research

Error message

Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /var/www/drupal-7.x/includes/menu.inc).

Council for European Studies conference, June 2021

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 20/10/2020 - 4:04am in

Tags 

News, research

Call for Papers: Panel on the politics of Universal Basic Income. What role for activism(s)? This Call for Papers (CFP) is interested in empirical studies that look at the social and political processes related to the growing interest in universal basic income (UBI), including recent pilot tests and experiments, their design and implementation, either at […]

We’re starting a new journal!

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/10/2020 - 4:27am in

Tags 

Academia, research

Does the world really need yet one more academic journal? It does when there is an unmet need for disseminating certain types of work. Andy Guess, Kevin Munger (two political scientists) and I (a communication scholar/sociologist) are starting the Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media (link to temp Web site while the permanent one gets set up). The journal publishes quantitative descriptive social science. It does not publish research that makes causal claims. Descriptive work can be very important and also very resource-intensive to produce, yet notoriously hard to publish in existing outlets. We want there to be an outlet where people can free up the tremendous amount of information residing on their machines from data sets they have collected, but that they don’t write up and disseminate, because there is currently no place to do so. Thus our journal. JQD:DM is an open-access no-fee publication (for at least the first two years, ideally indefinitely). Check out the journal site for more on the motivation and more thoughts from Kevin on where he sees it fitting into the scientific enterprise.

McKinsey publishes an article about the Finland experiment

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 28/09/2020 - 6:47pm in

Tags 

News, Opinion, research

McKinsey, the consultancy company, has published an article about the Finland Basic Income experiment. The final results from Finland’s experiment are nowin, and the findings are intriguing: the basic incomein Finland led to a small increase in employment,significantly boosted multiple measures of therecipients’ well-being, and reinforced positiveindividual and societal feedback loops. … As with any […]

A Norm for Self-Citation (guest post by Colin Klein)

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 24/09/2020 - 10:25pm in

“How to self-cite without giving away your identity? I’ve seen two ways of doing it over the years. One is great, and one is really frustrating. We should all stop doing the frustrating one.”

The following is a guest post* by Colin Klein, associate professor of philosophy at Australian National University.


[Jan van Eyck, “Portrait of Arnolfini and his Wife” (detail)]

A Norm for Self-Citation
by Colin Klein

Philosophers like to cite themselves. Reviewing standards in philosophy are extremely fussy about preserving anonymity of authors. This sets up a conflict: how to self-cite without giving away your identity? I’ve seen two ways of doing it over the years. One is great, and one is really frustrating. We should all stop doing the frustrating one.

Suppose my draft says “As I argue in Klein (2015), pains are imperatives”. To anonymize this, I could do two things:

1) “As Klein argues in his (2015), pains are imperatives”
2) “As I argue in my [Author paper], pains are imperatives”

The job of a reviewer is to determine whether a paper is fit for publication. Part of that job is determining whether the citations adequately support claims that are made. Option (1) lets me check the citations. That’s the good option. Option (2) doesn’t. Option (2) thus fails to give the minimal information a reviewer needs to do their job. That’s the bad option.

This is not hypothetical. I’ve seen some amazing things asserted using the mechanism of (2). Load-bearing claims. Preposterous claims. Without taking the author’s word on it (hint: I don’t), such papers are dead in the water.

You can do (1) poorly, of course. If I wrote “As Klein argues in his brilliant, under-appreciated 2015 masterpiece…” then you might have a clue to who I am. But you shouldn’t write like that anyway. If you’re writing in a small subfield, you might worry that that (1) gives clues to my identity. (How many people cite my 2015 uncritically? I suspect just me.) But neither (1) or (2) will help there: that’s a deeper problem about trying to preserve anonymity in small fields.

Indeed, that leads to a related problem with (2). If you know the topic, you’re going to wonder “Gee, this person writes about imperatives and pain, they should at least slag on Klein as part of due diligence.  Then you go to the bibliography and there’s no Klein. You might think that the author has overlooked an important part of the literature. Or you might readily—even inadvertently—infer that you’re dealing with a Klein manuscript. So (2) actually makes it easy to inadvertently reveal your identity. Again, I speak from experience here.

