The credit incentive to be a maverick

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76 (C):5-12 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There is a commonly made distinction between two types of scientists: risk-taking, trailblazing mavericks and detail-oriented followers. A number of recent papers have discussed the question what a desirable mixture of mavericks and followers looks like. Answering this question is most useful if a scientific community can be steered toward such a desirable mixture. One attractive route is through credit incentives: manipulating rewards so that reward-seeking scientists are likely to form the desired mixture of their own accord. Here I argue that this idea is less straightforward than it may seem. Interpreting mavericks as scientists who prioritize rewards over speed and risk, I show in a deliberatively simple model that there is a fixed mixture which is not particularly likely to be desirable and which credit incentives cannot alter. I consider a way around this result, but this has some major drawbacks. I conclude that credit incentives are not as promising a way to create a desirable mixture of mavericks and followers as one might have thought.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science.Michael Strevens - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (2):159-170.
Taking Credit.William J. Graham & William H. Cooper - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 115 (2):403-425.
Seven Arguments Against Extra Credit.Christopher Pynes - 2014 - Teaching Philosophy 37 (2):191-214.
Communism and the Incentive to Share in Science.Remco Heesen - 2017 - Philosophy of Science 84 (4):698-716.
Knowledge and credit.Jennifer Lackey - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 142 (1):27 - 42.
Risk Sensitive Credit.Maura Priest - 2019 - Erkenntnis 84 (3):703-726.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-09-27

Downloads
922 (#61,497)

6 months
154 (#81,689)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Remco Heesen
London School of Economics

Citations of this work

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
Cumulative Advantage and the Incentive to Commit Fraud in Science.Remco Heesen - 2024 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 75 (3):561-586.
Formal models of the scientific community and the value-ladenness of science.Vincenzo Politi - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (4):1-23.
Jump ship, shift gears, or just keep on chugging: Assessing the responses to tensions between theory and evidence in contemporary cosmology.Siska De Baerdemaeker & Nora Mills Boyd - 2020 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 72 (C):205-216.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Otto Neurath.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Ian Hacking.
The methodology of scientific research programmes.Imre Lakatos - 1978 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by John Worrall & Gregory Currie.
Against method.Paul Feyerabend - 1993 - London: New Left Books.
The structure of scientific revolutions.Thomas Kuhn - 1996 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

View all 29 references / Add more references