Diversity, Ability, and Expertise in Epistemic Communities

Grim, Patrick; Singer, Daniel J.; Bramson, Aaron; Holman, Bennett; McGeehan, Sean; Berger, William J.

doi:10.1086/701070

Cited by 39 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among them, six studies identically agreed with the result that the DTA phenomenon is robust for problem-solving cases about highly unpredictable issues (Grim et al 2018; Holman et al 2018; Hong and Page 2004; Singer 2018; Thoma 2015; Weymark 2015). 7 The result held even when the definition of “experts” was altered from a problem-specific knowledge holder to a transportable knowledge holder (Grim et al 2018; Holman et al 2018). A modified ELM version also gave support to the DTA phenomenon holding only for a rugged landscape (Thoma 2015, 466).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 58%

Mathematical Models and Robustness Analysis in Epistemic Democracy: A Systematic Review of Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem Models

Sakai

2020

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to the revision of the procedure of robustness analysis of mathematical models in epistemic democracy using the systematic review method. It identifies the drawbacks of robustness analysis in epistemic democracy in terms of sample universality and inference from samples with the same results. To exemplify the effectiveness of systematic review, this article conducted a pilot review of diversity trumps ability theorem models, which are mathematical models of deliberation often cited by epistemic democrats. A review of nine models extracted from 352 papers exemplifies the effectiveness of robustness analysis supplemented by systematic review in epistemic democracy.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 58%

Mathematical Models and Robustness Analysis in Epistemic Democracy: A Systematic Review of Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem Models

Sakai

2020

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is also a substantial body of work that seeks effect modifiers to explain when diversity does and when it does not improve group performance (Bear and Woolley 2011; Guillaume et al 2017; Joshi, Liao, and Roh 2011; Smith-Doerr, Alegria, and Sacco 2017). Consequently, some object that BCD is exaggerated and oversimplified (Eagly 2016; Grim et al 2019).…”

Section: Two Business Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Closer Look at the Business Case for Diversity: The Tangled Web of Equity and Epistemic Benefits

Steel

Bolduc

2020

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the business case for diversity (BCD), according to which diversity should be promoted because diverse groups outperform nondiverse groups. Philosophers who defend BCD usually propose that diversity’s positive effects are contingent on equitable background conditions that promote respectful and open discourse, suggesting that efforts to promote equity and to reap the benefits of diversity go hand-in-hand. Yet we explain how epistemic benefits of diversity can depend on inequities, including inequalities of intellectual authority along the lines of social identity. Consequently, we propose a more complete account of the complex relationship between equity and epistemic benefits of diversity.

show abstract

“…Mathematical models use difference and differential equation to represent how populations change over time; computer simulations rely on simple update rules in discrete time steps to recreate the behavior of complex systems. This makes mathematical and computational models extremely illuminating tools to study a wide variety of phenomena that have traditionally puzzled philosophers, such as political organizations or the behavior of epistemic communities—for recent examples in these areas, see Bruner () and Grim et al ().…”

Section: Mathematical and Computational Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative methods in philosophy of language

Ventura

2019

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I survey and defend the use of quantitative methods in philosophy of language. Quantitative methods in philosophy of language include a wide variety of methods, ranging from model‐based techniques (computer simulations and mathematical models) to data‐driven approaches (experimental philosophy and corpus‐based studies). After offering a few case studies of these methodologies in action, I single out some debates in philosophy of language that are especially well served by their use. These are cases in which quantitative methods increase precision, improve the accuracy and reliability of results, and allow philosophers of language to borrow from other fields the best epistemic practices available. I conclude with some far‐reaching considerations about the role of qualitative and quantitative methods in debates about philosophical methodology.

show abstract

Diversity, Ability, and Expertise in Epistemic Communities

Cited by 39 publications

References 33 publications

Mathematical Models and Robustness Analysis in Epistemic Democracy: A Systematic Review of Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem Models

Mathematical Models and Robustness Analysis in Epistemic Democracy: A Systematic Review of Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem Models

A Closer Look at the Business Case for Diversity: The Tangled Web of Equity and Epistemic Benefits

Quantitative methods in philosophy of language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About