Responsible MeasurementData EthicsDiversity and Representation |
Scientists often need to explicate and operationalize concepts that come from outside scientific contexts in order to study them. For example, social scientists need to explicate their understanding of 'racism' and operationalize it in observational and experimental contexts prior to conducting studies on the causes or effects of racism. I aim to understand how social, political, and ethical values play a role in choices about how to explicate and operationalize these concepts for scientific purposes.
To determine the extent of racial/ethnic disadvantage and discrimination and the success of ‘positive action’ measures, the EU recommends the collection of statistical data as part of its action plan for tackling racism. This recommendation has been amplified by the calls to close the racial/ethnic data gap. Yet, most European countries (e.g., Germany, France) do not collect racially or ethnically stratified data. My collaborators and I address ethical and epistemic questions such as: Should this data be collected at a national (or international) level? To what extent are racial/ethnic categorizations from the US or UK appropriate and for which purposes? What ethical-epistemic trade-offs must be navigated introducing new racial/ethnic categorizations?
Diversity and representation in any group make a difference to how that group interacts and what knowledge they can produce. I am interested in questions about what sorts of diversity and representation provide access to new knowledge, what the power and limitations of diversity and representation are addressing oppression, and how to assess the causes of diversity and representation in some group. Following the latter question, I have done empirical research on why women and Black students are underrepresented in philosophy relative to men and White students.
|
Publications
*Morgan Thompson. (Forthcoming). Path-Dependence in Measurement: A Problem for Coherentism. Philosophy of Science.
*Morgan Thompson. (2023). Characterizing and Measuring Racial Discrimination in Public Health Research. Philosophy of Science. 90(3): 721-743 [Accepted manuscript]
*Morgan Thompson. (2023). Epistemic Risk in Triangulation: The Case of Implicit Attitudes. Synthese. 201: 1. [pre-print]
*Nick Byrd & Morgan Thompson. (2022). Testing for Implicit Bias: Values, Psychometrics, and Science Communication. WIRES Cognitive Science. 13(5): e1612 [PsyArxiv]
*Morgan Thompson. (2020). Psychological Research on Racial Microaggressions: Community Science and Concept Explication. In Microaggressions and Philosophy. Eds. Lauren Freeman and Jeanine Weekes Schroer. Routledge. [pre-print]
*Morgan Thompson. (2017). Explaining the Gender Gap in Philosophy. Philosophy Compass. 12(3): e12406 [PhilPapers]
*Morgan Thompson, Toni Adleberg, Sam Sims, and Eddy Nahmias. (2016). Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? Surveying Students at the Introductory Level. Philosophers' Imprint. 16(6), 1-36. [open access]
Liam Kofi Bright, Daniel Malinsky, and Morgan Thompson. (2016). Causally Interpreting Intersectionality Theory. Philosophy of Science. 83(1), 60-81. [Academia.edu]
*Toni Adleberg, Morgan Thompson, and Eddy Nahmias. (2014). Do Men and Women Have Different Philosophical Intuitions? Further Data. Philosophical Psychology. 28(5), 615-41. [Academia.edu, PhilPapers]
Eddy Nahmias and Morgan Thompson. (2014). A Naturalistic Vision of Free Will. In Current Controversies in Experimental Philosophy, ed. by E. O’Neill and E. Machery. New York: Routledge. 86-103. [PhilPapers]
* indicates primary or shared first authorship
*Morgan Thompson. (2023). Characterizing and Measuring Racial Discrimination in Public Health Research. Philosophy of Science. 90(3): 721-743 [Accepted manuscript]
*Morgan Thompson. (2023). Epistemic Risk in Triangulation: The Case of Implicit Attitudes. Synthese. 201: 1. [pre-print]
*Nick Byrd & Morgan Thompson. (2022). Testing for Implicit Bias: Values, Psychometrics, and Science Communication. WIRES Cognitive Science. 13(5): e1612 [PsyArxiv]
*Morgan Thompson. (2020). Psychological Research on Racial Microaggressions: Community Science and Concept Explication. In Microaggressions and Philosophy. Eds. Lauren Freeman and Jeanine Weekes Schroer. Routledge. [pre-print]
*Morgan Thompson. (2017). Explaining the Gender Gap in Philosophy. Philosophy Compass. 12(3): e12406 [PhilPapers]
- Philosophy blog posts: DailyNous
*Morgan Thompson, Toni Adleberg, Sam Sims, and Eddy Nahmias. (2016). Why Do Women Leave Philosophy? Surveying Students at the Introductory Level. Philosophers' Imprint. 16(6), 1-36. [open access]
- Media coverage: NPR 13.7: Culture and Cosmos, Inside Higher Ed
- Philosophy blog posts: DailyNous, NewApps, Feminist Philosophers
Liam Kofi Bright, Daniel Malinsky, and Morgan Thompson. (2016). Causally Interpreting Intersectionality Theory. Philosophy of Science. 83(1), 60-81. [Academia.edu]
*Toni Adleberg, Morgan Thompson, and Eddy Nahmias. (2014). Do Men and Women Have Different Philosophical Intuitions? Further Data. Philosophical Psychology. 28(5), 615-41. [Academia.edu, PhilPapers]
- Philosophy blog posts: Experimental Philosophy, The Brains Blog
Eddy Nahmias and Morgan Thompson. (2014). A Naturalistic Vision of Free Will. In Current Controversies in Experimental Philosophy, ed. by E. O’Neill and E. Machery. New York: Routledge. 86-103. [PhilPapers]
* indicates primary or shared first authorship
In Progress & Drafts
Morgan Thompson. Paper on conflicts among the political, ethical, and epistemic justifications for community science.
Scientists have become increasingly interested in including the public in the process of scientific research, involving the public in a range of activities from setting the agenda, collecting data, choosing methods, and identifying social impact of the research. Philosophers of science have recently called for science to be more democratized. I distinguish different justifications for including public communities in scientific research: concerns of political legitimacy of research, the desire to correct historical moral inadequacies of scientific research and respect marginalized communities, and the epistemic benefits of diverse viewpoints. However, I claim that these different justifications sometimes recommend incompatible procedures for community science. Thus, practitioners of community science, and philosophers of science who call for it, ought to be clear about which justification(s) they take to be of primary importance.
Paper on the ethics of race & migration data collection and categorization in Germany (with Daniel James Turcas and Tereza Hendl). [submitted]
Most E.U. member states are reluctant to collect demographic data broken down into racial or ethnic categories, despite recognizing the importance of demographic data collection for upholding non-discrimination. The German context yields is a particularly striking example of such a taboo, in part due to privacy concerns and in part due to the history of National Socialism. For lack of better alternatives, researchers concerned with measuring racial or ethnic discrimination are forced to resort to established categories that function as mere proxies for their purposes. In Germany, the category which had assumed this role is called ‘migration background’ [Migrationshintergrund], according to which a person has a migration background if they or at least one of their parents do not have German nationality by birth (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2022, p. 5).
In this paper, we will approach this question as an instance of what Nancy Tuana (2013) has called “coupled ethical-epistemic issues”. In addressing such issues epistemic considerations are coupled with ethical values or goals of researchers (such as promoting well-being – see Katikireddi & Valles, 2015). Against this background, our central claim will be that the particular coupled ethical-epistemic problem to which the category of ‘migration background’ gives rise is best analyzed in terms of ignorance. More specifically, we will argue that three kinds of ignorance arise from the ‘migration background’ variable: white ignorance, intersectional ignorance, and structural ignorance. They each are coupled ethical-epistemic problems because they systematically contribute to maintaining injustice.
*Morgan Thompson. Paper on robustness analysis.
I argue that there is a role for robustness analysis in contexts of discovery and pursuit that has not yet been elaborated in the philosophical literature. I provide an account of how robustness analysis is used to explore possible growth principles in network neuroscience and biology where well accepted models of the target system already exist (e.g., C. elegans wiring diagram). This function of robustness analysis has received less attention in the philosophical literature due to the primary focus on the debate about whether (and how) robustness analysis could provide confirmation.
Morgan Thompson, Liam Kofi Bright, and Erich Kummerfeld. Why Do Black Students Leave Philosophy? Surveying Students at the Introductory Level.
David Colaço, Morgan Thompson, and Brendan McVeigh. Paper on demographics of philosophy and psychology.
* indicates draft available upon request.
Scientists have become increasingly interested in including the public in the process of scientific research, involving the public in a range of activities from setting the agenda, collecting data, choosing methods, and identifying social impact of the research. Philosophers of science have recently called for science to be more democratized. I distinguish different justifications for including public communities in scientific research: concerns of political legitimacy of research, the desire to correct historical moral inadequacies of scientific research and respect marginalized communities, and the epistemic benefits of diverse viewpoints. However, I claim that these different justifications sometimes recommend incompatible procedures for community science. Thus, practitioners of community science, and philosophers of science who call for it, ought to be clear about which justification(s) they take to be of primary importance.
Paper on the ethics of race & migration data collection and categorization in Germany (with Daniel James Turcas and Tereza Hendl). [submitted]
Most E.U. member states are reluctant to collect demographic data broken down into racial or ethnic categories, despite recognizing the importance of demographic data collection for upholding non-discrimination. The German context yields is a particularly striking example of such a taboo, in part due to privacy concerns and in part due to the history of National Socialism. For lack of better alternatives, researchers concerned with measuring racial or ethnic discrimination are forced to resort to established categories that function as mere proxies for their purposes. In Germany, the category which had assumed this role is called ‘migration background’ [Migrationshintergrund], according to which a person has a migration background if they or at least one of their parents do not have German nationality by birth (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2022, p. 5).
In this paper, we will approach this question as an instance of what Nancy Tuana (2013) has called “coupled ethical-epistemic issues”. In addressing such issues epistemic considerations are coupled with ethical values or goals of researchers (such as promoting well-being – see Katikireddi & Valles, 2015). Against this background, our central claim will be that the particular coupled ethical-epistemic problem to which the category of ‘migration background’ gives rise is best analyzed in terms of ignorance. More specifically, we will argue that three kinds of ignorance arise from the ‘migration background’ variable: white ignorance, intersectional ignorance, and structural ignorance. They each are coupled ethical-epistemic problems because they systematically contribute to maintaining injustice.
*Morgan Thompson. Paper on robustness analysis.
I argue that there is a role for robustness analysis in contexts of discovery and pursuit that has not yet been elaborated in the philosophical literature. I provide an account of how robustness analysis is used to explore possible growth principles in network neuroscience and biology where well accepted models of the target system already exist (e.g., C. elegans wiring diagram). This function of robustness analysis has received less attention in the philosophical literature due to the primary focus on the debate about whether (and how) robustness analysis could provide confirmation.
Morgan Thompson, Liam Kofi Bright, and Erich Kummerfeld. Why Do Black Students Leave Philosophy? Surveying Students at the Introductory Level.
David Colaço, Morgan Thompson, and Brendan McVeigh. Paper on demographics of philosophy and psychology.
* indicates draft available upon request.
Public Philosophy and Other Writing
Morgan Thompson. 2023. Epistemic risk in methodological triangulation: the case of implicit attitudes. New Work in Philosophy.
Brains Blog Roundtable discussion on values in cognitive science with Shen-yi Liao, Uwe Peters, and Morgan Thompson. https://philosophyofbrains.com/2022/03/14/brains-blog-roundtable-values-in-cognitive-science.aspx
Eric Schwitzgebel, Liam Kofi Bright, Carolyn Dicey Jennings, Morgan Thompson, and Eric Winsberg. 2021. The Diversity of Philosophy Students and Faculty. The Philosopher’s Magazine Vol.93 No.1: 71-90
Morgan Thompson. 2021. Underrepresentation in Philosophy of Science and What We Can Do About It. Science Visions. Vol 3. No. 1. [Note: Newsletter of the Philosophy of Science Association's Women's Caucus]
Eric Schwitzgebel, Morgan Thompson, Eric Winsberg. 2020. Gender and Sexual Orientation of First-Year Philosophy Students in the U.S. The Splintered Mind.
Morgan Thompson. 2017. The Gender Gap in Philosophy. The Daily Nous.
Morgan Thompson. 2016. Why do Undergratuate Women Stop Studying Philosophy? The Daily Nous.
Toni Adleberg, Morgan Thompson, and Eddy Nahmias. 2013. Do Women Have Different Philosophical Intuitions than Men? Responding to Buckwalter and Stich. The Brains Blog.
Brains Blog Roundtable discussion on values in cognitive science with Shen-yi Liao, Uwe Peters, and Morgan Thompson. https://philosophyofbrains.com/2022/03/14/brains-blog-roundtable-values-in-cognitive-science.aspx
Eric Schwitzgebel, Liam Kofi Bright, Carolyn Dicey Jennings, Morgan Thompson, and Eric Winsberg. 2021. The Diversity of Philosophy Students and Faculty. The Philosopher’s Magazine Vol.93 No.1: 71-90
Morgan Thompson. 2021. Underrepresentation in Philosophy of Science and What We Can Do About It. Science Visions. Vol 3. No. 1. [Note: Newsletter of the Philosophy of Science Association's Women's Caucus]
Eric Schwitzgebel, Morgan Thompson, Eric Winsberg. 2020. Gender and Sexual Orientation of First-Year Philosophy Students in the U.S. The Splintered Mind.
Morgan Thompson. 2017. The Gender Gap in Philosophy. The Daily Nous.
Morgan Thompson. 2016. Why do Undergratuate Women Stop Studying Philosophy? The Daily Nous.
Toni Adleberg, Morgan Thompson, and Eddy Nahmias. 2013. Do Women Have Different Philosophical Intuitions than Men? Responding to Buckwalter and Stich. The Brains Blog.