Epistemic corruption and the research impact agenda

Abstract

Contemporary epistemologists of education have raised concerns about the distorting effects of some of the processes and structures of contemporary academia on the epistemic practice and character of academic researchers. Such concerns have been articulated using the concept of epistemic corruption. In this article, we lend credibility to these theoretically motivated concerns using the example of the research impact agenda during the period 2012–2014. Interview data from UK and Australian academics confirm that the impact agenda system, at its inception, facilitated the development and exercise of epistemic vices. As well as vindicating theoretically motivated claims about epistemic corruption, inclusion of empirical methods and material can help us put the concept to work in ongoing critical scrutiny of evolving forms of the research impact agenda.

Addressing Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment in Public Advocacy and Policy Making on CRISPR/Cas-Based Human Genome Editing

“…Yet, it is plausible to assume that the mechanisms described in section A plea for caution constitute a more general issue, which is similar to what James Kidd described in a series of publications as “epistemic corruption” (Kidd, 2015 , 2019 , 2020 ; Biddle et al, 2017 , p. 172–173). Kidd's version of the concept of epistemic corruption describes the phenomenon that “[…] damage [is] done to people's epistemic character by their subjection to conditions or processes that erode epistemic virtues such as curiosity and thoughtfulness and facilitate the epistemic vices like dogmatism or closedmindedness” (Kidd et al, 2021 , p. 152). Kidd primarily focusses on epistemic corruption in academic education and is generally concerned with a loss of epistemic virtues in professional agents.…”

All power to the reviewers: British sociology under two-level supervision of the Research Excellence Framework

“…We see quantitative research and (Campbell, 1976) and its relation to the two-level supervision and power relations, we recognize that research conducted by these departments does not abandon topics not covered by those criteria (see Gruber, 2014;Hazelkorn, 2011), but actively defines those criteria. These, in turn, are known by scholars and heads of departments so that they are enabled to rely on their 'outstanding' research, while other departments must tailor their submissions to the criteria of RAE/REF expert panels, and the way they present their research in line with Kidd et al (2021) and Thorpe et al (2018). At the same time, symbolically dominated departments must probe what kind of research and research topics meet the taste of the RAE/REF expert panels and is thus being funded by them.…”

“…Under this regime of two-level supervision, scholars must develop strategies such as exaggerating findings, selective reporting, tailoring research toward the needs of funding agencies, selective curiosity, and nimble knowledge production (Hoffman, 2020; Kidd et al, 2021). Furthermore, they must produce usable knowledge for stakeholders outside the academic field.…”

“…Despite the REF’s, RAE’s, and RSE’s aim to improve the competitiveness of the UK research system (Tight, 2019), no substantial improvements were found in previous studies. Instead, the REF and RAE have promoted gaming the system strategies which have led to close-mindedness, over-exaggeration of research findings and their importance to stakeholders (Kidd et al, 2021), rising inequality among universities (Münch and Schäfer, 2014), and a loss of research autonomy (Schäfer, 2018).…”

“…Despite the plethora of research on the impact of the REF and other research assessments on research funding, academic freedom, publication practices, and impact measurements (Hamann, 2016;Hazelkorn, 2011;Hazelkorn and Gibson, 2018;Kidd et al, 2021;McNay, 2007McNay, , 2022Pinar and Unlu, 2020;Thorpe et al, 2018;Watermeyer and Chubb, 2019;Watermeyer and Hedgecoe, 2016;Weinstein et al, 2021), there is little research on their impact on research diversity and topics covered by participating institutions. If available, research is mostly restricted to management and business research (Lee et al, 2013;Stockhammer et al, 2021;Tourish and Willmott, 2015).…”