Advertisement

De ongegronde eis tot consensus in de methodologie

  • Maarten Speekenbrink
Artikelen
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Het idee dat in de wetenschap naar unanieme consensus dient te worden gestreefd, zoals verwoord door Ziman en De Groot, blijkt moeilijk te onderbouwen. Indien de consensusimperatief enige grond heeft, dient consensus een wetenschappelijk doel, middel, of criterium te vormen. Consensus voldoet niet aan deze voorwaarde. Bij een doel van rationele consensus is het rationeel handelen van de betrokken partijen van primair belang, het bereiken van overeenstemming heeft daarnaast weinig waarde. Uit psychologisch onderzoek blijkt een consensusnorm een slechter middel tot het verbeteren van beslissingen en oordelen dan een norm van rationele onenigheid. Als waarheidsdefinitie en als epistemisch criterium kent consensus ernstige bezwaren. Zo mag een consensuscriterium, om haar mogelijke indicatieve waarde te behouden, niet daadwerkelijk toegepast worden. Om deze redenen heeft consensus geen plaats in een normatieve methodologie.

Notes

Literatuur

  1. Bliese, P.D., & Halverson, R.R. (1998). Group consensus and psychological well-being: A large field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 563-580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bower, J.L. (1965). Group decision making: A report of an experimental study. Behavioral Science, 10, 277-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feyerabend, P. (1974). Consolidations for the specialist. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 197-230). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fine, A. (1996). Science made up: Constructivist sociology of scientific knowledge. In P. Galison & D.J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science (pp. 231-254). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gergen, K.J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groot, A.D. de (1961). Methodologie: Grondslagen van onderzoek en denken in de gedragswetenschappen. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
  10. Groot, A.D. de (1971). Een minimale methodologie op sociaal-wetenschappelijke basis. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
  11. Groot, A.D. de (1977). Gevraagd: forum-convergentie inzake begrips-, theorie- en besluitvorming. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 32, 219-241.Google Scholar
  12. Groot, A.D. de (1982). Academie en forum: over hoger onderwijs en wetenschap. Meppel: Boom.Google Scholar
  13. Groot, A.D. de (1990). Unifying psychology: A European view. New Ideas in Psychology, 8, 309-320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heerden, J. van (1980). De overbodige strijd om unanimiteit. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 5, 35-39.Google Scholar
  16. Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hibberd, F.J. (2001). Gergen’s social constructionism, logical positivism and the continuity of error, Pt. 1. Conventionalism. Theory and Psychology, 11, 297-321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill, G.W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holloman, C.R., & Hendrick, H.W. (1972). Adequacy of group decisions as a function of the decision-making process. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 175-184.Google Scholar
  20. Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  21. Katzenstein, G. (1996). The debate on structured debate: Toward a unified theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 316-332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knorr Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 140-166). Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T.S. (1974). Reflections on my critics. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 231-278). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method, and evidence. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  28. Laughlin, P.R., Bonner, B.L., & Miner, A.G. (2002). Groups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 605-620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine, J.M. & Thompson, L. (1996). Conflict in groups. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 745-776). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Liebrucks, A. (2001). The concept of social construction. Theory and Psychology, 11, 363-391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, C.E. (1989). The social psychological effects of group decision rules. In P.B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.) (pp. 327-355). Hillsdale, nj: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson, A. (1994). How could scientific facts be socially constructed? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25, 535-547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orive, R. (1988). Group consensus, action immediacy, and opinion confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 573-577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poincaré, H. (1979). Wetenschap en hypothese. Meppel: Boom.Google Scholar
  36. Popper, K. (1974). Normal science and its dangers. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 51-58). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  38. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918-930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rescher, N. (1993). Pluralism: Against the demand for consensus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sorkin, R.D., West, R., & Robinson, D.E. (1998). Group performance depends on the majority rule. Psychological Science, 9, 456-463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stasson, M.F., Kameda, T., Parks, C.D., Zimmerman, S.K., & Davis, J.H. (1991). Effects of assigned group consensus requirement on group problem solving and group members’ learning. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 25-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wittenbaum, G.M., & Park, E.S. (2001). The collective preference for shared information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 70-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations