Campbell's Law — the more a quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more it is subject to corruption pressures and the more it distorts the social processes it is intended to monitor — acquires in Sidorkin's “Campbell's Law and the Ethics of Immensurability” (Studies in Philosophy and Education, 2015/2016) a Bourdieusian explanation: schooling is an honor-economy habitus whose teacher–pupil relations depend on a constitutive taboo against measuring teacher performance through pupil outcomes; imposing market-style measurement violates the taboo, damages the habitus, and produces the corruption Campbell described. The paper itself leaves two linked questions open: (i) why market economies successfully function without a taboo against explicit measurement while non-market habitus depend on it, which the author poses as a question for future economic-anthropological inquiry; and (ii) whether schooling can be reorganized — by creating a habitus not averse to measurement, or by re-establishing a buffer of scholarly interpretation between measurement and decision — so that measurement can be used without self-corruption, a task the paper declares unsolved and untested. Adjacent literatures on commensuration, rankings reactivity, financial performativity, audit, and metric gaming supply partial theory and countervailing evidence but no resolution. Both questions remain open.

Background

Campbell's Law, formulated by the social psychologist Donald T. Campbell, states that “the more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor” (Campbell 1979, originally a 1976 report; the statement is quoted in the source paper). It is the social-science cognate of Goodhart's Law — the observation from monetary policy that when a measure becomes a policy target it ceases to be a good measure — and its failure family — metric gaming, teaching to the test, “test score pollution” — is extensively documented in education: Haladyna, Nolen and Haas (1991) traced how pressure to raise standardized-test scores pollutes the inferences drawn from scores, and Amrein-Beardsley and Geiger (2019) catalogued sources of invalidity in contemporary teacher-evaluation systems built on value-added estimates (statistical estimates of an individual teacher's contribution to pupils' test-score growth) and observational ratings. What long remained unexplained is the law-like regularity itself: why does coupling indicators to decisions so reliably damage the monitored practice?

Alexander Sidorkin's paper “Campbell's Law and the Ethics of Immensurability” (published online 2015, in print 2016) offers an explanation in Bourdieusian terms. In Pierre Bourdieu's sociology, a habitus is a system of durable, embodied dispositions that organizes practice in a social field without explicit rule-following, and symbolic capital is accumulated recognition — honor, prestige, authority — that functions as a resource in such fields. Sidorkin characterizes schooling as an honor-economy habitus, analogous to the tribute-based societies Bourdieu described: the teacher–pupil relation runs on the teacher's symbolic capital rather than on explicit exchange or coercion, and it is collectively sustained by a taboo against measuring the quality and quantity of teacher performance via pupil outcomes — an “ethics of immensurability”. The taboo is claimed to be constitutive rather than conventional: the collective denial of measurability is what creates the trust and authority teachers need. When market-style measurement is imposed — quantitative indicators of pupil performance used to evaluate teachers — the taboo is broken, the habitus is degraded, and previously negotiated ethical norms collapse into the gaming behaviors Campbell described. Campbell's Law is thus presented as a necessary consequence of transposing measurement practices from market contexts onto non-market habitus, not merely an instance of occasional cheating. As mitigation, the paper proposes deliberately restoring the historical buffer of scholarly mediation: data collected and interpreted by researchers with time delays, contentious peer debate, and explicit correlation-versus-causation caveats, so that no immediate feedback loop links an indicator to the evaluated practitioner.

The explanation is asymmetric by construction, and the paper itself flags this. Market economies run on explicit measurement — prices, money-denominated accounts, quantified performance metrics — without, on the paper's account, needing any comparable taboo; the paper explicitly restricts the necessity of Campbell's Law to non-market habitus and leaves open why the taboo against explicit measurement is inactive in the market economy proper, suggesting this as a topic for future economic-anthropological inquiry. The question lands in an active literature. Commensuration research argues that comparing different entities by a common metric is the constitutive medium of markets rather than a threat to them (Espeland and Stevens 1998); reactivity research shows public rankings transforming the non-market institutions they measure (Espeland and Sauder 2007); performativity studies of finance show markets absorbing and internalizing their measurement devices rather than being corroded by them (MacKenzie 2006); and audit-society and metrics-critique scholarship documents metric gaming inside market firms as well as public agencies (Power 1999; Muller 2018), which contests any simple premise that market economies are immune. Formal treatments taxonomize optimization-induced metric failure (Goodhart effects) without any market/non-market distinction (Manheim and Garrabrant 2018). The classical backdrop for the market/non-market contrast is Karl Polanyi's theme of disembedded markets versus socially embedded exchange (Polanyi 1944/2002). Against this backdrop, Sidorkin's two open questions — the explanatory asymmetry and the design question for schooling — have not been taken up.

