tint Perspectives on Science seminar

5.11. Perspectives on Science seminar: Ahmad Elabbar

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Ahmad Elabbar (University of Cambridge) will give a talk titled “Trusting scientific advisors as epistemic curators: from error to attention”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Tuesday the 5th of November 2024. To join the seminar, please contact jessica.north@helsinki.fi for the location or Zoom invitation.

Perspectives on Science is a research seminar which brings together experts from the philosophy of science and several fields of science studies. It is organized by TINT – Centre for Philosophy of Social Science at the University of Helsinki. More information about the seminar can be found on the TINT web page https://tint.helsinki.fi.

Abstract:

Scientific advice plays a key role in shaping public policy. In light of its influence, and the growing realisation among philosophers of the depth of value-ladenness in science, the literature on epistemic trust in science has recently flourished. Yet, despite its richness, work on epistemic trust in science remains ‘error-centric’: epistemic trust in science is understood in terms of the reliability of inquiry, epistemic risk, and expert disagreement, among other related notions that centre on error. In this talk, I argue for expanding accounts of epistemic trust in science away from error towards attention. Building on an account of scientific advice as ‘epistemic curation’, and a case study of the IPCC’s assessment of the collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet, I argue trusting scientific advisors as epistemic curators requires more than what error-centric accounts presume. In particular, it requires that we look beyond questions of reliability and error-management towards the fair distribution of attention.

Author bio:

Ahmad Elabbar completed a PhD in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge in 2024. His thesis developed a framework of distributive epistemic justice for global climate assessment. He is currently the Adrian Research Fellow in Environmental Humanities at Darwin College, Cambridge, where he will continue working on the distribution of climate science. He is interested in the ethics and politics of science more broadly, and in bringing perspectives from political theory into the social epistemology of science and values-in-science literatures.

tint blog post, In English

Competency assessment tests in the application process for salaried PhD positions do not promote fairness, objectivity, or transparency / Inkeri Koskinen & Päivi Seppälä

The University of Helsinki has started using epistemically opaque competency assessment tests sold by a private recruitment company in the application process for salaried PhD positions. This does not promote fairness, objectivity, or transparency. It also goes against the principles of responsible researcher evaluation.

The University of Helsinki has renewed its application process for salaried PhD positions. This change affects both the PhD students applying for over 100 paid four-year doctoral positions, and the ones applying for 236 three-year positions in the doctoral training pilot. (University of Helsinki, Flamma News 3.10.2024). The renewed process has an element that has raised concerns in the academic community. Each applicant must now complete a series of online competency assessment tests. One test is claimed to assess the personality of the applicant, while others are meant to evaluate verbal and mathematical skills. 

The University of Helsinki purchases these tests from AON, an international company that develops and sells recruitment-related assessment services. The overall goal of the revised application process is to improve efficiency and to “ensure a fair and objective assessment of applicants in large numbers of applicants, as well as to ensure transparency and consistency in recruitment processes” (University of Helsinki, 2024, Flamma News 3.10.2024). We share the concerns of many in our community: the use of these tests does not promote fairness, objectivity, or transparency. 

Psychometric tests in recruitment

Psychometric testing has been a mainstream recruitment trend for decades (Searle & Al-Sharif, 2018). During the 20th century, psychometric testing was developed to meet the needs of educational institutions, the military, and companies recruiting employees. The guiding values in the development of psychometric testing have been objectivity, fairness, and utility (Wijsen et al., 2020).

Given the significance of psychometric testing in modern societies, it is unsurprising that the concepts of objectivity and fairness are cited as motivators for introducing psychometric assessments at the University of Helsinki. However, the doctoral school responsible for the new application process has not clearly defined what is meant by the “objective” and “fair” processes that are supposed to add to the “transparency” of the selection process. Our aim is to clarify these terms based on our previous and ongoing research. Unfortunately, this clarity does not alleviate the concerns raised by University of Helsinki researchers and students. On the contrary, shedding light on these concepts reveals central problems in the use of psychometric testing.

The concepts of objectivity and fairness in psychometric testing

In psychometric testing, “psychometric objectivity” (Seppälä & Małecka, 2024) refers to the aspiration to eliminate personal judgement from the assessment of personality and skills, ensuring that test results do not vary depending on the person conducting the measurement (Wijsen et al., 2020). This form of objectivity aligns with the notion of meritocratic fairness, which holds that the most qualified individuals should receive the greatest rewards (Wijsen et al., 2020) — in this case, the salaried PhD positions. In psychometrics, fairness has often been operationalized as developing methods to ensure that similar individuals are treated similarly (Wijsen et al., 2020). 

However, meritocratic notions of objectivity and fairness have long been criticised for neglecting fairness of outcomes, particularly across demographic groups (Seppälä & Małecka, 2024). Socioeconomic backgrounds shape individuals’ skills and motivation, and these backgrounds are unequally distributed among groups. For example, parental academic background influences young adults’ higher education choices in Finland, although the effect is smaller than the OECD average (OECD, 2024). Therefore, meritocratically fair and objective procedures produce outcomes that sustain inequalities between groups (Au, 2016; Sandel, 2020). In other words, tests that strive for “psychometric objectivity” are inefficient tools if the aim is the fair treatment of demographic groups.

The use of such tests can also heighten discrimination against some groups. When “psychometric objectivity” is sought by using standardised tests with time limits, there is a significant risk of discriminating against many minorities, such as neurodivergent people. For instance, in the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation has recently appealed to the Federal Trade Commission, claiming that AON’s personnel assessment products discriminate against individuals based on disability, health status, and ethnic background. Regarding the ADEPT-15 test used by the University of Helsinki, the complaint states the following:

Algorithmically driven Adaptive Employee Personality Test (“ADEPT-15”) adversely impacts autistic people, otherwise neurodivergent people, and people with mental health disabilities such as depression and anxiety because it tests for characteristics that are close proxies of their disabilities – characteristics which are likely not necessary for essential job functions for most positions – and their disabilities are likely to significantly impact the scores they receive for those characteristics. (ACLU 2024.)

Competency assessment tests do not promote fairness 

“Fair” methods may be “fairer” to some groups than others (Rios & Cohen, 2023), as they sustain inequalities between social groups, and may heighten discrimination against some groups. This does not sound fair. But how then should we understand fairness? 

Luckily, the University of Helsinki is committed to a relatively clear characterisation of fairness. Fairness in researcher evaluation means, among other things, that “[c]haracteristics or circumstances associated with persons being evaluated or people close to them that are irrelevant to the objective of the evaluation must not be used as evaluation criteria.” (University of Helsinki: Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher.)

The use of a personality test in recruitment requires choosing a set of personality traits that are sought, and others that are not. We have tried to ask how these personality traits have been chosen in the case at hand, and whether AON took part in the choosing process, but so far have not received an answer.

There is an ongoing discussion about whether personality tests – even the best ones – are able to predict job performance (Zell & Lesick 2021). But we are not talking about typical jobs here: we are talking about academia. It is doubtful that there are any personality traits that would be beneficial in all academic fields. Nor does it seem plausible that there would be any personality traits that might not be useful in some academic field. And it is quite likely that there are academic fields where the personality traits of a researcher do not matter at all. Therefore, using a personality test in the application process for salaried PhD positions means using characteristics associated with persons being evaluated that are irrelevant to the objective of the evaluation. By the definition accepted by the University of Helsinki, this is unfair.

But even more worryingly, it is highly questionable whether any personality traits of an individual, or even their competencies, can be reliably recognised by the means of any kind of an online test without combining it with a personal interview with a trained professional such as a psychologist. The Finnish Psychological association (2019) strongly discourages against the use of any test results – either personality test results or competency test results – without such an interview, where the results are discussed and interpreted.

It is therefore reasonable to doubt the ability of AON’s tests to reliably measure what they claim to measure. If the tests are unreliable, they either bias against some applicants in ways unknown and unjustified, or are tantamount to tossing a coin. Neither option promotes fairness.

Competency assessment tests can decrease cognitive diversity

In addition to being unfair, the use of such tests may be epistemically harmful.There is ample evidence of the epistemic benefits of social and cognitive diversity in science (see Rolin, Koskinen, Kuorikoski & Reijula 2023). 

The introduction of psychometric testing threatens diversity among PhD students and university staff. Because such tests sustain inequalities between social groups, their use does not increase social diversity in the academic community. And particularly the introduction of a personality test in the application process may decrease cognitive diversity in the selected group.

A group is cognitively diverse when its members differ, for instance, with respect to their expertise and skills, or problem-solving heuristics. 

As noted above, the use of the ADEPT-15 personality test may discriminate against some groups, notably neurodivergent people. In general, the use of such a test in the application process for salaried PhD positions may mean discriminating against people whose problem solving strategies do not lead to “successful” performance in the alleged personality test. This is worrisome for two reasons: first, it is unfair, and, secondly, it is epistemically harmful.

Competency assessment tests do not promote objectivity

As mentioned above, “psychometric objectivity” refers to the attempt to eliminate personal judgement from the assessment of personality and skills. According to many critics, this just creates an illusion of objectivity, as the assessment methods sustain inequalities between social groups. In other words, they are biased against some groups – which gives reasons to question their objectivity.