So here’s a proposal for a norm:

i. Are you self-citing because the thing you’re citing actually adds to the philosophical discourse? If so, treat it like any other citation, and remove information from the body of the draft’s text that suggests you are citing yourself.

ii. Are you self-citing to establish that you are one of the authors who believes the thing, thereby staking out philosophical turf? You can probably get by with just putting in a third-person citation. But if you worry, then don’t put a citation at all. Add it in the final stages if it gets accepted. The reason we care about anonymity in reviewing is that we ought to be able to evaluate the quality of a paper without knowing who wrote it and whose philosophical career will be advanced by its publication. So staking your claim can come after review.

iii. Are you worried because you’re responding to somebody who is attacking you and it’s really hard to write in the third person about yourself without giving away clues to your identity? Honestly, I think editors need to step up here and admit that this happens and there’s no sensible way in which these kinds of papers can preserve anonymity. But in any case, there’s nothing you can do, so you might as well do (1), because (2) is going to make your paper unreadable.

iv. Are you self-citing for some other reason? Don’t. There are no other good reasons.

Discussion welcome.

The post A Norm for Self-Citation (guest post by Colin Klein) appeared first on Daily Nous.

China: An Undergraduate Academic Seminar Held in CUPL

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 24/09/2020 - 6:34am in

Tags 

research

The news is written by Chen Xixi and modified by Furui cheng In the ‘International Basic Income Week’, we three sophomores in CUPL (China University of Political Science and Law) organized an online feature academic report about basic income with Furui Cheng, our academic tutor, on September 13, 2020. The participants included some juniors and […]

New research on the Kenya pilot project

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 16/09/2020 - 7:52pm in

Tags 

News, research

Innovations for Poverty Action has published a research paper, ‘Effects of a Universal Basic Income During the Pandemic’. We examine some effects of Universal Basic Income (UBI) during the COVID-19 pandemic using a large-scale experiment in rural Kenya. Transfers significantly improved well-being on common measures such as hunger, sickness and depression in spite of the […]

A thesis about trade unions and Basic Income

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 16/09/2020 - 5:51am in

Tags 

research

Luca Michele Cigna has written a master’s degree thesis about trade unions’ positions on Basic income: Looking for a North Star? Trade unions’ positions in the Universal Basic Income debate First, unions’ propensity to support a UBI depends onthe degrees of socio-economic insecurity. In contexts characterised by high levels of poverty,unemployment and precariousness, UBI proposals […]

2020 Korea Basic Income Fair International Conference

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 14/09/2020 - 5:51am in

The original plan was for an international conference in Korea in February 2020, but the coronavirus pandemic caused the event to be postponed. An international conference has now been held online, and a wide range of speakers and discussants from around the world have contributed. Session 1 was on ‘steppingstones to Basic Income: pilots and […]

Launch of the new Bank of England Agenda for Research

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/09/2020 - 7:40pm in

Today the Bank launched the new ‘Bank of England Agenda for Research’ setting out the key areas for new research over the coming years and a set of priority topics for 2021.  The agenda is available on the Bank’s website here. Belinda Tracey, Managing Editor

$4.4 Million Grant for Philosophical Exploration of Honesty

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 25/08/2020 - 12:58am in

Christian B. Miller, the A. C. Reid Professor of Philosophy at Wake Forest University, and a team of researchers, have been awarded a $4.4 million grant for his “Honesty Project.”


[Jacob Jordaens, “Diogenes Searching for an Honest Man”]

The Honesty Project brings philosophy together with psychology, as well as business, economics and political science, to focus on five main questions about honesty:

  • What is the definition and value of honesty? What are the behavioral and motivational requirements for being honest or exceptionally so?
  • To what extent are people honest? How does this vary by culture?
  • What contextual and internal factors encourage honesty and shape its development in individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions?
  • What are the consequences of honesty and dishonesty for relationships, groups, organizations, and institutions?
  • Under what conditions is dishonesty justified, if any? What factors lead people to be receptive to or offended by honesty?

The grant, awarded by the John Templeton Foundation, is the largest grant ever awarded to the humanities at Wake Forest University. It will support research projects, conferences, seminars, and research competitions in philosophy and science. You can learn more about it here.

The post $4.4 Million Grant for Philosophical Exploration of Honesty appeared first on Daily Nous.

Pages