The Metrics of Ethics and the Ethics of Metrics

Abstract

Metrics shape our social worlds in many and more ways. Everyday quantifications of our preferences, our behaviors and our relationships, alter us and the institutions that we constitute. This essay takes a brief look at the metrics of business ethics through two analytic devices. Representation explains the notion that metrics can capture or demonstrate ethics (the metrics of ethics) and performativity explains the notion that metrics can shape or constitute ethics (the ethics of metrics). The analytic distinction between representation and performativity is obscured in practice when metrics become targets, indeed much of the social power of metrics comes from their use as targets. Hence, we should pay attention to the world of practice in which measuring and doing are entangled. However, we should not lose sight of the limitations of measurement and the possibility that there are areas of ethical life best left unmeasured.

Commensuration of health-care quality standards through hospital accreditation: from measurement weapon to management tool?

“…Prior examples regarding the detrimental effects of commensuration have recently stressed the relevance of investigating the ethics of quantification/metrics (Espeland and Yung, 2019; Islam, 2022; Islam and Greenwood, 2022; Järvinen et al , 2022; Mennicken and Espeland, 2019; Saltelli, 2020; Sareen et al , 2020) to better understand the ethical concerns and consequences of numbers/metrics involving social phenomena. Islam and Greenwood (2022) emphasise that metrics have an important “performativity” effect because they “can shape or constitute ethics” (p. 1), particularly in a business situation to recognise what metrics do and with what ethical implications, how different metrics permeate social contexts and who is included/excluded in the performativity process. Ethical matters are critical to reflect on the interplay between social control and governance through numbers strengthening how quantified surveillance consolidates power centralisation and remote management (Islam, 2022).…”

“…This process can misrepresent social decision-making as power and control are concentrated and information disclosure is frequently low (Islam, 2022). In contrast, higher visibility making numbers/metrics publicly available can trigger mobilisation and resistance actions from social groups challenging justice, moral and ethical choices (Islam and Greenwood, 2022). Thus, there is always an ethical facet to recognising losers/winners (Gerdin and Englund, 2019; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005) creating visibility relations that illuminate, obscure or even erase particular social phenomena and actors (Mennicken and Espeland, 2019; Sareen et al , 2020).…”

“…Thus, there is always an ethical facet to recognising losers/winners (Gerdin and Englund, 2019; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005) creating visibility relations that illuminate, obscure or even erase particular social phenomena and actors (Mennicken and Espeland, 2019; Sareen et al , 2020). The ethical implications of how social objects/settings shape and are shaped by quantification processes are an important area for further research (Islam and Greenwood, 2022; Järvinen et al , 2022) owing to the dominant relevance of numbers to express value in society (Saltelli, 2020).…”

“…Mutually reinforcing cycles of measurement and management supports organisational change and improved performance. Thirdly, we contribute to recent studies on the ethics of quantification (Espeland and Yung, 2019; Islam and Greenwood, 2022; Järvinen et al , 2022; Sareen et al , 2020) illustrating how mandatory HA systems have notable ethical implications. Numbers mediate power and control relationships between human and non-human actors changing social and political actions (Mennicken and Espeland, 2019) via an ethically laden process rooted in reduced visibility, under-representation and domination.…”

Understanding the social and political dimensions of research(er) assessment: Interpretative flexibility and hidden criteria

“…Moreover, decisions are also made by groups and individuals, and objectivity in decision-making is hence at risk from the social (Bornmann, Mutz, and Daniel 2007;Wennerås and Wold 1997;Ginther et al 2011;Teplitskiy et al 2018), political (Wennerås and Wold 1997;Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley 2015;Torrance 2016) and cognitive (Hom Jr. and Van Nuland 2019;East 2016;Juárez Ramos 2019) biases and preferences of evaluators. Furthermore, although reliance on quantitative indicators may have the veil of objectivity, they too are fundamentally affected by biases, either those baked into the metrics (Strathern 2000;Islam and Greenwood 2022), or those of the assessors using the metrics (Hammarfelt and Rushforth 2017). The case of gender inequality clearly conveys this.…”