Objectivity is a contested concept with multiple meanings. One of us has suggested a way to understand the relations between the different meanings of objectivity in science: When we call something objective, we claim that some important risk or risks of error to which we as human beings are prone has been effectively mitigated, and we can therefore rely on that something. For instance, we may call a research process objective because we have ensured that we can change the researcher in charge of the process, and the results stay the same. In other words, the subjective biases of an individual researcher do not bias the outcome (Koskinen 2020). 

This idea can be applied here, even though we are talking about HR, not science. When people strive for “psychometric objectivity”, the very human risk that is being avoided is that the evaluators might be biased, and their personal judgements could therefore lead to suboptimal decisions. The suggested solution is to replace the evaluators’ judgement with test results. The critics we discussed above (Au, 2016; Wijsen et al., 2020) claim that focusing on individual biases is misleading. It is the inequalities ingrained in our societies and operating on multiple levels that are the really important problem: they lead to suboptimal decisions in recruitment, because some candidates never have a proper chance. Psychometric objectivity is toothless against this problem, as the tests do nothing to alleviate the systematic disadvantages of some demographic groups. 

We agree. The problem is well illustrated by the fact that several companies currently offer training packages and courses promising better performance in AON’s tests. If they really work, then the applicants who have the resources to pay for the training fare better in the tests. In other words, the tests discriminate against the poorer candidates in a very familiar way, sustaining inequalities between social groups. Recruitment decisions based on the test results are therefore bound to be suboptimal.

The use of competency assessment tests can also decrease the objectivity of the selection process.The tests are introduced as a strategy for ensuring that the individual evaluators’ biases do not lead to suboptimal decisions in recruitment: the candidate is not chosen just because the evaluator, for instance, liked their charisma. However, there are many different kinds of risks of error that should be taken into account. In addition to the evaluators individual biases, systematic biases in the tests can lead to suboptimal decisions. It is not a good idea to replace the first type of bias with the latter (Koskinen 2023). If the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation is right, and AON’s tests really do systematically discriminate against individuals based on disability, health status, and ethnic background, then the use of the tests leads to suboptimal decisions with regard to individuals belonging to these groups. As a result, it may become even less likely than before that such individuals are recruited. If so, then the use of the tests has decreased the objectivity of the selection process.

To whom do “objective” and “fair” recruitment methods give power? 

Another important question to ask when introducing psychometric methods is to whom power is transferred and from whom it is taken away (Kalluri, 2020; Seppälä & Małecka, 2024). At the University of Helsinki, the power dynamics are quite clear. The psychometric competency assessments diminish the importance of the scientific merits of the PhD plans in selecting PhD students for salaried positions. This means that the decision-making power is transferred to AON and AON-certified personnel in the university’s HR department. This means that the academic community’s power to choose its new members is reduced. 

There could perhaps be arguments for this shift in power if AON and the HR department could demonstrate 

1) that the personality and skills assessments are grounded in the best theories of personality and organisational psychology, and 

2) that the test results have sufficient predictive power for successfully conducting PhD research in all academic fields.

We have already expressed some doubts about the second point. It seems unlikely that any competence test or personality test could produce results that would be relevant in all academic fields. The University of Helsinki is committed to the national recommendation of researcher evaluation, according to which “evaluation must take into account the diversity of research and outputs” (University of Helsinki: Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher), so this is problematic. Moreover, we have seen no independent evidence of AONs tests’ predictive power in any contexts, let alone academic ones.

As to the first point, AON, of course, claims that high scientific standards have been met. According to AON (2024), “Aon’s solutions strengthen hiring through psychometric assessments that are backed by science.” In other words, the assessments are “[r]eliable, robust, and research-based psychometric assessments.” But are AON’s claims justified, and how can we verify them? 

This takes us to our biggest concern: how can we secure the transparency of a recruitment process if we use tests that are not transparent?

Epistemically opaque competency assessment tests do not promote transparency   

AON’s tests, like all similar tests developed by commercial enterprises, are protected as business secrets. The companies typically claim that the tests are valid, reliable, robust, “research-based”, “backed by science”, and so on, and have marketing materials that support these claims. However, these tests are not independently validated. They do not compare to the kind of genuine psychometric tests that are used in clinical work and that have gone through an academic process of test development and validation. To put it simply, psychometric tests developed by commercial enterprises are not peer-reviewed, and independent replication studies seldom happen – and when they do happen, the results might not be flattering to the firms (Rhea et al. 2022).

Because the tests are protected as business secrets, they are epistemically opaque black boxes both to the applicants who must take the tests and to the employers who use such services – in this case, the University of Helsinki. So it is not possible to assess how they work, and to what degree they are perhaps based on psychological research. Based on AON’s website, it is, for instance, not possible to tell even the psychological theory of personality that the company uses in their personality test – if any. The ADAPT-15 test – which the University of Helsinki now uses – seems to include six “broad work styles” and fifteen “aspects of personality”  (AON, 2022; AON, 2024), so at least it appears that it is not based on Big Five, the best-known and widely accepted psychological model of personality (Zell & Lesick 2021; see also Forsell & Koskinen unpublished manuscript). 

The same problem of epistemic opacity applies to all of AONs tests that the University of Helsinki (Flamma News, 3.10.2024) now uses: we know nothing about the alleged research on which “the scales lst, scales clx, and scales numerical & verbal tests” are based. Because there are no independent studies that would confirm that the tests do what they are claimed to do, and because we have no access to the tests, it is impossible to assess their epistemic value. We have no idea whether they do what AON’s marketing materials claim they do, and there is no independent evidence of their predictive power.

This is against the principle of transparency as it is characterised in the general principles of responsible researcher evaluation, to which the University of Helsinki is committed. Transparency, according to these principles, means that the “objectives, methods, materials and interpretation of the results must be known to everyone” (University of Helsinki: Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher). 

The University of Helsinki should not use epistemically opaque tests in recruitment

The University of Helsinki is committed to the national recommendation of researcher evaluation (University of Helsinki: Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher). The general principles of this recommendation are transparency, integrity, fairness, competence, and diversity. We have just argued that the use of epistemically opaque, not independently validated psychometric competency tests in recruitment goes against the principles of fairness, diversity, and transparency. Competency remains an open question, as due to trade secrecy, we cannot evaluate it.

“Integrity” on this list of principles is specified to mean that “the evaluation must be conducted in accordance with practices recognized by the research community”. Using epistemically opaque “black box” tests that have not been independently validated – using them for any purpose – is against basic practices that are recognised across all academic fields. Members of our community are now being selected in ways that go against some of the most elementary established practices in academia. The University of Helsinki should never use such tests in recruitment.

Inkeri Koskinen is an Academy Research Fellow in Practical Philosophy and the president of the National Committee of Philosophy of Science. In her project Objectivity in Contexts she studies the notion and the normative ideal of objectivity. She is also the PI of the Aaltonen foundation project Pseudoscience in Finnish Work Life.

Päivi Seppälä is a doctoral researcher in the Doctoral Programme in Philosophy, Arts, and Society  at the University of Helsinki. She is a member of the research team of the Aaltonen foundation project Pseudoscience in Finnish Work Life. She is also a STOry-certified professional supervisor and has a 10-year work experience in financial administration and HR. Her PhD research focuses on recruitment technologies, discrimination in recruitment, and pseudotechnologies, and is currently funded by the Kone Foundation.   

References

ACLU complaint to the FTC regarding Aon Consulting, Inc. May 30, 2024. https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-complaint-to-the-ftc-regarding-aon-consulting-inc Accessed 17.10.2024.

AON (2022). ADEPT-15: Adaptive Employee Personality Test. https://www.aonhumancapital.co.in/home/for-employers/assessment-solutions/leadership-assessments/adept . Accessed 15.10.2024.

AON (2024). Pre-Hire Talent Assessment. 

https://www.aon.com/en/capabilities/talent-and-rewards/pre-hire-talent-assessment . Accessed 10.10.2024.

Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0. Educational Policy 30, pp. 39–62.

Finnish Psychological Association, Henkilöarvioinnin sertifiointilautakunta  (2019). Henkilöarviointi työelämässä: ohjeistus hyviksi käytännöiksi. 4.9.2019. https://www.psyli.fi/psykologin-tyo-ja-koulutus/patevyydet-ja-sertifikaatit/henkiloarvioinnin-sertifikaatti/ . Accessed 15.10.2024

Forsell, M & Koskinen, I. Unpublished manuscript. Commercialisation, Opacity, and Demarcation: The Use of Personality Tests in Recruitment.

Kalluri, P (2020). Don’t ask if artificial intelligence is good or fair, ask how it shifts power. Nature 583, pp. 169–169. 

Koskinen, I  (2020). Defending a risk account of scientific objectivity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71:4, pp. 1187–1207.

Koskinen, I (2023). Participation and Objectivity. Philosophy of Science 90(2), pp. 413-432.

OECD (2024). Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en. Accessed 10.10.2024.

Rhea, A. K. et al (2022). An external stability audit framework to test the validity of personality prediction in AI hiring. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 36, pp. 2153–2193.

Rios, K. & Cohen, A. B (2023). Taking a “multiple forms” approach to diversity: An introduction, policy implications, and legal recommendations. Social Issues Policy Review 17, pp. 104–130.

Rolin, K., Koskinen, I., Kuorikoski, J., Reijula, S. (2023) Social and cognitive diversity in science: introduction. Synthese 202, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04261-9

Sandel, M. (2020). The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

Searle, R. H. & Al-Sharif, R. (2018). Recruitment and Selection. in Human Resource Management – a critical approach, eds. Collings, D. G., Wood, G. T. & Szamosi, L. T. Routledge, pp. 215–237.

Seppälä, P. & Małecka, M (2024). AI and discriminative decisions in recruitment: Challenging the core assumptions. Big Data and Society 11(1).

University of Helsinki: Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/research/research-integrity/responsible-evaluation-researcher Accessed 17.10.2024.

University of Helsinki (2024). The competency assessment used in the application process for doctoral researchers raises questions – the Doctoral School answers. In University of Helsinki News, Flamma, 3.10.2024. https://flamma.helsinki.fi/en/group/ajankohtaista/news/-/uutinen/vaitoskirjatutkijoiden-haussa-kaytetty-kyvykkyysarviointi-herattaa-kysymyksia-tutkijakoulu-vastaa/38547657 (login requires University of Helsinki user account). 

Wijsen, L. D., Borsboom, D. & Alexandrova, A. (2021). Values in Psychometrics. Perspectives on Psychological Science 17(3).  doi:10.1177/17456916211014183.
Zell, E. & Lesick, T. L. (2022). Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+ meta‐analyses. Journal of Personality 90, pp. 559–573.

tint blog post, In Finnish

Maailma muuttuu, miten taloustiede vastaa? / Anita Välikangas

Taloustieteilijöillä on paljon valtaa yhteiskunnassa. Mutta millaista taloustieteellinen asiantuntijuus on? Millaisen palveluksen taloustiede tekee yhteiskunnalle? Lähdimme selvittämään asiaa viime vuoden 2023 alussa alkaneessa ReSES-hankkeessa. Nyt on tullut väliyhteenvedon paikka.  

Taloustieteilijöitä tarvitaan usein yhteiskunnallisissa tehtävissä. Kun hallitus suunnittelee budjettia, taloustieteilijät ovat usein paikalla. He arvioivat päätösten taloudellisia vaikutuksia ja ehdottavat säästö- ja investointikohteita. Heidän näkemyksiään kuunnellaan terveydenhoitoa tai koulutusta uudistettaessa. Eivätkä taloustieteilijät vain arvioi ja kuvaa, vaan he myös suunnittelevat uusia markkinoita. Heidän kädenjälkensä näkyy esimerkiksi päästökaupan, sähkömarkkinoiden, rahoitusinstrumenttien ja alustatalouden suunnittelussa. 

Viimeisten vuosikymmenten aikana monet ihmiset ovat alkaneet kuitenkin kysyä, miksi kuuntelemme yhteiskunnallisessa päätöksenteossa nimenomaan taloustieteilijöitä. Miksi juuri heidän tuottamansa tieto koetaan tarpeellisena? Ja millä tavoin meidän tulisi suhtautua taloustieteelliseen tietoon ja sen rajoitteisiin? Suomessakin on keskusteltu siitä, millä tavoin taloustieteilijöiden taustayhteisö vaikuttaa ja saa vaikuttaa heidän tekemiinsä arvioihin ja ehdotuksiin. On ruodittu myös valtiovarainministeriön ekonomistien roolia. Jos ministeriön ekonomistien esittämät näkemykset suhdanteista poikkeavat merkittävästi muiden taloustieteilijöiden esittämistä arvioista, keitä meidän tulisi uskoa?  

On kuitenkin hyvä muistaa, ettei taloustiedettä ole kuitenkaan valettu yhdestä muotista. Myös taloustieteilijät käyvät kriittistä keskustelua tieteenalan keskeisistä tehtävistä, menetelmistä ja päämääristä.  

Lähdimme tutustumaan näihin teemoihin vuoden 2023 alussa alkaneessa ReSES – Rethinking the serviceability of economics to society –hankkeessa. Järjestimme parisenkymmentä erilaista esitelmää ja keskustelutilaisuutta sekä yhden vierailijaluentojen varaan rakentuneen kesäkurssin. Näissä tilaisuuksissa puheenvuoron saivat usein ihmiset, jotka uskoivat taloustieteen voimaan ja merkityksellisyyteen, puhuen tieteenalasta ja sen tulevaisuudesta.  

Idealismia ja yhteiskunnallisiin ongelmiin pureutumista 

Yksi ReSES:in lähtökohdista oli ajatus siitä, että taloustieteen asema on parhaillaan murroksessa. Ihmisille ei nykyisin riitä, että ekonomisti tulee kertomaan heille talouden toiminnasta, saati siitä kuinka heidän olisi soveliasta toimia. Suuret yhteiskunnalliset haasteet, kuten koronapandemia ja Ukrainan sota, asettavat isoja haasteita talouspoliittiselle päätöksenteolle.  

Haastava maailmantilanne on saanut monet tutkijat puhumaan poliittisen mielikuvituksen tärkeydestä ja siitä, että myös taloustieteilijöiden tulisi kyetä avartamaan ihmisten mahdollisia horisontteja. Monet taloustieteilijät pyrkivätkin tukemaan erilaisia yhteiskunnallisia muutoksia. Esimerkiksi vuonna 2023 taloustieteen Nobel myönnettiin Claudia Goldinille, joka tutkii sukupuolten välistä taloudellista tasa-arvoa. Reilu vuosi sitten julkaistu Dasgupta-raportti pureutuu yhteiskunta- ja talousjärjestelmiemme ongelmiin, jotka aiheuttavat luonnon monimuotoisuuden häviämistä.  

Vuoden aikana tuli osoitetuksi moneen kertaan, että se että henkilö on ekonomisti, ei tarkoita sitä, että hänen näkökulmansa olisivat väistämättä samankaltaisia elinkeinoelämän intressien kanssa. 

Törmäsin myös yllättävän usein idealismiin. Se ei tullut aina tullut esille puheiden aikana, vaan osana kahvipöytäkeskusteluja. Monet heistä puhuivat siitä, mitä he olivat opiskelijoina toivoneet taloustieteen oikein olevan. Miten he olivat toivoneet, että taloustiede voisi tehdä myös yhteiskunnassa hyviä asioita – lisätä yhteiskunnallista tasa-arvoa, auttaa omaa maataan nousemaan köyhyydestä, antaa keinoja ilmastonmuutoksen ratkaisemiseen. Monet opiskelijat esittivät myös tällaisia näkemyksiä kesäkurssimme aikana. Näissä keskusteluissa kuului usein usko taloustieteen ja koulutuksen tarjoamiin mahdollisuuksiin. Usko siihen, että taloustieteellä voitaisiin tehdä hyvää. 

Toisinaan puhuttiin myös siitä, että tieteellinen keskustelukulttuuri on ylipäätään muuttunut viimeisten vuosikymmenten aikana. Taloustieteessä, samoin kuin monilla muilla tieteenaloilla, on tehty paljon töitä inklusiivisuuden edistämiseksi. Esimerkkinä tällaisesta pyrkimyksestä käy esimerkiksi Wendy Carlinin ja Samuel Bowlesin luoma CORE Econ –hanke, jossa taloustiedettä opetetaan laajalle joukolle ihmisiä avoimesti saatavilla olevalla materiaalilla. Ihmisten lähtökohtien moninaisuus vaikuttaa suotuisasti myös tieteenalan kehitykseen.  

Oman etunsa rationalisoijia vai luotettavan tiedon tarjoajia?   

Kutsumamme puhujat tarjosivat monia näkökulmia taloustieteen moniäänisyyteen. Ha-Joon Chang piti aiheesta inspiroivan yleisöluennon, erottaen taloustieteen sisältä ainakin kahdeksan erillistä koulukuntaa. Nämä koulukunnat painottavat eri asioita ja antavat myös erilaisia politiikkasuosituksia. Mary Morgan analysoi sitä, millaisia taloudelliset indikaattorit ovat, ja miten niitä voidaan käyttää demokratian edistämisessä. Hän korosti, että tarvitsemme tietoa taloudesta, jotta voimme arvioida hallituksen tekemien poliittisten päätösten vaikutusta. Dani Rodrik puhui puolestaan uudesta teollisuus- ja elinkeinopolitiikasta ja siitä, kuinka yhteiskunnallinen vakaus vaatii sitä, että ihmisille on tarjolla hyviä työpaikkoja. 

ReSESin tapahtumat vetivät sekä lavalle että yleisöön monia ihmisiä, jotka olivat kiinnostuneita taloustieteen moniäänisyyden lisäämisestä. Joissain tilanteissa tuli kuitenkin esille, etteivät kaikki taloustieteilijät kokeneet tällaista vuoropuheluun osallistumista kovinkaan relevanttina. Toisinaan myös kulttuuriset erot taloustieteen ja muiden yhteiskuntatieteilijöiden välillä tuntuivat aika suurilta.  

Yksi syy näihin kulttuurisiin eroihin voi olla siinä, että jo taloustieteisiin valitut opiskelijat poikkeavat profiililtaan muista valtiotieteellisen opiskelijoista. Esimerkiksi joulukuussa 2023 Helsingin yliopiston valtiotieteellinen tiedekunta julkaisi hakijakyselynsä tuloksia. Siinä, missä valtiotieteellisen tiedekunnan opiskelijoista 58 prosenttia koki tärkeänä syynä, että ”tällä alalla voin tehdä hyvää yhteiskunnan eteen”, oli tällä tavalla vastanneiden määrä taloustieteessä vain 33 prosenttia. Tulokset ovat linjassa sen kanssa, miten Uskali Mäki kuvasi homo economicus -käsitteen keskeisyyttä taloustieteessä: tutkimusten perusteella jo taloustieteiden opiskelijat mieltävät itsensä omaa etuaan rationalisoivina ihmisinä muita opiskelijoita todennäköisemmin. Mäki kuitenkin lisäsi myös, ettei ole selvää, ajattelevatko opiskelijat näin luontaisesti, vai onko se jotain, minkä he omaksuvat opintojensa alkuvaiheessa. 

Taloustieteen opiskelijoitakin on kuitenkin monenlaisia. Osa heistä voi kertoa hakeutuneensa alalle idealistisin perustein, kun taas osa kertoo, että raha ja työllistyminen ovat vaikuttaneet vahvasti heidän ainevalintaansa. Tällöin on tärkeä esittää jatkokysymys: millaista taloustieteen opettamisen tulisi olla? Millaisiin asioihin tulisi kiinnittää huomiota, jos toiveena on yhteiskunnallisen hyvän edistäminen? Tämä voi olla joskus haastava kysymys tieteenalalle, jonka lähtökohdissa viitataan usein omaa etuaan maksimoiviin yksilöihin. 
 
Tieteenalojen välillä on eroja 

Keskusteluyhteyden luominen nosti esille myös toisen hankalan kysymyksen tieteellisten kulttuurien välisistä eroista. Monet taloustieteilijät – ja myös sen opiskelijat – kokevat taloustieteen poikkeavan radikaalilla muista yhteiskuntatieteistä. Silloin on mahdollista päätyä tilanteisiin, joissa todetaan vain kohteliaasti, että kyllä, historian tuntemisella tai vaikkapa feministisen talousajattelun tuntemisella on yleissivistävää arvoa. Mutta kun keskustelu on ohi, opiskelijat ja tutkijat jatkavat työtään eteenpäin kuten aina ennenkin. 

Jokainen tieteenala käyttää omanlaistaan kieltä ja käsitteistöään. ReSESissä nämä teemat tulivat esille erityisesti tapahtumassa, jonka järjestimme kotihoidontuesta. Siinä kysyttiin, millä tavoin meidän tulisi suhtautua taloustieteiden ja muiden tieteenalojen tarjoamaan tietoon tehdessämme päätöksiä kotihoidontuesta. Keskustelussa korostui, että taloustieteen tulokulma oli usein hyvin erilainen kuin niillä tutkijoilla, joiden tutkimusasetelmassa keskitytään enemmän ihmisten omien kokemusten tutkimiseen.  

Kysymys erilaisten näkökulmien huomioimisesta on sidoksissa myös tiedepolitiikan kanssa. Eri tieteenalojen julkaisukulttuurit poikkeavat paljon toisistaan. Taloustieteilijöillä on perinteisesti ollut varsin yhteneväiset näkemykset siitä, mikä muodostaa tieteellisen erinomaisuuden.  

On myös tärkeää tunnistaa, että osa tiedejulkaisuista suosii toisia enemmän moninaisista lähtökohdista ammentavien tutkimuksen julkaisemista. Jos tutkimusorganisaatioissa tutkijoita kannustetaan julkaisemaan ensisijaisesti vain JUFO3-tason lehdissä, saattaa tarkoituksenmukaisiksi koettujen aiheiden ja menetelmien kirjo kaventua suppeammaksi kuin jos tutkijoiden sallitaan julkaisevan monipuolisesti alansa eri lehdissä.  

Monta asiantuntijaa on parempi kuin yksi 

Hyvin monet henkilöt ovat kiinnostuneita taloudesta ja sen toiminnasta. Ja koska talous on keskeisessä roolissa yhteisöissä, on ihmisillä myös hyvin erilaisia tulokulmia sen ymmärtämiseen.  

