IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prg/jnlelg/v2013y2013i1id356p1-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Epistemologie dat v současné vědě

Author

Listed:
  • Jindřich Mynarz

Abstract

Contemporary science is dominated by positivist epistemology of data, which builds on metaphysical realism and the ideal of mechanical objectivity, yet suffers from a number of flaws. Shortcomings of this approach were identified in many critical responses and led to a new problematization of the established concept of data. The often criticised aspects of this concept remark on data being embedded in the context of its making, and point out the mediation of data and its openness to manipulation. In recent years, the function of data gained an unprecedented importance due to the rising demands of science for data, which attracted attention to this formerly unproblematic concept. Several alternative approaches to epistemology of data appeared, of which this text introduces the positions proceeding from constructivism and rhetoric. The presented paper draws heavily on critical literature in epistemology of data. Due to its summarizing character, it may be understood as a synthesis and reconfiguration of the existing thoughts on the topic. In this way, the paper offers a contribution to rhetorical argumentation in the discourse of data in contemporary science.

Suggested Citation

  • Jindřich Mynarz, 2013. "Epistemologie dat v současné vědě," E-LOGOS, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2013(1), pages 1-17.
    • Handle: RePEc:prg:jnlelg:v:2013:y:2013:i:1:id:356:p:1-17
    DOI: 10.18267/j.e-logos.356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://elogos.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.e-logos.356.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://elogos.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.e-logos.356.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18267/j.e-logos.356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    2. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    4. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    5. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    6. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    7. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    8. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    9. David Spiegelhalter, 2017. "Trust in numbers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 948-965, October.
    10. Horbach, S.P.J.M.(Serge) & Halffman, W.(Willem), 2019. "The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 492-502.
    11. Harrison, Mark, 2011. "Forging success: Soviet managers and accounting fraud, 1943-1962," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 43-64, March.
    12. Kiran Sharma, 2021. "Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8363-8374, October.
    13. Kingori, Patricia & Gerrets, René, 2016. "Morals, morale and motivations in data fabrication: Medical research fieldworkers views and practices in two Sub-Saharan African contexts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 150-159.
    14. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    15. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    16. Klaas Sijtsma, 2016. "Playing with Data—Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2021. "Fifty shades of QE: Comparing findings of central bankers and academics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-20.
    18. Anand Krishna & Sebastian M Peter, 2018. "Questionable research practices in student final theses – Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor’s perceived attitudes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    19. Mary L. Rigdon & Alexander D'Esterre, 2017. "Sabotaging Another: Priming Competition Increases Cheating Behavior in Tournaments," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(2), pages 456-473, October.
    20. David Pontille & Didier Torny, 2013. "Behind the scenes of scientific articles: defining categories of fraud and regulating cases," CSI Working Papers Series 031, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI), Mines ParisTech.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prg:jnlelg:v:2013:y:2013:i:1:id:356:p:1-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Stanislav Vojir (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/uevsecz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.