IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v125y2020i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03658-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using normative ethics for building a good evaluation of research practices: towards the assessment of researcher’s virtues

Author

Listed:
  • Cinzia Daraio

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Alessio Vaccari

    (Sapienza University of Rome
    Sapienza University of Rome
    Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose the adoption of moral philosophy and in particular normative ethics, to clarify the concept of “good” evaluation of “research practices”. Using MacIntyre (1985)’s notion of a practice we argue that research is a form of social practice. As a result of this characterization, we claim that research practice typically requires three typologies of researcher: the leader, the good researcher and the honest researcher. Reflecting on what is a “good” research practice and on what is the role of researchers in it provides insight into some aspects of both the self-assessment process and how this promotes individual improvement. Moreover, this kind of reflection helps us to describe the functions (missions) of the research practices. A “good” evaluation should take into account all the building constituents of a “good” research practice and should be able to discriminate between good and bad research practices, while enforcing the functions of good research practices. We believe that these reflections may be the starting point for a paradigm shift in the evaluation of research practices which replaces an evaluation centred on products with an evaluation focused on the functions of these practices. In the last sections of the paper, we introduce and discuss an important aspect for the implementation of the proposed framework. This relates to the assessment of the virtues of researchers involved in a good research practice. Some examples of questions and preliminary items to include in a questionnaire for the assessment of Virtues in Research Practices are also provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2020. "Using normative ethics for building a good evaluation of research practices: towards the assessment of researcher’s virtues," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1053-1075, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03658-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03658-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03658-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03658-4?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. Ignacio Ferrero & Alejo José G. Sison, 2012. "A Survey on Virtue in Business and Management (1980-2011)," Faculty Working Papers 06/12, School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Navarra.
    2. Cinzia Daraio, 2017. "A framework for the Assessment of Research and its impacts," DIAG Technical Reports 2017-04, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    3. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2019. "Sorting out Guidelines for the Good Evaluation of Research Practices," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-02, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    4. Lilach Sagiv & Sonia Roccas & Jan Cieciuch & Shalom H. Schwartz, 2017. "Personal values in human life," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(9), pages 630-639, September.
    5. Shana Hormann, 2018. "Exploring Resilience: in the Face of Trauma," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 91-104, July.
    6. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Taggart, Gabel & Zenor, Jen, 2022. "Evaluation as a moral practice: The case of virtue ethics," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2021. "How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation," LEM Papers Series 2021/39, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    4. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2023. "A heuristic approach based on Leiden rankings to identify outliers: evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 483-510, January.
    5. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2022. "How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7127-7146, December.

    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. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2019. "Sorting out Guidelines for a Good Evaluation of Research Practices.Towards the Assessment of Researcher’s Virtues," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-10, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    2. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2019. "Sorting out Guidelines for the Good Evaluation of Research Practices," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-02, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Mirjana Kuljak, 2014. "Phronetic research - Methodology that matters to corporate governance research," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 10(2), pages 79-88.
    10. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    11. Claudia Salceanu, 2019. "The Evolution of Human Values – A Comparative Study of Values in Adolescents and Emerging Adults," Postmodern Openings, Editura Lumen, Department of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 74-83, June.
    12. 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.
    13. David Spiegelhalter, 2017. "Trust in numbers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 948-965, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Ana Carneiro & Hélder Fernando Pedrosa e Sousa & Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis & Ângela Leite, 2021. "Human Values and Religion: Evidence from the European Social Survey," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    16. Valentina Socci & Dalila Talevi & Paolo Stratta & Alessandro Rossi & Francesca Pacitti & Alessia Lucaselli & Eleonora Gregori & Eleonora Quarta & Rodolfo Rossi, 2021. "Personal values in mental disorders: an exploratory analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, December.
    17. Harrison, Mark, 2011. "Forging success: Soviet managers and accounting fraud, 1943-1962," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 43-64, March.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03658-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.