Abstract
Control theory of deviance is extended to the case of deviancy from the four Mertonian norms of science. Control theory is tested on a national sample of faculty in seven academic disciplines. The 1977 Survey of the American Professoriate conducted by Ladd and Lipset was the data source for this inquiry. The results indicate that both the internalization of a given norm and disciplinary colleague conformity to a given norm exert an influence on deviancy from each of the four norms of science. These findings provide support for control theory as an explication for deviancy from the norms of science. However, the influence of the extent to which disciplinary colleagues are perceived to be conforming to these norms on norm deviancy is stronger than that of individual norm internalization. Deviancy from the norms of science is the consequence of ineffective social control. Thus, these findings suggest that social control in the academic profession lies primarily in the community of the academic disciplines rather than with personal controls.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashford, N. A. (1983). A framework for examining the effects of industrial funding on academic freedom and the integrity of the university.Science, Technology, and Human Values 8: 16–23.
Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In Burton R. Clark (Ed.),The Academic Profession (pp. 271–303). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.Journal of Applied Psychology 57(2): 195–203.
Braxton, J. M. (1986). The normative structure of science: Social control in the academic profession. In John C. Smart (ed.),Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume II (pp. 309–357). New York: Agathon Press, Inc.
Braxton, J. M. (1989). Institutional variability in faculty conformity to the norms of science: A force of integration or fragmentation in the academic profession?Research in Higher Education 30: 419–433.
Broad, W. J., and Wade, N. (1982).Betrayers of the truth: Fraud and deceit in the halls of science. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bucher, R., and Strauss, A. (1961). Profession in process.American Journal of Sociology 66: 325–334.
Carmines, E. G., and Zeller, R. A. (1979).Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1972).A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission.
Clark, B. R. (1963). Faculty organization and authority. In T. F. Lunsford (ed.),The Study of Academic Administration (pp. 37–51). Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Creswell, J. W., and Roskens, R. W. (1981). The Biglan studies of differences among academic areas.Review of Higher Education 4: 1–16.
Durkheim, E. (1951).Suicide trans. John H. Saulding and George Simpson. New York: Free Press.
Frazier, C. E. (1976).Theoretical Approaches to Deviance: An Evaluation. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Goode, W. J. (1957). Community within a community.American Sociological Review 22: 194–200.
Goode, W. J. (1969). The theoretical limits of professionalization. In A. Etzioni (ed.),The semiprofessions and Their Organization (pp. 266–313). New York: The Free Press.
Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession.Social Work 2: 44–55.
Kadish, S. H. (1972). The theory of the profession and its predicament.AAUP Bulletin 58: 120–125.
Ladd, E. C., Jr. (1979). The work of American college professors: Some data and an argument, AAHE.Current Issues in Higher Education.
Ladd, E. C., Jr., and Lipset, S. M. (1978).Technical Report 1977 Survey of the American Professoriate. Storrs, CT: Social Science Data Center, University of Connecticut.
Light, D. (1974). The structure of the academic professions.Sociology of Education 47: 2–28.
Lodahl, J. B., and Gordon, G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments.American Sociological Review 37: 57–72.
Merton, R. K. (1942). Science, technology in a democratic order.Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.
Merton, R. K. (1968).Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. (1973).The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reiss, A. (1951). Delinquency as a failure of personal and social controls.American Sociological Review 16: 196–207.
Reiss, A. (1973). Surveys of Self-Reported Delicts. Unpublished paper prepared for the Symposium on Studies of Public Experience, Knowledge, and Opinion of Crime and Justice, Washington, D.C.
Sarbin, T., and Allen, V. L. (1969). Role theory. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.),The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 488–567). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1972).Professional Education: Some New Directions. New York: McGraw Hill.
Shils, E. (1983).The Academic Ethic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Deviant behavior and social control in science. In E. Sagaren (ed.),Deviance and Social Change (pp. 87–138). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Zuckerman, H. C. (1988). The sociology of science. In Neil N. Smelser (ed.),Handbook of Sociology (pp. 511–574). Mewbury Park, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Braxton, J.M. Deviancy from the norms of science: A test of control theory. Res High Educ 31, 461–476 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992713
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992713