16th Bacchus reading group
Grolleau, G., & Mzoughi, N. (2022). How research institutions can make the best of scandals–once they become unavoidable. Prometheus, 38(3), 282-291.
The whole article reminded oneself of the quote by the UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillian when asked what was the greatest challenge for a statesmen, to which he supposedly answered: “Events, my dear boy, events”
Which was a reference to the unpredictable nature of events, throwing off even the best made plans and requiring constant adjustment and vigilance
In general, the article seems somewhat undertheorized, both in relation to how it defines its problem formulation in relation to supercomplexity (i.e. instances that cannot be controlled) and adherence to moral frameworks (which are infringed by scandals).
In the sense, of what are the reasons for these circumstances, i.e. why they cannot be controlled. As well as, why do these specific normative judgments exist at all ?
In specific their objectivist and constructivist moral dichotomy is not well developed
Hint, the reason for moral objectivist values exist precisely as a function to deal with supercompelxity
An interesting insights, was their constructivist take upon the nature of scandals. In the sense, that they ascertained that it needed a confluence of different factors for a scandal to erupt.
An infringement of a moral framework was only one ingredient, others were media coverage, a reasons for others to bring attention to it as well as public resonance for the incident.
The article struggled very hard, not to appear as opportunistic. As they mentioned several times that they do not wish for scandals.
Yet they did acknowledge that scandals create opportunities as individuals need to act in times of crisis makes people more prone to act in relation to quite the scandal rather than any long-term deliberations
They did not really focus on how messy some scandals can become, especially in relation to sorting out what was and was not a moral transgression and how personal and vicious such conflicts can become
They did discuss the reputational cost to institutions, but not the individual cost for both whistle-blowers and gatekeepers
The framing, that every scandal also represents a “learning opportunity” in and of itself, is sometimes used as a justification for quieting down scandals, and not so much addressing the underlying problem per se.
In terms of constructive suggestions, to be pre-emptive and re-building trust after scandals they mentioned
That journals could devote space to negative findings
That the institution keeps an internal memory of transgressions, that can be used as both pedagogical examples and in order to update processes.
They largely omitted wider discussions of post-truth, and the unintended increase in bureaucracy that some of their own solutions cause (which become the pre-condtion for future scandals).
