Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:04:47.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defending normativism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Steven Hrotic
Steven Hrotic
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203-5017. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Elqayam & Evans (E&E) argue that evaluative normativism leads to unacceptable research biases, and should be avoided. Though it is stipulated that the particular biases they discuss are cause for concern, this argument should not be generalized. The boundary between evaluative and goal-directed “directive” norms is difficult to define, and normative assumptions are an integral part of academic progress; moreover, the biases that result may have beneficial potential.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2011 , pp. 258 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bombardieri, M. (2005) Summers' remarks on women draw fire. Retrieved from: http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/ Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2007) Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. Viking Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group, eds. (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, S. P. M. (1993) Bones and bureaucrats: New York's great cemetery imbroglio. Archaeology 46(2):28–38.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edition. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1968) Matthew Effect in science. Science 159(3810):56–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossiter, M. W. (1993) The Matilda Effect of science. Social Studies of Science 23(2):325–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar