Abstract
Economists, and more broadly – scientists who want their work to benefit specific communities or all of humanity – must pay attention to the role they play in public debate. An inadequate approach may result in the instrumental use of science and its politicisation. The article analyses two approaches regarding the role of the researcher in contemporary public debate. N. Taleb’s concept of a researcher with “skin in the game” and R. Pielke’s approach promoting the model of the so-called “honest broker”. Since these two approaches are partially contradictory, the aim of the article was to highlight the existing contradictions and to work out a compromise position that can be described as an “honest broker with skin in the game”. A study conducted using content analysis showed that (1) researchers should actively engage in the public popularisation of their works and proactively influence decision-makers related to their area of expertise, (2) in certain social sciences (characterised by a low level of uncertainty) – the responsibility of the researcher should be higher. It means that its exposure to the risk related to the consequences of false recommendations or bad predictions – should be higher. This issue is important in the context of the effectiveness of researchers’ involvement in policymaking, especially in a controversial area such as income distribution.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.