IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v285y2020i3p1002-1010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On justifying the norms underlying decision support

Author

Listed:
  • Meinard, Y.
  • Cailloux, O.

Abstract

When decision sciences are applied to concrete problems, Decision Makers (DM), concerned stakeholders, and the general public typically expect clear recommendations. As emphasized in particular in the literature on ethical dimensions of Operational Research (OR) practice, such recommendations are unavoidably conditioned by norms or normative conceptions. Although an extensive literature is devoted to promoting certain norms designed to be largely accepted by decision analysts, studies specifically devoted to determine, at a general level, how decision analysts can decide which norms should underlie their work, are found lacking. To make up for this lacuna, we flesh out the concept of justification. We develop requirements that any justification should satisfy to qualify for being able to justify norms on which recommendations can rest. We then introduce and recommend a series of practical rules that decision analysts should abide by, on the basis of which, in a given decision situation, a decision analyst can decide, together with the DM, whether a given norm underlying a given recommendation can be adopted.

Suggested Citation

  • Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:285:y:2020:i:3:p:1002-1010
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2020.02.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221720301405
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antoinette Baujard, 2013. "Value judgments and economics expertise," Working Papers 1314, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    2. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    3. Brocklesby, John, 2009. "Ethics beyond the model: How social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1073-1082, December.
    4. Olivier Cailloux & Yves Meinard, 2020. "A formal framework for deliberated judgment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 269-295, March.
    5. Eden, Colin, 2004. "Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 673-686, December.
    6. De Brucker, Klaas & Macharis, Cathy & Verbeke, Alain, 2013. "Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 122-131.
    7. Le Menestrel, Marc & Van Wassenhove, Luk N., 2004. "Ethics outside, within, or beyond OR models?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 477-484, March.
    8. R J Ormerod, 2010. "Justifying the methods of OR," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(12), pages 1694-1708, December.
    9. Ulrike Reisach, 2016. "The creation of meaning and critical ethical reflection in operational research," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 5-32, June.
    10. C. West Churchman, 1970. "Operations Research as a Profession," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 37-53, October.
    11. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    12. White, Leroy, 2009. "Challenge of Research Ethics Committees to the nature of operations research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1083-1088, December.
    13. Diekmann, Sven, 2013. "Moral mid-level principles in modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 132-138.
    14. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    15. Wang, Wei & Liu, Wenbin & Mingers, John, 2015. "A systemic method for organisational stakeholder identification and analysis using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(2), pages 562-574.
    16. Dwyer, Larry, 1985. "Scientific Rationality, Value Judgments, and Economic Advice," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(44), pages 169-184, June.
    17. Brans, J. Pierre, 2002. "OR, Ethics and Decisions: the OATH of PROMETHEUS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 191-196, July.
    18. Brans, J. Pierre, 2002. "Ethics and decision," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 340-352, January.
    19. Hector, Donald & Christensen, Carleton & Petrie, Jim, 2009. "A problem-structuring method for complex societal decisions: Its philosophical and psychological dimensions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(3), pages 693-708, March.
    20. Mingers, John, 2011. "Ethics and OR: Operationalising discourse ethics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 114-124, April.
    21. Philippe Mongin, 2006. "Value Judgments and Value Neutrality in Economics," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(290), pages 257-286, May.
    22. Alexis Tsoukiàs & Gilberto Montibeller & Giulia Lucertini & Valérie Belton, 2013. "Policy Analytics: An Agenda for Research and Practice," Working Papers hal-00874307, HAL.
    23. Emmanuel Picavet, 2009. "Opportunities and pitfalls for ethical analysis in operations research and the management sciences," Post-Print hal-00476559, HAL.
    24. Yves Meinard & Jean-Sébastien Gharbi, 2018. "Utility as economic meaning," Post-Print hal-01972450, HAL.
    25. Ulrich, Werner, 1987. "Critical heuristics of social systems design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 276-283, September.
    26. Johnson, Michael P. & Midgley, Gerald & Chichirau, George, 2018. "Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1178-1191.
    27. W Ulrich, 2003. "Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 325-342, April.
    28. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    29. M C Jackson, 1999. "Towards coherent pluralism in management science," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(1), pages 12-22, January.
    30. R Ormerod, 2006. "The history and ideas of pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(8), pages 892-909, August.
    31. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    32. Picavet, Emmanuel, 2009. "Opportunities and pitfalls for ethical analysis in operations research and the management sciences," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1121-1131, December.
    33. Jean-Pierre Brans & Giorgio Gallo, 2007. "Ethics in OR/MS: past, present and future," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 165-178, September.
    34. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:eee:ejores:v:285:y:2020:i:3:p:1002-1010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.