The Hacker Ethic for Gifted Scientists



This chapter explores the ethics of gifted people in science with a special emphasis on a” hacker ethic.” Gifted students and professionals in science create new ideas and products that can be used in the benefit of our society. However, the creative process in science includes many ethical issues that need to be considered before publishing the new idea or the product. Combining excellence with ethics relates to ethical models developed in the academic context, such as Pekka Himanen’s theoretical approach to the hacker ethic. In his work, Himanen (2001) introduced a new kind of ethic, the” hacker work ethic,” which has replaced the dominance of the Protestant work ethic with a passionate attitude and relationship to one’s work. With the word” hackers,” he referred to people who did their work because of intrinsic interest, excitement, and joy, whereas the Protestant work ethic emphasized work as a duty and a calling. The successful scientists resemble the hackers with their strong inner drive to excel (Koro-Ljungberg & Tirri, 2002; Tirri & Campbell, 2002).


Moral Judgment Moral Reasoning Moral Dilemma Archeological Research Ethical Sensitivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albrecht, K. (2006). Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Andreani, O., & Pagnin, A. (1993). Nurturing the moral development of the gifted. In K. Heller, R Monks, & H. Passow (eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 539–553). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bebeau, M., Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1999). Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in moral education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bebeau, M., Rest, J., & Yamoor, C. (1985). Measuring dental students’ ethical sensitivity. Journal of Dental Education, 49(4), 225–235.Google Scholar
  5. Brabeck, M., Rogers, L., Sirin, S., Handerson, J., Ting, K., & Benvenuto, M. (2000). Increasing ethical sensitivity to racial and gender intolerance in schools: Development of the racial ethical sensitivity test (REST). Ethics and behavior, 10(2), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gholami, K., & Tirri, K. (2012a). The cultural dependence of the ethical sensitivity scale questionnaire: The case of Iranian Kurdish teachers. Education Research International, 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Gholami, K., & Tirri, K. (2012b). The teachers’ perceived dimensions of caring practice: A quantitative reflection on the moral aspect of teaching. Education Research International, 2012.Google Scholar
  8. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  10. Himanen, P. (2001). The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  11. Karnes, R, & Brown, K. (1981). Moral development and the gifted: An initial investigation. Roeper Review, 3, 8–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (pp. 347–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  13. Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Tirri, K. (2002). Beliefs and values of successful scientists. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 23(2), 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuusisto, E., Tirri, K., & Rissanen, I. (2012). Finnish teachers’ ethical sensitivity. Education Research International, 2012.Google Scholar
  15. Narvaez, D. (1993). High achieving students and moral judgment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(3), 268–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Narvaez, D. (2001). Ethical sensitivity: Activity booklet 1. ~dnarvaez/, accessed March 2, 2007.
  17. Noddings, N. (1999). Introduction. In M. Katz, N. Noddings, & K. Strike (eds.), Justice and Caring: The Search for Common Ground in Education (pp. 21–37). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Schutte, I., Wolfersberger, M., & Tirri, K. (under review). The relationship between ethical sensitivity, high ability and gender in higher education students.Google Scholar
  19. Sjoberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE Project. An Overview and Key Findings, Oslo: University olOslo.Google Scholar
  20. Strike, K. (1999). Justice, caring, and universality: In defence ol moral pluralism. In M. Katz, N. Noddings, & K. Strike (eds.), Justice and Caring: The Search for Common Ground in Education (pp. 21–37). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Terman, L. (1925). Genetic Studies of Genius: Vol. 1. Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tirri, K. (2001). Finland Olympiad studies: What lactors contribute to the development ol academic talent in Finland? Educating Able Children, 5(2), 56–66.Google Scholar
  23. Tirri, K. (2002). Developing females’ talent: Case studies ol Finnish Olympians. Journal of Research in Education, 12(1), 80–85.Google Scholar
  24. Tirri, K. (2003). The moral concerns and orientations ol sixth. and ninth-grade students, Educational Research and Evaluation, 9(1), pp. 93–108.Google Scholar
  25. Tirri, K. (2011). Combining excellence and ethics: Implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 33(1), 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tirri, K., & Campbell, J. R. (2002). Actualizing mathematical giltedness in adulthood. Educating Able Children, 6(1), 14–20.Google Scholar
  27. Tirri, K., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2002). Critical incidents in the lives ol gifted female Finnish scientists. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(4), 151–162.Google Scholar
  28. Tirri, K., St. Nokelainen, P. (2006). Gifted students and the future. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 3(2), 55–66Google Scholar
  29. Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2007). Comparison of academically average and gifted students’ self-rated ethical sensitivity. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2011). Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tirri, K., & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(3), 120–129.Google Scholar
  32. Tirri, K., Tallent-Runnels, M. St. Nokelainen, P. (2005). A cross-cultural study of pre-adolescents’ moral, religious and spiritual questions. British Journal of Religious Education, 27(3), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tirri, K., Tolppanen, S., Aksela, M., St Kuusisto, E. (2012). A cross-cultural study of gifted students’ scientific, societal, and moral questions concerning science. Educational Research International, 2012, Article ID 673645, doi:10.1155/2012/673645.Google Scholar
  34. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kirsi Tirri 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations