No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Defending normativism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2011
Abstract
Elqayam & Evans (E&E) argue that evaluative normativism leads to unacceptable research biases, and should be avoided. Though it is stipulated that the particular biases they discuss are cause for concern, this argument should not be generalized. The boundary between evaluative and goal-directed “directive” norms is difficult to define, and normative assumptions are an integral part of academic progress; moreover, the biases that result may have beneficial potential.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
References
Bombardieri, M. (2005) Summers' remarks on women draw fire. Retrieved from: http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/
Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2007) Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. Viking Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group, eds. (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, S. P. M. (1993) Bones and bureaucrats: New York's great cemetery imbroglio. Archaeology
46(2):28–38.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edition. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1968) Matthew Effect in science. Science
159(3810):56–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossiter, M. W. (1993) The Matilda Effect of science. Social Studies of Science
23(2):325–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Defending normativism
Related commentaries (1)
Subtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking