My own past experience as a teacher suggests (weakly and somewhat tangentially) that thereâs truth to both sides of this debate.
Remarkably, and I think quite appallingly, I and most other teachers at my school could mostly operate in secret, in the sense that we were hardly ever observed by anyone except our students (who probably wouldnât tell our superiors anything less than extreme misconduct). I do think that this allowed increased laziness, distorting results to look good (e.g., âteaching to the testâ in bad ways, or marking far too leniently[1]), and semi-misconduct (e.g., large scary male teachers standing over and yelling angrily at 13 year olds). This seems to tangentially support the idea that âsecrecyâ increases âcorruptionâ.
On the other hand, the school, and curriculum more broadly, also had some quite pointless or counterproductive policies. Being able to âoperate in secretâ meant that I could ditch the policies that were stupid, not waste time âticking boxesâ, and instead do what was âreally rightâ.
But again, the caveat should be added that itâs quite possible that the school/âcurriculum was right and I was wrong, and thus I wouldâve been better off being put under the floodlights and forced to conform. I tried to bear this sort of epistemic humility in mind, and therefore âgo my own wayâ only relatively rarely, when I thought I had particularly good reasons for doing so.
This all also makes me think that the pros and cons of secrecy will probably vary between individuals and organisations, and in part based on something like how âconscientiousâ or âvalue alignedâ the individual is. In the extreme, a highly conscientious and altruistic person with excellent morals and epistemics to begin with might thrive if able to operate somewhat âsecretlyâ, as they are then freed to optimise for what really matters. (Though other problems could of course occur.) Conversely, for someone with a more normal level of conscientiousness, self-interest, flawed beliefs about whatâs right, and flawed beliefs about the world, openness may free them instead to act self-interestedly, corruptly, or based on what they think is right but is actually worse than what others wouldâve told them to do.
My own past experience as a teacher suggests (weakly and somewhat tangentially) that thereâs truth to both sides of this debate.
Remarkably, and I think quite appallingly, I and most other teachers at my school could mostly operate in secret, in the sense that we were hardly ever observed by anyone except our students (who probably wouldnât tell our superiors anything less than extreme misconduct). I do think that this allowed increased laziness, distorting results to look good (e.g., âteaching to the testâ in bad ways, or marking far too leniently[1]), and semi-misconduct (e.g., large scary male teachers standing over and yelling angrily at 13 year olds). This seems to tangentially support the idea that âsecrecyâ increases âcorruptionâ.
On the other hand, the school, and curriculum more broadly, also had some quite pointless or counterproductive policies. Being able to âoperate in secretâ meant that I could ditch the policies that were stupid, not waste time âticking boxesâ, and instead do what was âreally rightâ.
But again, the caveat should be added that itâs quite possible that the school/âcurriculum was right and I was wrong, and thus I wouldâve been better off being put under the floodlights and forced to conform. I tried to bear this sort of epistemic humility in mind, and therefore âgo my own wayâ only relatively rarely, when I thought I had particularly good reasons for doing so.
This all also makes me think that the pros and cons of secrecy will probably vary between individuals and organisations, and in part based on something like how âconscientiousâ or âvalue alignedâ the individual is. In the extreme, a highly conscientious and altruistic person with excellent morals and epistemics to begin with might thrive if able to operate somewhat âsecretlyâ, as they are then freed to optimise for what really matters. (Though other problems could of course occur.) Conversely, for someone with a more normal level of conscientiousness, self-interest, flawed beliefs about whatâs right, and flawed beliefs about the world, openness may free them instead to act self-interestedly, corruptly, or based on what they think is right but is actually worse than what others wouldâve told them to do.