What counts as relevant criticism? Longino's critical contextual empiricism and the feminist criticism of mainstream economics

I identify and resolve an internal tension in Critical Contextual Empiricism (CCE) - the normative account of science developed by Helen Longino. CCE includes two seemingly conflicting principles: on one hand, the cognitive goals of epistemic communities should be open to critical discussion (the openness of goals to criticism principle, OGC); on the other hand, criticism must be aligned with the cognitive goals of that community to count as "relevant" and thus require a response (the goal-relativity of response-requiring criticism principle, GRC). The co-existence of OGC and GRC enables one to draw both approving and condemning judgments about a situation in which an epistemic community ignores criticism against its goals. This tension results from conflating two contexts of argumentation that require different regulative standards. In the first-level scientific discussion, GRC is a reasonable principle but OGC is not; in the meta-level discussion about science, the reverse holds. In meta-level discussion, the relevance of criticism can be established by appealing to goals of science that are more general than the goals of a specific epistemic community. To illustrate my revision of CCE, I discuss why feminist economists' criticism of the narrowness of the goals pursued in mainstream economics is relevant criticism.

Why We Should Stop Trying to Fix Women: How Context Shapes and Constrains Women's Career Trajectories

In this review we examine two classes of interventions designed to achieve workplace gender equality: (a) those designed to boost motivations and ambition, such as those that aim to attract more women into roles where they are underrepresented; and (b) those that try to provide women with needed abilities to achieve these positions. While such initiatives are generally well meaning, they tend to be based upon (and reinforce) stereotypes of what women lack. Such a deficit model leads to interventions that attempt to "fix" women rather than address the structural factors that are the root of gender inequalities. We provide a critical appraisal of the literature to establish an evidence base for why fixing women is unlikely to be successful. As an alternative, we focus on understanding how organizational context and culture maintain these inequalities by looking at how they shape and constrain (a) women's motivations and ambitions, and (b) the expression and interpretation of their skills and attributes. In doing so, we seek to shift the interventional focus from women themselves to the systems and structures in which they are embedded.

The Effects of Activating Gender-Related Social Roles on Financial Risk-Taking

Previous studies observed differences between men and women in terms of their financial risk-taking. However, these differences may stem not only from the gender of the decision-maker but also from other factors, such as stereotypical gender social roles. Media content exposes both men and women to stereotypical portrayals of their gender, and this might temporarily activate thoughts related to their social roles. A question arises whether such activation might impact the way people make risky financial decisions. The present experimental study investigated whether temporarily activated gender-related social roles influence the risk-taking propensities of men and women (N = 319) in the context of gambling and investment choices. The results show that activating a stereotypically male social role (professional employee) made both men and women more prone to take financial risks relative to a control condition. Furthermore, activating a stereotypically female social role (homemaker) lowered the propensity to take financial risks in both genders for the investment domain and in women only for the gambling domain. This study contributes to the literature on gender differences in economic behavior by showing that researchers should not overlook sociocultural factors.

Hormonal contraceptives as disruptors of competitive behavior: Theoretical framing and review

Emerging evidence suggests that hormonal contraceptives (HCs) impact psychological outcomes through alterations in neurophysiology. In this review, we first introduce a theoretical framework for HCs as disruptors of steroid hormone modulation of socially competitive attitudes and behaviors. Then, we comprehensively examine prior research comparing HC users and non-users in outcomes related to competition for reproductive, social, and financial resources. Synthesis of 46 studies (n = 16,290) led to several key conclusions: HC users do not show the same menstrual cycle-related fluctuations in self-perceived attractiveness and some intrasexual competition seen in naturally-cycling women and, further, may show relatively reduced status- or achievement-oriented competitive motivation. However, there a lack of consistent or compelling evidence that HC users and non-users differ in competitive behavior or attitudes for mates or financial resources. These conclusions are tentative given the notable methodological limitations of the studies reviewed. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.

The Gendered Consequences of Risk-Taking at Work: Are Women Averse to Risk or to Poor Consequences?

