Hypatia 26 (2):352-373 (2011)
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
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing.Miranda Fricker - 2007 - Oxford University Press.
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.Helen E. Longino - 1990 - Princeton University Press.
Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes.Richard E. Nisbett & Timothy D. Wilson - 1977 - Psychological Review 84 (3):231-59.
Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again.Douglas P. Peters & Stephen J. Ceci - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):187-195.
Citations of this work BETA
Facing the Incompleteness of Epistemic Trust: Managing Dependence in Scientific Practice.Susann Wagenknecht - 2015 - Social Epistemology 29 (2):160-184.
A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review.Carole J. Lee - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (5):859-870.
Non-Cognitive Values and Objectivity in Scientific Explanation: Egalitarianism and the Case of the Movius Line.Raoul Gervais - 2013 - Perspectives on Science 21 (4):429-452.
A Social Epistemological Inquiry Into Biases in Journal Peer Review.Jukola Saana - 2017 - Perspectives on Science 25 (1):124-148.
Similar books and articles
Social Biases and Solution for Procedural Objectivity.Carole J. Lee & Christian D. Schunn - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-73.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Peer Reporting of Unethical Behavior: The Influence of Justice Evaluations and Social Context Factors. [REVIEW]Bart Victor, Linda Klebe Trevino & Debra L. Shapiro - 1993 - Journal of Business Ethics 12 (4):253 - 263.
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
Explaining Away Intuitions About Traits: Why Virtue Ethics Seems Plausible (Even If It Isn't).Mark Alfano - 2011 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (1):121-136.
Do Theories of Implicit Race Bias Change Moral Judgments?C. Daryl Cameron, Joshua Knobe & B. Keith Payne - 2010 - Social Justice Research 23:272-289.
Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Andrew J. Wistrich & Chris Guthrie - unknown
When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge From Mere Agreement.Boaz Miller - 2013 - Synthese 190 (7):1293-1316.
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Epistemological and Ethical Assessment of Obesity Bias in Industrialized Countries.Jacquineau Azétsop & Tisha R. Joy - 2011 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 6 (1):16-.
Added to index2011-03-11
Total downloads15 ( #314,190 of 2,168,922 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,816 of 2,168,922 )
How can I increase my downloads?