In a documentary on fracking I recently watched, I found a similar
pattern. The people involved in making money or allowing this technique of oil
production, conducted studies showing that this way of flowing oil is harmless
to humans and nature. The NGOs concerned with the destruction of the
environment found converse results. How can this be? Both parties have a big
motivation to prove their arguments. Both parties have a specific mindset when
constructing their study. This leads to a frame of thinking and a way of
perceiving the world. I think every scientist should have a look at their basic
motivation of research and their underlying assumptions of how the world works
or ought to work in their eyes. It is very hard to fight one’s own frame of
thinking, but by making these implicit assumptions explicit and communicating
them, others can better understand your where you are coming from. If obvious
conflict of interest is given as is the case in the example of the manipulated
study and in my opinion also in the case of financing, I think it will prevent
a scientist from performing rigorous research and should be excluded from the
carrying out the study.
This is my mind frame and my motivation for this article: I am a
psychologist and stakeholder theory enthusiast and think that explicating and
communicating thoughts and assumptions helps to find common grounds. Further, I
think the world is not black or white but should be looked at nuanced. Further
we are working on a paper on mindsets and basic assumptions of different
theories, which got me to pay more attention on this issue. So in this sense:
Q.E.D.
Vanessa McSorley
No comments:
Post a Comment