsider phenomenon” in rural Iowa. Qualitative Sociology, 19(1), 83–106.

Nasu, H. (2005). Between the everyday life-world and the world of social scientific theory: Towards and “adequate” social theory. In G. Psathas, H. Nasu, & M. Endress (Eds.), Explorations of the life-world. Continuing dialogues with Alfred Schutz (123–142). Dordrech: Springer.

Natanson, M. (1973). Phenomenology and the social sciences (Vol. 1). Evanstone: Northwestren University Press.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2009). Reliability for content analysis. In A. B. Jordan, D. Kunkel, J. Manganello, & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Media messages and public health: A decisions approach to content analysis (67–87). New York: Routledge.

Nevo, I., & Slonim-Nevo, V. (2011). The myth of evidence-based practice: Towards evidence-informed practice. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1176–1197. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq149.

Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). When I come down I’min a domain state: Talk, gesture, and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, D. R. (2004). The triumph of hope over experience in the search for “what works”: A response to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 24–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033001024.

Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.

Pecora, N., Murray, J. P., & Wartella, E. A. (2009). Children and television: Fifty years of research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perret-Clermont, A. N., Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Trognon, A. (1992). L’extorsion des réponses en situation asymétrique. Verbum, 1–2, 3–32.

Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Potter, J. (2001). Wittgenstein and Austin. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (39–46). London: Sage.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp045oa.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (2nd ed., 555–570). London: Sage.

Psathas, G. (1999). On the study of human action: Schutz and Garfinkel on social science. In L. Embree (Ed.), Schutzian social sciences (47–68). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Reason, P. (1994a). Co-operative inquiry, participatory action research and action inquiry: Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Reason, P. (1994b). Participation in human inquiry. London: Sage.

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (2005). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis research (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scheler, M. (2013[1926]), Problems of a sociology of knowledge (trans: Frings, M.S.). Introduction by K.W. Stikkers, London: Routledge.

Scholte, B. (1999). Toward a reflexive and critical anthropology. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (430–458). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Schubauer-Leoni, M.-L., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & Grossen, M. (1992). The construction of adult child intersubjectivity in psychological research and in school. In M. V. Cranach, W. Doise, & G. Mugny (Eds.), Social representations and the social bases of knowledge (69–77). Swiss Psychological Society Berne: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Schutz, A. (1962). The problem of social reality: Collected articles I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston Ill.: Northwestern University Press.

Schutz, A. (1970). Reflections on the problem of relevance. In A. Schutz & L. Embree (Eds.), Collected articles V. phenomenology and the social sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.

Semin, G. R., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (1990). Everyday understanding: Social and scientific implications. Inquiries in social construction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational researcher, 31(7), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007015.

Slob, M., & Staman, J. (2012). Policy and the evidence beast. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut Publications.

Speed, S. (2006). At the crossroads of human rights and anthropology: Toward a critically engaged activist research. American Anthropologist, 108(1), 66–76.

Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

Stressheim, H., & Kettunene, P. (2014). When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy. A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 10(2), 259–277.

Wacquant, L. (2015). For a sociology of flesh and blood. Qualitative Sociology, 38(1), 1–11.

Wilson, B. J. (2008). Media and children’s aggression, fear, and altruism. The Future of Children, 18(1), 87–118.

Wilson, B. J., Smith, S. L., Potter, W. J. et al. (2002). Violence in children’s television programming: Assessing the risks. Journal of Communication, 5(1), 5–35.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty (trans: Anscombe, G.E.M., von Wright, G.H., (Eds.) Paul, D., & Anscombe, G.E.M.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (1988). Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage Publications.

Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1985). Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social problems explanations. Social Problems, 32(3), 214–227.

Titel: Morality in Scientific Practice: The Relevance and Risks of Situated Scientific Knowledge in Application-Oriented Social Research
verfasst von: Letizia Caronia
André H. Caron
Publikationsdatum: 22.01.2019
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Human Studies / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0163-8548
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-851X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-018-09491-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Cogitor Ergo Sum: The Origin of Self-awareness in Dyadic Interaction

Alfred Schutz’s Fragments on Social Roles as a Phenomenological Alternate to Mainstream Sociology

“Torture is Putting it Too Strongly, Boredom is Putting it Too Mildly”: The Courage to Tell the Truth in the Late Lectures of Michel Foucault

Self-Stigma, Bad Faith and the Experiential Self

Seeing the Other’s Mind: McDowell and Husserl on Bodily Expressivity and the Problem of Other Minds

Common Understandings of and Consensus About Collective Action: The Transformation of Specifically Vague Proposals as a Collective Achievement