Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 389–398 | Cite as

A Broader Discussion of Authorship

Article

Abstract

While it may be useful to consider the development of new topics in teaching the responsible conduct of research (RCR), it is perhaps equally important to reconsider the traditionally taught core topic areas in both more nuanced and broader ways. This paper takes the topic of authorship as an example. Through the description of two specific cases from sociocultural anthropology, ideas about credit and responsibility are examined. It is suggested that placing more focus on the array of meanings found in the act of authoring might help students see themselves as part of a wider community both of scientists and beyond science.

Keywords

Authorship Ethnography Anthropology Responsible conduct of research 

References

  1. Benajmin, A. F. (2002). Jews of the Dutch Caribbean: Exploring ethnic identity on Curacao. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. D’Andrade, Roy. (1995). Moral models in anthropology. In Current Anthropology, 36(3), 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davies, M. W. (2002). Introducing anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Totem Books.Google Scholar
  5. Estroff, S. E. (1985). Making it crazy: An ethnography of psychiatric clients in an American community. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Estroff, S. E. (1995). Whose story is it anyway? Authority, voice, and responsibility in narratives of chronic illness. In S. K. Toombs, D. Barnard, & R. A. Carson (Eds.), Chronic illness: From experience to policy. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the other: How anthropology makes its object. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  8. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Gellner, E. (1992). Postmodernism, reason and religion. London: Routledge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodstein, D. (1991). Scientific fraud. Engineering and Science, 60(4), 505–515.Google Scholar
  11. Guterman, L. (2006). Digging into the roots of research ethics. On-line chronicle of higher education (September 1st, 2006) at http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i02/02a02401.htm. Accessed April 5 2011.
  12. Jacob, F. (1988). The statue within: An autobiography. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ortner, S. B. (2006). Anthropology and social theory: Culture power, and the acting subject. Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism: Western conceptions of the orient. London: Rutledge Press.Google Scholar
  15. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2001). Saints, scholars and schizophrenics: Mental illness in rural Ireland (20th Anniversary Edition). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  17. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Ethics Program, 0612University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations