Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

« Guest Post by Shira Gabriel: Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls | Main

Comments

Lee Jussim

If "civility" warrants an online petition with signatories, given that civility is relevant to the interpersonal, personal, moral, and social sensibilities of scientists but not to the conduct, openness, interpretation, or validity of the actual science itself, then this certainly does.

This post is inspiring. I am delighted to find myself in the position of being the first, however unofficial, signatory.

Lee Jussim

Rob MacCoun

For a less sweeping (more timid?) aspiration, see the "epistemic contract":

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16151-8_9

Happy New Year!

Steve Lindsay

Well said!
Steve

Scott wagner

That's a long contract! A bit daunting how much longer it is than the scout's oath; can't be appended to my morning affirmations.

In my experience, these principles are easier to see among women scientists. Has to do with whether one's notion of competition is unduly testosterone-tinged or not, I suspect, like so many other things. I wonder if others notice it. To me, it's a screamer of a differential. As you've said a lot, disagreement strikes near the center of doing science, but rejection and anger and undue silences seem so axiomatic. In psych especially, divides happen where, ironically, synergies could add value to modified versions of both. I'm thinking of moral and personality psych at the moment.

Having been nice about women, it's quite apt to see Lee sign on and strap in first; always banging around in the philosophy of the affair, being the first-principles référent. Thanks for so much through the years, Lee.

Anon Scientist

I know you mentioned at the beginning a disclaimer that you're not speaking as editor of one of SPSP's journals, but that got me to thinking about this oath in related to SPSP's Code of Conduct:

http://meeting.spsp.org/general-info/code-of-conduct

My reading of it is that anything you say or write online that the other side may find "offensive" would be in violation:

"Harassment includes offensive verbal or written comments, and negative behavior, either in real or virtual space..." (then it goes on to say that includes those which are based on age, race,etc.. but it does not say it's limited to those).

We've seen a number of prominent people in the field come out against the transparency and replication movement, even labeling such people as "data terrorists".

So I'm guessing one side or the other of the issue is likely to find the opposite side's view "offensive". Would that be in violation of SPSP's code of conduct, if they expressed that view at the conference or online?

I'm sure you can get what I'm getting at -- it seems like the Code of Conduct is way too broad and can stifle legitimate academic inquiry.

STeamTraen

I have a modest proposal (although I appreciate the risks of "writing by committee", and/or having someone else tweak one's great ideas). At the end of the third paragraph, after "Similarly, I will recognize as valuable...", I would add something like this:

"To this end, I will respond in a timely manner to good-faith enquiries about my research, to the full extent that is necessary to establish the truth of the matter. If asked, I will defend before my peers any decision not to respond to any particular inquiry."

The first part is there because, unlike the criminal justice system (I would totally defend a researcher's right not to answer questions in court if accused of, say, grant fraud), I don't think there is a right to remain silent in science. If you publish an article, I would argue that you are making a moral commitment to providing essentially unlimited after-sales service on it to your peers.

The last bit is worded as it is because, while there are some time-wasters out there, it can be tempting to hide behind vague claims of inappropriate behaviour, stalking, cyber-bullying, etc. If I refuse to respond to Troll X then I should, as a minimum, be prepared to publish their unreasonable demand and show why I think it is unreasonable (and if the harassment is criminal in nature, I should show what remedial action I have taken). Simply mentioning second-hand anecdotes about "chilling attacks" does not seem to me to be appropriate behaviour for a scientist.

The comments to this entry are closed.