Professor MacQueenPROFESSOR CALLEN
Extend Sabrina and Sable responses with additional examples about objectivity in science. What ideas did your peers present that you had not considered before.
I do not believe scientists and researchers can ever be fully objective during their work. Each person comes in with a different viewpoint, different values, and different expectations. Some even may enter research with pre-conceived ideas of what should or should not happen. Whereas they may all end up at the same conclusion, I do not think they all arrive there being completely objective. I personally think each person’s unique objectivity shines through in each discussion, research, experiment, and outcome.
I think human emotion will always play a part in each person’s professional life. Whether it be intentional or not. As much as scientists may want to separate their emotions from their research, it is inevitably bound to influence the outcome. If you look back at the TED Talk with Ilona Stengel, she states that during their research of OLED, they were told to scale back and begin to shut down the work they were doing. But during that time, when other scientists were leaving, there were still a few remaining, and “the dedication of the last scientist grew dramatically and a new, more intense team spirit formed” (Stengel, 2018.) Therefore, human emotions played a positive role at the end of this research as scientists pushed forward because they felt a connection to their work, and it meant something more to them.
no. Scientists can't even be 100% objective, but that does not stop them from trying to be as objective as possible. Of the resources provided in Module 3, I think what really put the words I was looking for to this answer was the first video titled Karl Popper, Science, & Pseudoscience: Crash Course in Philosophy #8. (Karl Popper, Science, & Pseudoscience: Crash Course Philosophy #8, 2022) This video discusses the ideas presented by Karl Popper as he observed scientist Albert Einstein and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. The idea presented was that science is a method of which we use to disprove hypotheses to strengthen our knowledge and get that much closer to the truth. Pseudoscience is a method of which we use to prove hypotheses to confirm our own beliefs and ideas, regardless of if they are scientifically true. These concepts imply, from what I can infer at least, that objectivity in science is not easy, and might not always be the goal. With the ideas presented in that video as well as ideas presented in the article Sorry Mr. Spock: Science and Emotions are Not Only Compatible, They're Inseparable (Ellerton and Brown, 2022) lead me to believe that we might want to have some sort of opinion or a little under complete objectivity going into science. Having those preconceived ideas can help us distinguish between what would disprove our hypotheses versus what would further prove our belief systems. Furthermore, the article mentioned discusses how science is based in wonder, from the beginning and throughout the entire process. So we need that emotional inspiration to be interested and entangled into the science itself. This means we can never truly be 100% objective as scientists, but it also means that it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Question 2: What might be the consequences or emotion in scientific research?
My favorite word: confirmation bias. From people scrolling through social media yelling about their political views to scientists researching new hypotheses and ideas, we all have a confirmation bias. Sometimes, it is not easy to see confirmation bias, which can make it harder to do objective research and collect data based on facts. For example, the saying “You can find anything on Google” when discussing factual concepts and ideas is very true. A personal story from my experience with confirmation bias comes from my aunt Sonja, who has a degree in biology. During the pandemic, and to this day, she is convinced that the vaccine has live COVID-19 in it and will cause infertility, brain damage, and has poison in it. Despite there being copious amount of scientific studies and research denying all of those claims, including studies sent to her directly from my aunt Tracy who has a career in biological sciences, she managed to go on to Google and find sources claiming that her claims were true, or sources that said that there was no way to know for sure what the consequences of the vaccine were. This is based around confirmation bias, or as Karl Popper would call it, pseudoscience. So, in response to the initial 2nd question, if you are not mindful of confirmation bias and your preconceived belief system, there can be consequences for your scientific research. What happened with my aunt Sonja is a good example of why we need to actively be aware of confirmation bias, because if all we do is look for things that confirm our beliefs, we may fail to scientifically prove anything at all. Trying to fight these biases and trying to be objective can help us work toward finding the facts, rather than finding what aligns with what we want things to be. However, on the flip side, knowing what your beliefs are and thinking of ways to disprove your beliefs can help lead to discoveries. As I mentioned in the first question response, finding ways to disprove certain ideas can help us deepen our knowledge and narrow down possibilities in order to confirm or deny certain hypotheses about the world around us. So I guess, in short, my answer is: it really depends on how your emotions and beliefs interact with your scientific research. If you follow confirmation bias, it can have a very negative effect. If you use the knowledge of your beliefs to try to find ways to disprove any confirmation bias, it can help lead to extraordinary discoveries.
RESPOND TO EVA AND JESSICA BE CONSTRUCTIVE AND PROFESSIONAL WITH RESPONSE
Why might someone with the highest skill level in an organization receive further training over an employee with lower skills?
One reason based on our reading and my experience is that employers focus on who already does this job and doesn't always take into consideration furthering training for employees who could potentially need it later. Part of this is due to cost of training. Training can be very expensive especially if its off site or hiring a particular person or group to teach it.
Second reason as stated as that lower skilled employee decline training. Some people only want a job. They are not looking for advancement or more responsibilities. They just want to clock in do the job and clock out. For some this maybe fine, but they don't necessarily consider what's happening in the future that the training could give them a skill that may keep them from being laid off etc. Lower skilled employees may lack the knowledge/education to see that way or maybe the employer doesn't present it in way for the employee to see the benefit for them.
The criteria that should be used is who needs the training based off of current job role, who could potentially move into that job role in the future, and if someone is actively wanting to better their knowledge I think employers should give those employees the opportunity, while balancing if the cost of those additions make sense financially for the company.
The biggest way to get lower skilled employees to participate in training is to present it in a way that they see the benefit in for them not just the company. Another could be bonuses or other small thank you gifts for taking the time to do it.
Those who have the highest skill levels are the ones often selected for further training, while disadvantaged employees, minorities, and individuals with low skill levels are the ones who either choose not to participate in training programs or are not selected by their companies.
Due to social problems regarding literacy and the fact that service and high-tech jobs are replacing lower-skilled jobs in the manufacturing field are two big factors as to why an employee who has the highest skill levels in an organization is most likely to receive further training versus an employee with lower-skilled levels.
It is quite alarming that an estimate of 30 million adults cannot perform the most basic literacy activities, this is according to the National Center of Education Statistics. Literacy in my opinion has a big role in contributing to the training of lower-skilled employees due to their lack of reading abilities, language barriers and communication issues, being able to perform computations, and even lacking the ability to search and use information related to up-to-date ever evolving changes in positions and economic impacts to the organization.
Training should be provided to those who have a knowledge or skills gap between what they should be able to do based on the competency model for their occupation versus what they can actually do based on their performance evaluation.
One way some organizations encourage lower-skilled employees to participate in training take the form of goals based off the employee's annual performance review and plan, public recognition, or even giving out monetary bonuses when skill thresholds are reached.
COMPLETE MODULE 3 ACTIVITY THAT IS ATTACH BELOW
- 25 days ago