Matching Items (15)
Description
Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) required their communication to be objective and neutral and this research comprised a qualitative analysis of IPCC reports to consider how much of their communication is strictly factual (Objective), and value-free (Neutral), and to consider how their communication had changed from 1990 to 2013. Further research comprised a qualitative analysis of structured interviews with scientists and non-scientists who were professionally engaged in climate science communication, to consider practitioner views on advocacy. The literature and the structured interviews revealed a conflicting range of definitions for advocacy versus objectivity and neutrality. The practitioners that were interviewed struggled to separate objective and neutral science from attempts to persuade, and the IPCC reports contained a substantial amount of communication that was not strictly factual and value-free. This research found that science communication often blurred the distinction between facts and values, imbuing the subjective with the authority and credibility of science, and thereby damaging the foundation for scientific credibility. This research proposes a strict definition for factual and value-free as a means to separate science from advocacy, to better protect the credibility of science, and better prepare scientists to negotiate contentious science-based policy issues. The normative dimension of sustainability will likely entangle scientists in advocacy or the appearance of it, and this research may be generalizable to sustainability.
ContributorsMcClintock, Scott (Author) / Van Der Leeuw, Sander (Thesis advisor) / Klinsky, Sonja (Committee member) / Chhetri, Nalini (Committee member) / Hannah, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Professional environmental scientists are increasingly under pressure to inform and even shape policy. Scientists engage policy effectively when they act within the bounds of objectivity, credibility, and authority, yet significant portions of the scientific community condemn such acts as advocacy. They argue that it is nonobjective, that it risks damaging the credibility of science, and that it is an abuse of authority. This means objectivity, credibility, and authority deserve direct attention before the policy advocacy quagmire can be reasonably understood. I investigate the meaning of objectivity in science and that necessarily brings the roles of values in science into question. This thesis is a sociological study of the roles environmental values play in the decisions of environmental scientists working in the institution of academia. I argue that the gridlocked nature of the environmental policy advocacy debates can be traced to what seems to be a deep tension and perhaps confusion among these scientists. I provide empirical evidence of this tension and confusion through the use of in depth semi-structured interviews among a sampling of academic environmental scientists (AES). I show that there is a struggle for these AES to reconcile their support for environmentalist values and goals with their commitment to scientific objectivity and their concerns about being credible scientists in the academy. Additionally, I supplemented my data collection with environmental sociology and history, plus philosophy and sociology of science literatures. With this, I developed a system for understanding values in science (of which environmental values are a subset) with respect to the limits of my sample and study. This examination of respondent behavior provides support that it is possible for AES to act on their environmental values without compromising their objectivity, credibility, and authority. These scientists were not likely to practice this in conversations with colleagues and policy-makers, but were likely to behave this way with students. The legitimate extension of this behavior is a viable route for continuing to integrate the human and social dimensions of environmental science into its practice, its training, and its relationship with policy.
ContributorsAppleton, Caroline (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis advisor) / Chew, Matt (Committee member) / Armendt, Brad (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
People often rely on experts' opinions and knowledge to inform their own decisions. This can be problematic, as expertise does not necessarily protect one from bias, and increased experience does not always increase an experts' accuracy (Cassidy & Buede, 2009; Goldberg, 1968; Molins et al., 2008). The nature of task characteristics of expert domains is associated with experts' performance (Shanteau 1992). The purpose of this thesis is to examine how people perceive experts in different disciplines, and to explore the factors that affect perceptions of expert objectivity. Perceptions of objectivity in 26 expert domains were examined. As hypothesized, higher ratings of clear and immediate feedback available to experts were associated with higher ratings of objectivity. However, other indicators of higher domain validity were not recognized by laypeople, such as higher levels of training and education. Contrary to our hypotheses, higher levels of familiarity with experts in a given domain and more experiences of disagreement with experts in a given domain were not associated with perceptions of objectivity. These results suggest that laypeople can correctly identify some indicators of the validity of different expert domains, but they cannot identify others. These perceptions affect how objectivity is perceived.
ContributorsVelez, Rebecca Ellen (Author) / Neal, Tess (Thesis director) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
Description
There's a growing trend of transparency in the media that has been reflected in the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. SPJ advocates that journalists "explain ethical choices and processes to the audience" and "expose unethical conduct." Transparency currently means taking responsibility for your work and not allowing yourself to be compromised by conflicts of interest. It doesn't usually mean being open about your beliefs, positions and perspectives. We would argue that it could, and should. There are many examples of publications making mistakes because they lacked the knowledge and understanding of someone from a different perspective. Additionally, there are many examples of journalists lacking in information because they were trying to remain objective. There should be a place where journalists can be open about where they are coming from and give their perspective on a situation. Using many different perspectives we can build a bigger, and more accurate, picture around the context of a situation. This thesis project examines objectivity and proposes a new philosophical approach based on Situated Knowledges by Donna Haraway. We examine media case studies to expose issues with the coverage of news when objectivity is the main goal.
ContributorsVanHorn, Miranda (Co-author) / Shearer, Anne (Co-author) / Rodriguez, Rick (Thesis director) / Bluhm, Michael (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Prisoners sentenced to death must be competent for execution before they can actually be executed (Ford v. Wainwright, 1986). The decision for many mental health professionals whether to conduct competence for execution evaluations may be fraught with complex ethical issues. Mental health professionals who do not personally support capital punishment may have a particularly difficult decision to make in this regard but should seriously consider the consequences of their decisions. This article applies Bush, Connell, and Denney’s (2006) eight-step ethical decision-making model to the ethicality of deciding to or abstaining from conducting competence for execution evaluations. This article does not propose what decisions an individual evaluator should make regarding this work, but rather presents a systematic guide for mental health professionals (particularly those who do not support capital punishment) to consider.
ContributorsNeal, Tess M.S. (Author)
Created2010
Description
In journalism school, reporters learn to be unbiased, impartial and objective when covering a story. They are to stay neutral and detached from their reporting. However, this standard has become unrealistic and unachievable for many journalists. "Inside Objectivity" is a five-episode podcast that focuses on what journalistic objectivity looks like in the 21st century. In this podcast, you will hear from journalists, scholars, historians, researchers and a news consumer. These guests will provide their thoughts regarding journalistic objectivity and whether this ethical standard needs to be modified. To listen to the episodes and learn more about the podcast, visit insideobjectivity.com.
ContributorsManeshni, Autriya (Author) / Nikpour, Rodmanned (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Comm (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description
In journalism school, reporters learn to be unbiased, impartial and objective when covering a story. They are to stay neutral and detached from their reporting. However, this standard has become unrealistic and unachievable for many journalists.
"Inside Objectivity" is a five-episode podcast that focuses on what journalistic objectivity looks like in the 21st century. In this podcast, you will hear from journalists, scholars, historians, researchers and a news consumer. These guests will provide their thoughts regarding journalistic objectivity and whether this ethical standard needs to be modified.
To listen to the episodes and learn more about the podcast, visit insideobjectivity.com.
ContributorsManeshni, Autriya (Author) / Nikpour, Rodmanned (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Comm (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description
In journalism school, reporters learn to be unbiased, impartial and objective when covering a story. They are to stay neutral and detached from their reporting. However, this standard has become unrealistic and unachievable for many journalists.
"Inside Objectivity" is a five-episode podcast that focuses on what journalistic objectivity looks like in the 21st century. In this podcast, you will hear from journalists, scholars, historians, researchers and a news consumer. These guests will provide their thoughts regarding journalistic objectivity and whether this ethical standard needs to be modified.
To listen to the episodes and learn more about the podcast, visit insideobjectivity.com.
ContributorsManeshni, Autriya (Author) / Nikpour, Rodmanned (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Comm (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description
In journalism school, reporters learn to be unbiased, impartial and objective when covering a story. They are to stay neutral and detached from their reporting. However, this standard has become unrealistic and unachievable for many journalists.
"Inside Objectivity" is a five-episode podcast that focuses on what journalistic objectivity looks like in the 21st century. In this podcast, you will hear from journalists, scholars, historians, researchers and a news consumer. These guests will provide their thoughts regarding journalistic objectivity and whether this ethical standard needs to be modified.
To listen to the episodes and learn more about the podcast, visit insideobjectivity.com.
ContributorsManeshni, Autriya (Author) / Nikpour, Rodmanned (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Comm (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description
In journalism school, reporters learn to be unbiased, impartial and objective when covering a story. They are to stay neutral and detached from their reporting. However, this standard has become unrealistic and unachievable for many journalists.
"Inside Objectivity" is a five-episode podcast that focuses on what journalistic objectivity looks like in the 21st century. In this podcast, you will hear from journalists, scholars, historians, researchers and a news consumer. These guests will provide their thoughts regarding journalistic objectivity and whether this ethical standard needs to be modified.
To listen to the episodes and learn more about the podcast, visit insideobjectivity.com.
ContributorsManeshni, Autriya (Author) / Nikpour, Rodmanned (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Comm (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2023-05