Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:09:27.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Carole J. Lee  and
Christian D. Schunn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An empirically sensitive formulation of the norms of transformative criticism must recognize that even public and shared standards of evaluation can be implemented in ways that unintentionally perpetuate and reproduce forms of social bias that are epistemically detrimental. Helen Longino's theory can explain and redress such social bias by treating peer evaluations as hypotheses based on data and by requiring a kind of perspectival diversity that bears, not on the content of the community's knowledge claims, but on the beliefs and norms of the culture of the knowledge community itself. To illustrate how socializing cognition can bias evaluations, we focus on peer-review practices, with some discussion of peer-review practices in philosophy. Data include responses to surveys by editors from general philosophy journals, as well as analyses of reviews and editorial decisions for the 2007 Cognitive Science Society Conference.

Type
Epistemic Justice, Ignorance, and Procedural Objectivity
Information
Hypatia , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , Spring 2011 , pp. 352 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2004. Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia 19 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, and Mullainathan, Sendhil. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? American Economic Review 94 (4): 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biernat, Monica, and Kobrynowicz, Diane. 1997. Gender‐ and race‐based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (3): 544–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Biernat, Monica, and Ma, Jennifer E. 2005. Stereotypes and the confirmability of trait concepts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (4): 483–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boltanski, Luc, and Thévenot, Laurent. 2006. On justification: Economies of worth. Trans. Catherine Porter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cambrosio, Alberto, Keating, Peter, Schlich, Thomas, and Weisz, George. 2006. Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine. Social Science & Medicine 63:189–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaiken, Shelly, and Trope, Yaacov. 1999. Dual‐process theories in social psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, Domenic V. 1991. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross‐disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:119–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Stephen. 1983. The hierarchy of science? American Journal of Sociology 89:111–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Stephen. 1992. Making science: Between nature and society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Colyvan, Mark. n.d. The best philosophy journals. http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/journals.html (accessed March 27, 2009).Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Taylor, Shelley E. 1991. Social cognition. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Foschi, Martha. 2000. Double standards of competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology 26:21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, Norvall D. 1982. The journal article review process as a game of chance. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 5:211–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Neil. 2002. Becoming a pragmatist philosopher: Status, self‐concept, and intellectual choice. American Sociological Review 67:52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Neil. 2003. Richard Rorty's pragmatism: A case study in the sociology of ideas. Theory and Society 32 (1): 93–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, Lowell L. 1988. Cognitive consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53:139–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargens, Lowell L., and Herting, Jerald R. 2006. Analyzing the association between referees’ recommendations and editors’ decisions. Scientometrics 67 (1): 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2008. Changing the ideology and culture of philosophy: Not by reason (alone). Hypatia 23 (2): 210–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huebner, Bryce. 2009. Troubles with stereotypes for Spinozan minds. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (1): 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, Hugh. 1999. Is science value free? Values and scientific understanding. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lachs, John. 2004. The future of philosophy. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 78 (2): 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lederman, Rena. 2006. The perils of working at home: IRB “mission creep” as context and content for an ethnography of disciplinary knowledges. American Ethnologist 33 (4): 482–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Carole J., and Schunn, Christian D. 2010. Philosophy journal practices and opportunities for bias. APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy 10 (1): 5–10.Google Scholar
Leiter, Brian. 2009. The highest quality “general” philosophy journals in English. http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/the‐highest‐quality‐general‐philosophy‐journals‐in‐english.html (accessed March 27, 2010).Google Scholar
Lock, Stephen. 1985. A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallard, Grégoire, Lamont, Michèle, and Guetzkow, Joshua. 2009. Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology & Human Values 34 (5): 573–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Herbert W., and Ball, Samuel. 1989. The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgmental reliability. Journal of Experimental Education 57 (2): 151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159 (3810): 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1996. The Matthew effect, II (1988). In On social structure and science, ed. Sztompka, Piotr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Monin, Benoit, and Miller, Dale T. 2001. Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (1): 33–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moulton, Janice. 1983. A paradigm of philosophy: The adversary method. In Discovering reality, ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill B.Hingham: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows: From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., and Wilson, Timothy DeCamp. 1977. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental models. Psychological Review 84 (3): 231–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, Michael I., Vandello, Joseph A., and Darley, John M. 2004. Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (6): 817–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, Douglas P., and Ceci, Stephen J. 1982. Peer‐review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:187–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunn, Christian D., Crowley, Keven, and Okada, Takeshi. 1998. The growth of multidisciplinarity in the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science 22 (1): 107–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, William A. 1974. Interreferee agreement on some characteristics submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychologist 29 (9): 698–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2006. Groupthink versus The wisdom of crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (S1): 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Stephanie R. 2008. Through a glass darkly: The hidden perspectives that challenge and redeem science's self‐conception. PhD diss. Department of Philosophy, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.Google Scholar
Starbuck, William H. 2005. How much better are the most‐prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science 16 (2): 180–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinpreis, Rhea E., Anders, Katie A., and Ritzke, Dawn. 1999. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles 41 (7/8): 509–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, Robert, and Gordeeva, Tamara. 1996. The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential? Psychological Science 7 (2): 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefsen, Deborah Perron. 2006. Group deliberation, social cohesion, and scientific teamwork: Is there room for dissent? Episteme 3 (1): 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trope, Yaacov, and Thompson, Erik P. 1997. Looking for truth in all the wrong places? Asymmetric search of individuating information about stereotyped group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (2): 229–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uhlmann, Eric Luis, and Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2005. Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science 16 (6): 474–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Uhlmann, Eric Luis, and Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2007. “I think it, therefore it's true”: Effects of self‐perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 104:207–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2008. Legacies of collaboration: Transformative criticism in archaeology. Patty Jo Watson Distinguished Lecture. American Anthropological Association. San Francisco.Google Scholar
Zanna, Mark. 1992. My life as a dog (I mean editor). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18:485–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, Harriet, and Merton, Robert K. 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 9 (1): 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar