The book says that market mechanisms may have epistemically adverse effects but does it acknowledge there may be other factors that drive experts to produce flawed work? It does not mention the words “replication crisis” as far as I can see. It seems to me that many of the poor practices in the academy are driven by institutional, non-market incentives. Another concern is that the partnership model and use of “minipublics” seems to have plenty of potential for rigging and subversion. If, for example, politicians set the terms of reference and influence which citizens are invited, they will be able to significantly influence the outcomes. Obviously, I haven’t had time to read the book properly yet so I will be delighted if you tell me this has been covered.
The book says that market mechanisms may have epistemically adverse effects but does it acknowledge there may be other factors that drive experts to produce flawed work? It does not mention the words “replication crisis” as far as I can see. It seems to me that many of the poor practices in the academy are driven by institutional, non-market incentives. Another concern is that the partnership model and use of “minipublics” seems to have plenty of potential for rigging and subversion. If, for example, politicians set the terms of reference and influence which citizens are invited, they will be able to significantly influence the outcomes. Obviously, I haven’t had time to read the book properly yet so I will be delighted if you tell me this has been covered.