Problem Statement

Sidorkin's paper leaves two linked questions open, and they are stated here as the paper states them.

(1) The explanatory core. Why do market economies successfully function without a taboo against explicit measurement, while non-market habitus such as schooling depend on one? The explanation sought must specify a mechanism that fits the documented phenomena on both sides — metric gaming that market institutions absorb (financial benchmarks, sales metrics, audited accounts) and measurement-induced relational damage in non-market institutions such as schools — and engages Sidorkin's honor-economy habitus account on which the explanation rests.

(2) The design question, which the paper presents as an unsolved practical task grounded in (1). Can schooling be organized so that it can use measurement without self-corruption — either by creating a school habitus that is not averse to measuring (which, the paper says, would require a fundamental rethinking of the entire institution of schooling, including its authority structure), or by re-establishing a buffer of scholarly interpretation between measurement and decision, a design the paper proposes but for which it identifies no implementation path (“I fail to see any legal ways of doing that”), leaving its deliberate re-creation an open, untested task?

The two questions serve one overarching objective: an account of the institutional limits of explicit measurement that explains the market/non-market asymmetry and fixes what that explanation implies for how non-market institutions may legitimately collect and use data. Sub-question (1) is to be explained by evidence that discriminates among the candidate mechanisms — the honor-economy habitus account and its rivals, such as generic Goodhart-style optimization or principal–agent incentive distortion (where monitored agents optimize what the evaluating principal rewards rather than the underlying task) — argued historically, ethnographically, or by formal modeling, and that identifies an observable difference between a market case and a schooling case favouring one candidate over the others. Sub-question (2) is whether schooling can use measurement without self-corruption, and under what design consistent with the mechanism the evidence favours.

References

  1. Sidorkin, Alexander M. (2016). Campbell's Law and the Ethics of Immensurability. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 35(4), 321–332. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-015-9482-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-015-9482-3 (published online 2015-06-23)
  2. Campbell, Donald T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. DOI: 10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X (journal version of the 1976 Dartmouth College report cited by the source paper)
  3. Haladyna, Thomas M.; Nolen, Susan Bobbit; Haas, Nancy S. (1991). Raising Standardized Achievement Test Scores and the Origins of Test Score Pollution. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 2–7. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X020005002. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020005002
  4. Espeland, Wendy Nelson; Stevens, Mitchell L. (1998). Commensuration as a Social Process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313
  5. Espeland, Wendy Nelson; Sauder, Michael (2007). Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40. DOI: 10.1086/517897. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897
  6. MacKenzie, Donald (2006). An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262134606.001.0001. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262134606.001.0001
  7. Power, Michael (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296034.001.0001. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296034.001.0001
  8. Muller, Jerry Z. (2018). The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.23943/9781400889433. https://doi.org/10.23943/9781400889433
  9. Manheim, David; Garrabrant, Scott (2018). Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Law. arXiv:1803.04585. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04585
  10. Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey; Geiger, Tray J. (2019). Potential sources of invalidity when using teacher value-added and principal observational estimates: artificial inflation, deflation, and conflation. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(4), 465–493. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-019-09311-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09311-w
  11. Byrd, Marie; Varga, Bretton A. (2018). The Manifestation of Campbell's Law: Consequences of Eliminating of Social Studies From the Curriculum. The Social Studies, 109(1), 27–33. DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2017.1406322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2017.1406322
  12. Kalemdaroglu-Wheeler, Elif (2023). Perceptions of Test Score Pollution Stemming From COVID-19 and State Testing: An Exploratory Case Study. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(4), 95–118. DOI: 10.29333/ajqr/13601. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13601
  13. Langan, A. Mark; Harris, W. Edwin (2024). Metrics of student dissatisfaction and disagreement: longitudinal explorations of a national survey instrument. Higher Education, 87(2), 249–269. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-023-01004-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01004-0 (published online 2023-03-29)
  14. Smith, William C.; Jiang, Huan; Xu, Xiao (2025). Where you place the stakes matter: examining the relationship between test-based accountability and shadow education. Comparative Education, 61(4), 505–529. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2025.2457787. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2025.2457787
  15. Harðarson, Atli (2024). Can attempts to make schools more reliable render them less trustworthy? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 56(1), 42–51. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2023.2185134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2023.2185134 (published online 2023-03-06)
  16. Eaton, Casey E.; White, Christopher; Mesmer, Bryan (2024). Can Measurement Misdirect System Design? Conference on Systems Engineering Research Series, 263–277. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-49179-5_18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49179-5_18
  17. Bourdieu, Pierre (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  18. Polanyi, Karl (1944/2002). The Great Transformation. In: Readings in Economic Sociology (pp. 38–62). Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9780470755679.ch4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755679.ch4