Political Activism and Research Ethics

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Those who care about and engage in politics frequently fall victim to cognitive bias. Concerns that such bias impacts scholarship recently have prompted debates – notably, in philosophy and psychology – on the proper relationship between research and politics. One proposal emerging from these debates is that researchers studying politics have a professional duty to avoid political activism because it risks biasing their work. While sympathetic to the motivations behind this proposal, I suggest several reasons to reject a blanket duty to avoid activism: (1) even if it reduced bias, this duty would make unreasonable demands on researchers; (2) this duty could hinder research by limiting viewpoint diversity; (3) this duty wrongly implies that academia offers a relative haven from bias compared to politics; and (4) not all forms of political activism pose an equal risk of bias. None of these points suggest that researchers should ignore the risk of bias. Rather, researchers should focus on stronger evidence-based strategies for reducing bias than a blanket recommendation to avoid politics.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    JournalJournal of Applied Philosophy
    DOIs
    StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

    Fingerprint

    Research Ethics
    Political Activism
    Blanket
    Psychology
    Cognitive Bias
    Philosophy
    Activism

    All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

    • Philosophy

    Cite this

    @article{65d43d6704354b8cad8b6a30f3e41343,
    title = "Political Activism and Research Ethics",
    abstract = "Those who care about and engage in politics frequently fall victim to cognitive bias. Concerns that such bias impacts scholarship recently have prompted debates – notably, in philosophy and psychology – on the proper relationship between research and politics. One proposal emerging from these debates is that researchers studying politics have a professional duty to avoid political activism because it risks biasing their work. While sympathetic to the motivations behind this proposal, I suggest several reasons to reject a blanket duty to avoid activism: (1) even if it reduced bias, this duty would make unreasonable demands on researchers; (2) this duty could hinder research by limiting viewpoint diversity; (3) this duty wrongly implies that academia offers a relative haven from bias compared to politics; and (4) not all forms of political activism pose an equal risk of bias. None of these points suggest that researchers should ignore the risk of bias. Rather, researchers should focus on stronger evidence-based strategies for reducing bias than a blanket recommendation to avoid politics.",
    author = "Benjamin Jones",
    year = "2019",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1111/japp.12366",
    language = "English (US)",
    journal = "Journal of Applied Philosophy",
    issn = "0264-3758",
    publisher = "Carfax Publishing Ltd.",

    }

    Political Activism and Research Ethics. / Jones, Benjamin.

    In: Journal of Applied Philosophy, 01.01.2019.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Political Activism and Research Ethics

    AU - Jones, Benjamin

    PY - 2019/1/1

    Y1 - 2019/1/1

    N2 - Those who care about and engage in politics frequently fall victim to cognitive bias. Concerns that such bias impacts scholarship recently have prompted debates – notably, in philosophy and psychology – on the proper relationship between research and politics. One proposal emerging from these debates is that researchers studying politics have a professional duty to avoid political activism because it risks biasing their work. While sympathetic to the motivations behind this proposal, I suggest several reasons to reject a blanket duty to avoid activism: (1) even if it reduced bias, this duty would make unreasonable demands on researchers; (2) this duty could hinder research by limiting viewpoint diversity; (3) this duty wrongly implies that academia offers a relative haven from bias compared to politics; and (4) not all forms of political activism pose an equal risk of bias. None of these points suggest that researchers should ignore the risk of bias. Rather, researchers should focus on stronger evidence-based strategies for reducing bias than a blanket recommendation to avoid politics.

    AB - Those who care about and engage in politics frequently fall victim to cognitive bias. Concerns that such bias impacts scholarship recently have prompted debates – notably, in philosophy and psychology – on the proper relationship between research and politics. One proposal emerging from these debates is that researchers studying politics have a professional duty to avoid political activism because it risks biasing their work. While sympathetic to the motivations behind this proposal, I suggest several reasons to reject a blanket duty to avoid activism: (1) even if it reduced bias, this duty would make unreasonable demands on researchers; (2) this duty could hinder research by limiting viewpoint diversity; (3) this duty wrongly implies that academia offers a relative haven from bias compared to politics; and (4) not all forms of political activism pose an equal risk of bias. None of these points suggest that researchers should ignore the risk of bias. Rather, researchers should focus on stronger evidence-based strategies for reducing bias than a blanket recommendation to avoid politics.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065206320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065206320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1111/japp.12366

    DO - 10.1111/japp.12366

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:85065206320

    JO - Journal of Applied Philosophy

    JF - Journal of Applied Philosophy

    SN - 0264-3758

    ER -