Women are seen as more risk-avoidant in the workplace, and some have argued that this contributes to occupational gender gaps. Across two correlational and three experimental studies (total N = 2280), we examined the role of consequences of workplace risk-taking in determining the likelihood of taking future risks at work. We found no evidence for overall gender differences in initial risk-taking, and women and men anticipated similar consequences for risks with which they have no experience. However, this stands in contrast to the consequences of risk-taking they have experienced. Here, men reported on average more positive consequences, even for those risks that are more normative for women, translating into a higher likelihood of taking the same risks again. When faced with the same consequences, women and men were equally likely to take the same risks again. Our findings challenge the simple assumption that women are averse to workplace risks and suggest that if and when women do avoid risks, it is because their risk-taking leads to less rewarding consequences. Workplace gender equality initiatives should therefore tackle any inequities of consequences rather than encouraging women to “lean in” and take more risks. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221084048 .

The Ethics and Politics of Academic Knowledge Production: Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics

To commemorate 40 years since the founding of the Journal of Business Ethics, the editors in chief of the journal have invited the editors to provide commentaries on the future of business ethics. This essay comprises a selection of commentaries aimed at creating dialogue around the theme The Ethics and Politics of Academic Knowledge Production. Questions of who produces knowledge about what, and how that knowledge is produced, are inherent to editing and publishing academic journals. At the Journal of Business Ethics, we understand the ethical responsibility of academic knowledge production as going far beyond conventions around the integrity of the research content and research processes. We are deeply aware that access to resources, knowledge of the rules of the game, and being able to set those rules, are systematically and unequally distributed. One could ask the question "for whom is knowledge now ethical'"? (See the Burrell commentary.) We have a responsibility to address these inequalities and open up our journal to lesser heard voices, ideas, and ways of being. Our six commentators pursue this through various aspects of the ethics and politics of academic knowledge production. Working with MacIntyre's scheme of practices and institutions, Andrew West provides commentary on the internal good of business ethics learning and education. Inviting us to step out of the cave, Christopher Michaelson urges a clear-eyed, unblinking focus on the purposes and audiences of business ethics scholarship. As developmental editor, Scott Taylor uncovers some of the politics of peer review with the aim of nurturing of unconventional research. Mike Hyman presents his idiosyncratic view of marketing ethics. In the penultimate commentary, Julie Nelson attributes difficulties in the academic positioning of the Business Ethics field to the hegemony of a masculine-centric model of the firm. And finally, Gibson Burrell provides a powerful provocation to go undercover as researcher-investigators in a parallel ethics of the research process.

Objectivity for the research worker

In the last decade, many problematic cases of scientific conduct have been diagnosed; some of which involve outright fraud (e.g., Stapel, 2012) others are more subtle (e.g., supposed evidence of extrasensory perception; Bem, 2011). These and similar problems can be interpreted as caused by lack of scientific objectivity. The current philosophical theories of objectivity do not provide scientists with conceptualizations that can be effectively put into practice in remedying these issues. We propose a novel way of thinking about objectivity for individual scientists; a negative and dynamic approach.We provide a philosophical conceptualization of objectivity that is informed by empirical research. In particular, it is our intention to take the first steps in providing an empirically and methodologically informed inventory of factors that impair the scientific practice. The inventory will be compiled into a negative conceptualization (i.e., what is not objective), which could in principle be used by individual scientists to assess (deviations from) objectivity of scientific practice. We propose a preliminary outline of a usable and testable instrument for indicating the objectivity of scientific practice.

Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications

The present paper aims at revealing and ranking the factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing-related publications. In order to rank the factors causing bias, the authors employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process method with three different scales representing all scale groups. The data for the study were obtained through expert survey, which involved nine experts both from the academia and scientific publishing community. The findings of the study confirm that factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing related publications are sampling and sample frame errors, failure to specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for researched subjects and non-responsiveness.

Competition and gender: Time’s up on essentialist knowledge production

This article is an intervention in current trends of thinking about competition and gender in essentialist and stereotypical ways. Such thinking has produced numerous comparative studies measuring competitiveness of women and men; ‘proving’ men as competitive and women as non-competitive. Based on experiments and written questionnaires, these studies reduce gender to perceived biological sex and treat competition as a ‘self-evident’, static and easily measurable phenomenon. To contribute new understandings and learning, we surface five fallacies of this comparative research, explaining why the approach is misleading, inequitable and socially harmful. Drawing upon gender as a social construction and women leaders’ narratives, we offer a blueprint for democratising knowledge production. We write differently, choosing not to provide a ‘balanced’ view of the field and construct competition as a processual, complex and contextually specific phenomenon with underlying gender dynamics, rather than a discrete, observable and fixed in time event. The article provides learning: for leaders and managers to resist automatic categorisation on the basis of perceived biological sex; for management educators to challenge the ways that leadership and management are traditionally taught; and, for executive coaches to support changes in practice, by embracing complexity of the contemporary contexts in which leaders operate.

Polarizing crowds: Consensus and bipolarization in a persuasive arguments model

Understanding the opinion formation dynamics in social systems is of vast relevance in diverse aspects of society. In particular, it is relevant for political deliberation and other group decision-making processes. Although previous research has reported different approaches to model social dynamics, most of them focused on interaction mechanisms where individuals modify their opinions in line with the opinions of others, without invoking a latent mechanism of argumentation. In this paper, we present a model where changes of opinion are due to explicit exchanges of arguments, and we analyze the emerging collective states in terms of simple dynamic rules. We find that, when interactions are equiprobable and symmetrical, the model only shows consensus solutions. However, when either homophily, confirmation bias, or both are included, we observe the emergence and dominance of bipolarization, which appears due to the fact that individuals are not able to accept the contrary information from their opponents during exchanges of arguments. In all cases, the predominance of each stable state depends on the relation between the number of agents and the number of available arguments in the discussion. Overall, this paper describes the dynamics and shows the conditions wherein deliberative agents are expected to construct polarized societies.

Painting all foreigners with one brush? How the salience of muslims and refugees shapes judgements

Attitudes towards foreigners are widely researched, most frequently in survey studies. However, in that context it is often unclear which attitude object respondents have in mind, and thus what their answers refer to. This paper uses a representative sample of 3,195 Germans who reported which groups they think of when thinking about foreigners living in Germany. We found that Germans disproportionately think of groups who are Muslim, and that such salience is associated with more negative attitudes towards “foreigners.” This holds true when controlling for attitudes towards Muslims; in fact, thinking of Muslim groups when thinking about foreigners moderates the relationship between anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner attitudes. The relationships were weaker when respondents think of Turks, a large and long-standing minority in Germany, suggesting an attenuation of the links through familiarity or intergroup contacts. No relationship was found between thinking of refugees and attitudes towards foreigners. Implications for research are discussed, particularly regarding the interpretation of self-reported attitudes towards foreigners and the study of populist strategies.

Reliable novelty: New should not trump true

Although a case can be made for rewarding scientists for risky, novel science rather than for incremental, reliable science, novelty without reliability ceases to be science. The currently available evidence suggests that the most prestigious journals are no better at detecting unreliable science than other journals. In fact, some of the most convincing studies show a negative correlation, with the most prestigious journals publishing the least reliable science. With the credibility of science increasingly under siege, how much longer can we afford to reward novelty at the expense of reliability? Here, I argue for replacing the legacy journals with a modern information infrastructure that is governed by scholars. This infrastructure would allow renewed focus on scientific reliability, with improved sort, filter, and discovery functionalities, at massive cost savings. If these savings were invested in additional infrastructure for research data and scientific code and/or software, scientific reliability would receive additional support, and funding woes-for, e.g., biological databases-would be a concern of the past.

Sex, Drugs, and Reckless Driving

We investigated whether risk-taking measures inadvertently focus on behaviors that are more normative for men, resulting in the overestimation of gender differences. Using a popular measure of risk-taking (Domain-Specific Risk-Taking) in Study 1 ( N = 99), we found that conventionally used behaviors were more normative for men, while, overall, newly developed behaviors were not. In Studies 2 ( N = 114) and 3 ( N = 124), we demonstrate that differences in normativity are reflected in gender differences in self-reported risk-taking, which are dependent on the specific items used. Study 3 further demonstrates that conventional, masculine risk behaviors are perceived as more risky than newly generated, more feminine items, even when risks are matched. We conclude that there is confirmation bias in risk-taking measurement.