IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aeg/report/2019-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sorting out Guidelines for a Good Evaluation of Research Practices.Towards the Assessment of Researcher’s Virtues

Author

Listed:
  • Cinzia Daraio

    (Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering Antonio Ruberti (DIAG), University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy)

  • Alessio Vaccari

    (Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering Antonio Ruberti (DIAG), University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose the adoption of moral philosophy and in particular normative ethics, to clarify the concept of “good†evaluation of “research practices†. Our perspective is based on the idea that research is a form of social practice according to MacIntyre (1985)’s conceptualization. From MacIntyre’s notion, we elaborate three typologies of researcher: the leader, the good researcher and the honest researcher. Reflecting on what is a “good" research practice and on what is the role of researchers in it provides insight into some aspects of both the self-assessment process and how this promotes individual improvement. Moreover, this kind of reflection helps us to describe the functions (missions) of the research practices. A “good†evaluation should take into account all the building constituents of a “good†research practice and should be able to discriminate between good and bad research practices, while enforcing the functions of good research practices. These reflections may be the starting point for a paradigm shift in the evaluation of research practices which replaces an evaluation centred on products with an evaluation focused on the functions of these practices. In the last sections of the paper, we introduce and discuss an important aspect for the implementation of the proposed framework. This relates to the assessment of the virtues of researchers involved in a good research practice. Some examples of questions and preliminary items to include in a questionnaire for the assessment of Virtues in Research Practices are also provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2019. "Sorting out Guidelines for a Good Evaluation of Research Practices.Towards the Assessment of Researcher’s Virtues," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-10, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
  • Handle: RePEc:aeg:report:2019-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://users.diag.uniroma1.it/~biblioteca/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2019. "Sorting out Guidelines for the Good Evaluation of Research Practices," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-02, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    2. Ignacio Ferrero & Alejo José G. Sison, 2012. "A Survey on Virtue in Business and Management (1980-2011)," Faculty Working Papers 06/12, School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Navarra.
    3. Lilach Sagiv & Sonia Roccas & Jan Cieciuch & Shalom H. Schwartz, 2017. "Personal values in human life," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(9), pages 630-639, September.
    4. Cinzia Daraio & Henk F. Moed & Giuseppe Catalano & Giancarlo Ruocco & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2020. "The 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 831-834, November.
    5. Shana Hormann, 2018. "Exploring Resilience: in the Face of Trauma," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 91-104, July.
    6. Cinzia Daraio, 2017. "A framework for the Assessment of Research and its impacts," DIAG Technical Reports 2017-04, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    7. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2020. "Using normative ethics for building a good evaluation of research practices: towards the assessment of researcher’s virtues," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1053-1075, November.
    2. Cinzia Daraio & Alessio Vaccari, 2019. "Sorting out Guidelines for the Good Evaluation of Research Practices," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-02, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    3. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Don't fall in common science pitfall!," FrenXiv ycjha, Center for Open Science.
    4. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    5. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    7. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    8. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    9. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    10. Daraio, Cinzia & Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul, 2019. "Quality and its impact on efficiency," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2019004, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    11. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    12. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    14. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working and Discussion Papers WP 5/2020, Research Department, National Bank of Slovakia.
    15. Bruce B. Svare, 2020. "A Cautionary Tale for Psychology and Higher Education in Asia: Following Western Practices of Incentivising Scholarship May Have Negative Outcomes," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 32(1), pages 94-121, March.
    16. Harrison, Mark, 2009. "Forging Success : Soviet Managers and False Accounting, 1943 to 1962," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 909, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    17. Stephan B Bruns & John P A Ioannidis, 2016. "p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    18. Harrison, Mark, 2011. "Forging success: Soviet managers and accounting fraud, 1943-1962," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 43-64, March.
    19. Mirjana Kuljak, 2014. "Phronetic research - Methodology that matters to corporate governance research," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 10(2), pages 79-88.
    20. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    research assessment ; good evaluation : research practice ; virtue ethics ; MacIntyre;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aeg:report:2019-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Antonietta Angelica Zucconi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dirosit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.