Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 443–461 | Cite as

Normative orientations of university faculty and doctoral students

Article
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Data from two national surveys of 4,000 faculty and doctoral students in chemistry, civil engineering, microbiology and sociology indicate that both faculty and students subscribe strongly to traditional norms but are more likely to see alternative counternorms enacted in their departments. They also show significant effects of departmental climate on normative orientations and suggest that many researchers express some degree of ambivalence about traditional norms.

Keywords

norms of academic research counternorms graduate education faculty research ethics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Braxton, J.M. & Bayer, A.E. (1999) Faculty Misconduct in Collegiate Teaching, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Merton, R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Merton, R.K. (1942) Science and Technology in a Democratic Order, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1(1–2): 115–126.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitroff, I. (1974) Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: a case study of the ambivalence of scientists, American Sociological Review 39: 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, M.S. & Louis, K.S. (1994) The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science, Research in Higher Education 35(3): 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barber, B. (1952) Science and the Social Order, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braxton, J.M. (1986) The normative structure of science: social control in the academic profession, in: Smart, J.C., ed. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 2, Agathon Press, New York: 309–357.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merton, R.K. & Barber, B. (1963) Sociological ambivalence, in: Tiryakian E.A., ed. Sociological Theory, Values and Sociocultural Change, The Free Press, Glencoe: 91–120.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenzweig, R.M. (1985) Research as intellectual property: influences within the university, Science, Technology, and Human Values 10(2): 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mulkay, M. (1976) Norms and ideology in science, Social Science Information 15(4–5): 637–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mulkay, M. (1979) Science and the Sociology of Knowledge, George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mulkay, M. (1980) Interpretation and the use of rules: the case of the norms of science, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, series 2, 39: 111–125.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Durkheim, E., translated by Fields, K.E. (1995 [1912]). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Braxton, J.M. (1999) Toward a guiding framework for self-regulation in the community of the academic profession, in: Braxton, J.M., ed. Perspectives on Scholarly Misconduct in the Sciences, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio: 139–161.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zuckerman, H.E. (1988) The sociology of science, in: Smelser, N.J., ed. Handbook of Sociology, Sage, Newbury Park, California: 511–574.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Louis, K.S., Anderson, M.S. & Rosenberg, L. (1995). Academic misconduct and values: the department’s influence, The Review of Higher Education 18(4): 393–422.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swazey, J.P., Anderson, M.S. & Louis, K.S. (1993) Ethical problems in academic research, American Scientist 81: 542–553.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson, M.S. (1996) Misconduct and departmental context: evidence from the Acadia Institute’s Graduate Education Project, Journal of Information Ethics 5(1): 15–33.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Biglan, A. (1973) The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas, Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3): 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anderson, M.S., Louis, K.S. & Earle, J. (1994) Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct, Journal of Higher Education 65(3), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson, M.S. (1996). Collaboration, the doctoral experience, and the departmental environment, The Review of Higher Education, 19(3): 305–326.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson, M.S. & Swazey, J.P. (1998). Reflections on the graduate student experience: an overview, in: Anderson, M.S., ed. The Experience of Being in Graduate School: An Exploration, New Directions for Higher Education, no. 101, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Victor, B. & Cullen, J.B. (1988) The organizational basis of ethical work climates, Administrative Science Quarterly 33: 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models, Sage, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bryk, A.S., Raudenbush, S. & Congdon, R.T., Jr. (1994) Hierarchical Linear Modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L Programs, Scientific Software International, Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Anderson, M.S., Causino, N. & Louis, K.S. (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty, Journal of the American Medical Association 277(15): 1224–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pritchard, I. (1993) Integrity versus misconduct: learning the difference between right and wrong, Academic Medicine 68(9, Supplement): S67-S71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anderson, M.S. (1999) Uncovering the covert: research on academic misconduct, in Braxton, J.M., ed. Perspectives on Scholarly Misconduct in the Sciences, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Policy and AdministrationUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations