Credentialization or Critique? Neoliberal Ideology and the Fate of the Ethical Voice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this commentary we respond to White, Jankowski, andShelton’s (2014) article about structuring a written exam-ination to assess what the American Society for Bioethicsand Humanities (ASBH) calls health care ethics consul-tation “core knowledge competencies” (ASBH 2011). Wechallenge the need for such tests and question what pur-posetheyservesavetofurtheradvanceaneoliberalversionofethics—anethicscolonizedbythecorporatistideologyof“entrepreneurialfreedomsandskillswithinaninstitutionalframework”(Harvey2005,2).Focusingonhealthcareethicsconsultants,theauthorsproposeacredentializingexamina-tion to measure ethical “core competencies” in a mannerthat would be “statistically reliable” and based on “fac-tual information, which is noncontroversial.” They furtherspeculate on “business plan development” and the “bud-getary implications” of such minutiae as multiple-choiceversus essay questions, and the outsourced costs of “psy-chometric analysis and review.” The article itself gets tan-gled in its own web of proceduralism and managerialism,ignoring the substantive ethical stakes of the litigious creeptoward the credentialization and professionalization ofbioethics.If bioethics were subject to a professional body anda standardized examination, the terms of ethical de-liberation and decision making would be sharply cir-cumscribed. “Factual” terms and procedurally verifiablepractices—arbitrarily defined—would determine in ad-vancewhatkindsofquestionscouldbeasked,inwhatway,by whom, and of whom. And under ever-increasing pres-sure to “vocationalize” curricula, educational institutionswouldaltertheirinstructionto“teachtothetest.”Aprofes-
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.074 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".