The Social Epistemology of Consensus and Dissent

Miller, Boaz

doi:10.4324/9781315717937-23

Cited by 25 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conceptually, this work bridges consensus research in science communication, which focuses on the public communication of science (1,(33)(34)(35), science and technology studies, which focuses on how consensus is constructed and then understood by both scientists and the public (36)(37)(38), and the science of science, which focuses on consensus formation through citational networks (39)(40)(41)(42). We focus on the role of formal (government health bulletins) and informal (anonymous viral Twitter posts) science communication.…”

Section: Science Communication During a Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective and deceptive citation in the construction of dueling consensuses

Beers,

Nguyễn,

Starbird

et al. 2023

Sci. Adv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to study science communication and, in particular, the transmission of consensus. In this study, we show how “science communicators,” writ large to include both mainstream science journalists and practiced conspiracy theorists, transform scientific evidence into two dueling consensuses using the effectiveness of masks as a case study. We do this by compiling one of the largest, hand-coded citation datasets of cross-medium science communication, derived from 5 million Twitter posts of people discussing masks. We find that science communicators selectively uplift certain published works while denigrating others to create bodies of evidence that support and oppose masks, respectively. Anti-mask communicators in particular often use selective and deceptive quotation of scientific work and criticize opposing science more than pro-mask communicators. Our findings have implications for scientists, science communicators, and scientific publishers, whose systems of sharing (and correcting) knowledge are highly vulnerable to what we term adversarial science communication.

show abstract

Section: Science Communication During a Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective and deceptive citation in the construction of dueling consensuses

Beers,

Nguyễn,

Starbird

et al. 2023

Sci. Adv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paradigms are notoriously self-reinforcing and difficult to change (Kuhn, 2012) even though the consensus is also not always valid. Dissent is, thus, critical to identifying new discoveries and insights and exposing empirical and conceptual anomalies; however, dissent can also be manufactured and detrimental and as such, requires thorough evaluation (Miller, 2019). Cyert, March and Simon embodied this perspective when they identified that many aspects of decision-making and behavior in organizations could not be handled within the neoclassical paradigm.…”

Section: Closingmentioning

confidence: 99%

March-ing to the beat of a Maverick Drummer: insights from John Boyd to inform behavioral perspectives

Augier

Barrett

2021

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of James G. March’s key ideas and extend and integrate them with the works and ideas of John Boyd, whose work is highly relevant to, yet neglected by, behavioral and evolutionary perspectives on decision-making, organizations and strategy. Design/methodology/approach This paper integrates and synthesizes ideas in behavioral organization studies with those of John Boyd. Findings The authors suggest that when integrated, Boydian and Marchian ideas can enrich the understanding of particular ideas and mechanisms identified in behavioral organization studies and help broaden the intellectual and interdisciplinary range of the field in consonance with March’s vision for it. Originality/value The authors combine and integrate ideas central to the field of organization studies with those of an “outsider.”

show abstract

“…Thus, according to hybrid theorists of consensus and dissent, the Delphi method meets the three conditions that ensure shared knowledge as the best explanation for a consensus. These conditions are social calibration, apparent consilience of evidence and social diversity (Miller, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the Core Indicators of Migrant and Refugee Children’s Integration Using the Delphi Method: A Multi-Input Strategy for Definition of Consensus

Marcos

Ordóñez-Carabaño

Herrera

et al. 2023

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the Delphi methodology employed to select a final dashboard of 30 indicators on the socio-educative inclusion of refugee and migrant children in Europe. Firstly, a procedure for identifying Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) was carried out, including a specialized scientific literature review, the mapping of previous indicators, and qualitative workshops with key stakeholders at micro, meso, and macro levels in six countries. Then, a Delphi design was implemented to assess, rate, and provide meaningful qualitative improvements to a pool of pre-selected indicators. The Delphi methodology involved a group of international experts on the matters of inclusive education or migration, researchers, NGOs, and public officers. As an alternative to traditional "benchmark-based" consensus, we introduced the use of a) the CARA model and b) an alternative multi-input and mixed-method consensus-building procedure. The results provided a significant contribution to qualitative methods on the one hand and to migration and integration literature on the other. The methodological innovations, the diversity of experts' perspectives involved in the process, and the structured nature of the method constituted significant advantages to improve the robustness of the Delphi methodology for selecting and validating indicators. Future research involving a Delphi methodology can benefit from applying the present procedure.

show abstract

The Social Epistemology of Consensus and Dissent

Cited by 25 publications

References 28 publications

Selective and deceptive citation in the construction of dueling consensuses

Selective and deceptive citation in the construction of dueling consensuses

March-ing to the beat of a Maverick Drummer: insights from John Boyd to inform behavioral perspectives

Identifying the Core Indicators of Migrant and Refugee Children’s Integration Using the Delphi Method: A Multi-Input Strategy for Definition of Consensus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About