Suchergebnisse

AbstractSome debates about the role of non-epistemic values in science discuss the so-called Value-Free Ideal together with the autonomy thesis, to the point that they may be assumed to be intertwined. As I will argue in this article, the two are independent from one another, are supported by different arguments, and ought to be disentangled. I will also show that the arguments against value-freedom and supporting a value-laden conception of science, are different from the arguments against autonomy, which support democratized science. Moreover, while some of the arguments against autonomy and for democratized science may actually be consistent with value-freedom, they conflict with some philosophical views about the internal diversity of well-designed epistemic communities. This article distinguishes the Value-Free Ideal and the autonomy thesis, as well as their antitheses, and investigates their relations to some of the socio-epistemological models of the social organization of scientific research. Its aim is to make explicit some incompatibilities between different normative frameworks developed in philosophy of science.

It is likely that gene editing technologies will become viable in the current century. As scientists uncover the genetic contribution to personality traits and cognitive styles, parents will face hard choices. Some of these choices will involve trade‐offs from the standpoint of the individual's welfare, while others will involve trade‐offs between what is best for each and what is good for all. Although we think we should generally defer to the informed choices of parents about what kinds of children to create, we argue that decisions to manipulate polygenic psychological traits will be much more ethically complicated than choosing Mendelian traits like blood type. We end by defending the principle of regulatory parsimony, which holds that when legislation is necessary to prevent serious harms, we should aim for simple rules that apply to all, rather than micro‐managing parental choices that shape the traits of their children. While we focus on embryo selection and gene editing, our arguments apply to all powerful technologies which influence the development of children.

It is likely that gene editing technologies will become viable in the current century. As scientists uncover the genetic contribution to personality traits and cognitive styles, parents will face hard choices. Some of these choices will involve trade‐offs from the standpoint of the individual's welfare, while others will involve trade‐offs between what is best for each and what is good for all. Although we think we should generally defer to the informed choices of parents about what kinds of children to create, we argue that decisions to manipulate polygenic psychological traits will be much more ethically complicated than choosing Mendelian traits like blood type. We end by defending the principle of regulatory parsimony, which holds that when legislation is necessary to prevent serious harms, we should aim for simple rules that apply to all, rather than micro‐managing parental choices that shape the traits of their children. While we focus on embryo selection and gene editing, our arguments apply to all powerful technologies which influence the development of children.

Effects of diversity in team members' rational and intuitive cognitive styles on team outcomes were investigated in a moderated-mediation model, exploring conflict management as a moderator and cohesion as a mediator. The negative effects of diversity on cohesion were moderated by conflict management, such that diversity harmed cohesion when conflict management was low but had no effect when conflict management was high. Cohesion mediated the relationship between the interaction of cognitive diversity and conflict management on team viability but not task performance. Implications for practice include promoting cognitive diversity and conflict management training in diverse teams. Suggestions for future research include expanding the sample and utilizing causal research designs.

This study examines how group member beliefs regarding cognitive differences influence ability to create knowledge. Specifically, this study explores whether the impact of openness to cognitive diversity on knowledge creation is a result of associated collaborative behaviors. To investigate this theory, it is assessed whether the behaviors of debate and decision comprehensiveness mediate the relationship between openness to cognitive diversity and knowledge creation. The results of a survey of 98 workplace teams support the hypotheses that the impact of openness is consequent to the emergence of behavioral patterns that facilitate open and rigorous discussion and contribute to the understanding of the psychosocial and behavioral variables underpinning knowledge creation.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of the process of strategic planning on cohesiveness and performance in cognitively diverse units.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze an original dataset collected from employees working in healthcare organizations in the United Sates.FindingsThis study finds the negative effects of cognitive differences among employees on a unit's cohesiveness and performance and the positive moderating effects of the process of strategic planning on such relationships. Consequently, revealing the cohesiveness enhancing function of the process of strategic planning.Originality/valueThe study contributes to past research by revealing that business organizations could use the process of strategic planning to enhance their internal cohesiveness, in turn improving their business performance. This study explains that when the process of planning clearly defines an organization's mission, goals and implementation plans, employees working in highly diverse units will be more likely to better understand, accept and in turn also support their organization as a whole and its critical strategic goals. This should increase internal cohesiveness and lead leading to better performance.