Magnet.me - Het slimme netwerk waarop hbo‑ en wo‑studenten hun baan of stage vinden.
Het slimme netwerk waarop hbo‑ en wo‑studenten hun baan of stage vinden.
Je carrière begint op Magnet.me
Maak een profiel aan en ontvang slimme aanbevelingen op basis van je gelikete vacatures.
Science communication often involves hyped, overly broad claims about research findings. What are the causes, social epistemological risks, and who’s responsible? In this PhD project, you will be researching these questions.
We are offering a fully funded four-year PhD position to a researcher interested in philosophically and experimentally investigating scientific hype, i.e., the phenomenon that occurs when scientists ‘oversell’, exaggerate, or overgeneralise findings (e.g., to untested populations) when communicating their research to other scientists or the public. This phenomenon has important implications for the social epistemology and ethics of science, as it may involve deception, corrode people’s trust in science, and contribute to failures of scientific replicability. However, scientific hype may also have yet unexplored benefits.
As part of the PhD project, you will develop methods to identify scientific hype, focusing specifically on overgeneralisations expressed in the use of generics, i.e., unquantified generalizations (e.g., ‘People with OCD benefit from CBT’). Generics suggest that a claim has a universal scope. Yet, studies show that they are often used in science communication when the reported research does not support such broad claims. You will explore to what extent generics are used in science communication across scientific disciplines, when exactly they are instances of unwarranted scientific hype, why they are used in science communication, and what the resulting epistemic and ethical costs and benefits may be.
Relatedly, while generics may communicate universal generalisations, it is unclear whether scientists take them to have a more restricted meaning than laypeople would do, thus potentially raising different epistemic and ethical risks in scientist-to-scientist compared to scientist-to-public communication. You will investigate the semantics of scientific generics and (together with other researchers) conduct psychological experiments to examine cognitive differences in the processing of generics between scientists and laypeople.
Moreover, since scientific evaluation and reward systems aim to promote the ‘relevance’ and ‘generalisability’ of research findings and generics communicate these features, generics use may inadvertently be incentivised by scientific institutions, as scientists can gain competitive advantages from using them over more accurate claims. However, the interplay between psychological and social/institutional factors in driving problematic generics use and scientific hype remains underexplored, leaving it unclear who is responsible for the harm that may result. You will examine the relevant social dynamics (e.g., through simulation and experimental studies) and help develop interventions and a normative framework to counteract problematic cases of scientific overgeneralisations.
To apply for this position, you need to have a Master’s degree in philosophy, or in a related field such as psychology, cognitive science, social sciences, communication studies, or linguistics.
Useful interests and/or skills for this position include:
We offer:
We work on a better future. In order to do that, we join forces with academics, students, alumni, social partners, the government and the corporate world. Together, we look for sustainable solutions to the big challenges of today and tomorrow.
Resources:
Change language to: English
Deze pagina is geoptimaliseerd voor mensen uit Nederland. Bekijk de versie geoptimaliseerd voor mensen uit het Verenigd Koninkrijk.