Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng por |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/4189 |
Resumo: | Purpose – In this study, we seek to understand which types of evaluators build their evaluations based on the ethics of conviction and which ones build them based on the ethics of responsibility. Theoretical framework – The concepts of the public sphere from Habermas (1991) and ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility from Weber (1978; 2004) are used to understand the public responsibility of online evaluations by the types of evaluators who produce them (whether real or false). Design/methodology/approach – A cluster analysis with 6,344 evaluations identified four groups of evaluators (speculators, pseudo experts, amateur critics, and real experts). A Spearman correlation matrix is used to verify the correlation between some variables and these groups. Using the quantitative text analysis technique, bigrams (word associations) were identified. Findings – (i) Speculators and pseudo experts tend to present only one score, exercising the act of evaluating using clear ethics of conviction; and (ii) amateurs critics and real experts associate responsibility and experience in the dynamics of translating the gastronomic experience, emphasizing the ethics of responsibility. Practical & social implications of research – As the study by Cruz et al. (2021) presented the types of online evaluators, we characterized them by understanding (i) whether they act based on the ethics of conviction or ethics of responsibility and (ii) the form and content of fake online reviews. Originality/value – We discuss the public responsibility of online reviews – particularly of people who acted as diners. Keywords: Types of online evaluators, ethics of conviction, ethics of responsibility. |
id |
FECAP-3_5769642d2d101ee664cc605d2f1a2077 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/4189 |
network_acronym_str |
FECAP-3 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliaçõesAvaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliaçõesPurpose – In this study, we seek to understand which types of evaluators build their evaluations based on the ethics of conviction and which ones build them based on the ethics of responsibility. Theoretical framework – The concepts of the public sphere from Habermas (1991) and ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility from Weber (1978; 2004) are used to understand the public responsibility of online evaluations by the types of evaluators who produce them (whether real or false). Design/methodology/approach – A cluster analysis with 6,344 evaluations identified four groups of evaluators (speculators, pseudo experts, amateur critics, and real experts). A Spearman correlation matrix is used to verify the correlation between some variables and these groups. Using the quantitative text analysis technique, bigrams (word associations) were identified. Findings – (i) Speculators and pseudo experts tend to present only one score, exercising the act of evaluating using clear ethics of conviction; and (ii) amateurs critics and real experts associate responsibility and experience in the dynamics of translating the gastronomic experience, emphasizing the ethics of responsibility. Practical & social implications of research – As the study by Cruz et al. (2021) presented the types of online evaluators, we characterized them by understanding (i) whether they act based on the ethics of conviction or ethics of responsibility and (ii) the form and content of fake online reviews. Originality/value – We discuss the public responsibility of online reviews – particularly of people who acted as diners. Keywords: Types of online evaluators, ethics of conviction, ethics of responsibility.Objetivo – Neste estudo buscamos compreender quais tipos de avaliadores constroem suas avaliações com base na ética da convicção e quais constroem com base na ética da responsabilidade. Referencial teórico – Os conceitos de esfera pública de Habermas (1991) e ética da convicção e ética da responsabilidade de Weber (1978; 2004) são utilizados para comprender a responsabilidade pública de avaliações online para tipos de avaliadores que produzem que produzem avaliações (reais ou falsas). Metodologia – Uma análise de cluster com 6.344 avaliações identificou quatro grupos de avaliadores (especuladores, pseudoexperts, críticos amadores e real experts). Uma matriz de correlação de Spearman é utilizada para verificar correlação entre algumas variáveis e esses grupos. Por meio da técnica de análise quantitativa de textos, bigramas (associações de palavras) foram identificados. Resultados – (i) Especuladores e pseudoexperts tendem a apresentar apenas uma nota, exercendo o ato de avaliar em clara ética da convicção; e (ii) críticos amadores e real experts associam a responsabilidade e experimentação na dinâmica da tradução da experiência gastronômica, evidenciando ênfase na ética da responsabilidade. Implicações práticas e sociais da pesquisa – Se o estudo de Cruz et al. (2021) apresentou os tipos de avaliadores online, os caracterizamos ao compreendermos (i) se atuam com base na ética da convicção ou ética da responsabilidade e (ii) a forma e o conteúdo das fake online reviews. Contribuições – Discute a responsabilidade pública de avaliações online −principalmente de pessoas que performaram como comensais.FECAP2022-10-11info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionAvaliado por paresapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/418910.7819/rbgn.v24i3.4189Review of Business Management; Vol. 24 No. 3 (2022)RBGN Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios; Vol. 24 Núm. 3 (2022)RBGN - Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios; v. 24 n. 3 (2022)1983-08071806-4892reponame:Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online)instname:Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP)instacron:FECAPengporhttps://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/4189/1867https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/4189/1868Copyright (c) 2022 Review of Business Managementinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAndrade Cruz, Breno de Paula Ferreira Baptista, Vinicius Dutt-Ross, StevenPimenta, Sergio 2022-10-11T21:15:03Zoai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/4189Revistahttp://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/indexhttps://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/oai||jmauricio@fecap.br1983-08071806-4892opendoar:2022-10-11T21:15:03Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) - Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações |
title |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações |
spellingShingle |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações Andrade Cruz, Breno de Paula |
title_short |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações |
title_full |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações |
title_fullStr |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações |
title_full_unstemmed |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações |
title_sort |
Avaliadores Online: Ética da Convicção versus Ética da Responsabilidade na construção de avaliações |
author |
Andrade Cruz, Breno de Paula |
author_facet |
Andrade Cruz, Breno de Paula Ferreira Baptista, Vinicius Dutt-Ross, Steven Pimenta, Sergio |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Ferreira Baptista, Vinicius Dutt-Ross, Steven Pimenta, Sergio |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Andrade Cruz, Breno de Paula Ferreira Baptista, Vinicius Dutt-Ross, Steven Pimenta, Sergio |
description |
Purpose – In this study, we seek to understand which types of evaluators build their evaluations based on the ethics of conviction and which ones build them based on the ethics of responsibility. Theoretical framework – The concepts of the public sphere from Habermas (1991) and ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility from Weber (1978; 2004) are used to understand the public responsibility of online evaluations by the types of evaluators who produce them (whether real or false). Design/methodology/approach – A cluster analysis with 6,344 evaluations identified four groups of evaluators (speculators, pseudo experts, amateur critics, and real experts). A Spearman correlation matrix is used to verify the correlation between some variables and these groups. Using the quantitative text analysis technique, bigrams (word associations) were identified. Findings – (i) Speculators and pseudo experts tend to present only one score, exercising the act of evaluating using clear ethics of conviction; and (ii) amateurs critics and real experts associate responsibility and experience in the dynamics of translating the gastronomic experience, emphasizing the ethics of responsibility. Practical & social implications of research – As the study by Cruz et al. (2021) presented the types of online evaluators, we characterized them by understanding (i) whether they act based on the ethics of conviction or ethics of responsibility and (ii) the form and content of fake online reviews. Originality/value – We discuss the public responsibility of online reviews – particularly of people who acted as diners. Keywords: Types of online evaluators, ethics of conviction, ethics of responsibility. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-10-11 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Avaliado por pares |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/4189 10.7819/rbgn.v24i3.4189 |
url |
https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/4189 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.7819/rbgn.v24i3.4189 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng por |
language |
eng por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/4189/1867 https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/4189/1868 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Review of Business Management info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Review of Business Management |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
FECAP |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
FECAP |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Review of Business Management; Vol. 24 No. 3 (2022) RBGN Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios; Vol. 24 Núm. 3 (2022) RBGN - Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios; v. 24 n. 3 (2022) 1983-0807 1806-4892 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) instname:Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP) instacron:FECAP |
instname_str |
Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP) |
instacron_str |
FECAP |
institution |
FECAP |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) - Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||jmauricio@fecap.br |
_version_ |
1798942370946875392 |