Demokraattisen päätöksenteon näkökulmasta olisi tärkeää ymmärtää ainakin jonkin verran sitä, miksi tietoa tuotetaan niin kuin sitä tuotetaan ja jääkö jotain olennaista tämän tuotetun tiedon ulkopuolelle. Esimerkiksi feminististen taloustieteilijöiden korostama hoiva ja sen merkitys on yksi tällainen teema. 

Uskon itse siihen, että monista lähtökohdista kumpuava tutkimustieto tekee tutkimuksesta vahvempaa, murentamatta liiaksi sen uskottavuutta. Kun tutkimuksessa yhtä aihetta lähestytään eri näkökulmista, voivat ihmiset ymmärtää paremmin, että asiat ovat monimutkaisia. Taloustiede voi tuoda selkeyttä päätöksentekoon ja auttaa suunnittelutyössä. Toisinaan taas monimutkaisten asioiden esittäminen yksinkertaisena voi johtaa kuitenkin myös epätoivottuihin seurauksiin. Siksi asiantuntijuuteen kuuluu myös omien rajojen tunnustaminen.  

Taloustietelijöiden silmät loistavat siinä missä kaikkien muidenkin, kun he pääsevät puhumaan aiheista, joihin he itse uskovat. Joskus on hyvin kiehtovaa seurata, miten ihmiset koittavat löytää keskustelun avulla yhteistä tietä kohti parempaa tulevaisuutta. Minulle tämä asia tuntui voimaannuttavalta huomata. Se tuntui täysin erilaiselta kuin aggressiiviset some-nokittelut ja suljettujen ovien takana laaditut poliittiset leikkauslistat. Ne valoivat uskoa siihen, että tieto tekee maailmasta paremman paikan.  

Anita Välikangas on tohtorikoulutettava TINT:issä ja työskenteli ReSES-tutkimushankkeessa koordinaattorina. Kaikkien ReSES-tapahtumien tallenteet löytyvät täältä. 
Toimittaneet: Jani Raerinne ja Teemu Lari 

tint Event, In English

20.11 Mariana Mazzucato: Industrial Strategy | ReSES AD Lecture

Date: 20.11.2024
Time: 16:00 (EET, Helsinki time)
Place: Online
Zoom link

ARGUMENTA DISTINGUISHED LECTURE

A New Approach to Industrial strategy:
Directing the economy toward an inclusive and sustainable future
Mariana Mazzucato

The ReSES project is happy to announce an upcoming online public lecture titled “A New Approach to Industrial Strategy” to be delivered by Mariana Mazzucato. This event is part of the Argumenta Distinguished Lectures series organized by ReSES at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Helsinki.

Industrial strategy is experiencing a renaissance. Getting the details right matter. Mission-oriented industrial strategy needs to be more than words if we want to avoid missions becoming part of the problem, not the solution. During this lecture, Professor Mariana Mazzucato will offer insights gained from work with governments around the world – on opportunities ranging from healthy and sustainable housing estates in our local Camden Council to the ecological transition in Brazil – that are advancing new approaches to bring economic, social, and environmental policy goals into alignment at the centre of their growth strategies. She will explore what it takes for governments to design, implement, and govern new industrial strategies and examine the tools, institutions, partnerships, and capabilities governments need to deliver transformative change.

Mariana Mazzucato (PhD) is Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London (UCL), where she is Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation & Public Purpose. She is winner of international prizes including the Grande Ufficiale Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana in 2021, Italy’s highest civilian honour, the 2020 John von Neumann Award, the 2019 All European Academies Madame de Staël Prize for Cultural Values, and 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. Most recently, Pope Francis appointed her to the Pontifical Academy for Life for bringing ‘more humanity’ to the world.

As well as The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths (2013), she is the author of The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (2018), Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (2021), and most recently The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens our Businesses, Infantilizes our Governments and Warps our Economies (2023). She advises policymakers around the world on innovation-led inclusive and sustainable growth. Her roles have included for example Chair of the World Health Organization’s Council on the Economics of Health for All, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, a member of the South African President’s Economic Advisory Council, and the Co-Chair of the Group of Experts to the G20 Task Force for the Global Mobilization against Climate Change.

Funded by the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the ReSES project aims to rethink how economics can better serve society. The project’s Argumenta Distinguished Lectures series provides a platform for leading experts to present ideas that challenge conventional economic thought and promote societal well-being. Professor Mazzucato’s lecture, “A New Approach to Industrial Strategy” is a significant addition to this series.

The lecture is free and open to the public, reflecting the ReSES project’s dedication to making scholarly discussions accessible to a broad audience.

You can join the Zoom webinar via this link