INFORMATION to USERS the Most Advanced Technology Has Been
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small o^^erlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 Nortti Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9001939 The perceived seriousness and incidence of ethical misconduct in academic science Davis, Mark Stephen, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1989 Copyright ©1989 by Davis, Mark Stephen. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 THE PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS AND INCIDENCE OF ETHICAL MISCONDUCT IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Mark S. Davis, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1989 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Simon Dinitz Joseph E. Scott Adviser Kent P. Schwirian Department of Soci'tJlogy Copyright by Mark S. Davis 1989 To the memory of my father, Clyde H. Davis, a man who knew little about science but much about integrity. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While it is not possible to mention everyone deserving of thanks, I at least would like to express my appreciation to those without whose efforts the project would not have been possible. I would like to thank my mother and sisters for their love and support, and for teaching me to appreciate words. I am also grateful for the encouragement I have received from Carol Ventresca, Rick Cooper, Phil Rack, and a number of other friends and colleagues who have helped sustain me through the entire doctoral process. The dissertation greatly benefitted from the efforts of Daryl Chubin, Harold Goldman, Ed Hackett, Vincent Hernparian, Elizabeth Knoll, Benjamin Pasamanick, Drummond Rennie, Patricia Woolf, and Harriet Zuckerman, each of whom read and critiqued early versions of the questionnaire, offering numerous insightful comments and suggestions. Thanks are also due to Debbie Edwards and Debbie Potter for help in data cleaning and analysis. iii Never «ill I be able to repay the debt I feel toward my dissertation committee members. My committee chair, Simon Dlnltz, has been more Indulgent than should be expected of any mentor. Where most advisers would have been put off by the obsessions and digressions of an aging, part-time graduate student. Dr. Dlnltz offered unwavering support, tempering his advisee's Intellectual and emotional extremes with his own wisdom and humanity. Joe Scott, my teacher and friend of many years. Is surely the busiest man I know. Nevertheless, he has always made time for me and has given the best of advice. And Dr. Schwirian, my favorite statistics professor. Instilled In me long ago an appreciation of statistical Issues. For everything these men have done I am truly grateful. Married graduate students do a terrible disservice to their families. Throughout what must have seemed an Interminable process, my wife Jan tolerated my moods and absences, supported me through disappointments, shared In the triumphs, and threatened me when I came close to chucking It all. The diploma Is at least half hers. To my daughters Heather and Stephanie, for your unqualified support and understanding of my neglect, I promise I will try to somehow make It up to you. Iv VITA 1974........... B.A., The Ohio State University 1975-1976...... Parole Officer, Adult Parole Authority, Gallon, Ohio 1977-1980...... Probation Officer, Franklin County Municipal Court, Columbus, Ohio 1980........... M.A., The Ohio State University 1981-198 2 ...... Teaching Associate and Lecturer, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1982-Presen t .... Researcher, Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Services, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Sociology Studies In Criminology, Methodology and Statistics, and Social Psychology TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION......................................... 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................... 111-lv VITA................................................ V LIST OF TABLES................................ vlll-lx Chapter I. INTRODUCTION................................. 1 Statement of the Problem..................1 Importance of the Problem. ............ 2 Examples of Scientific Deviance.......... 4 Focus of the Present Study...............10 II. DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE.................. 12. The Cognitive Norms of Science.......... 13 The Moral Norms of Science...............15 Ethical Standards In Academic Science.... 19 The Boundaries of Scientific Deviance....22 III. SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT AS WHITE-COLLAR CRIME..26 White-Collar Crime as Violation of Trust................. 28 The Unit of Analysis In White-Collar Crime Studies....................... 31 Scientific Misconduct as Violation of Trust.......... 33 vl IV. METHODOLOGY................................. 34. The Measurement of Seriousness........ .35 Magnitude Estimation v. Category Technique ........... 37 The Sample............................... 40 Development of the Survey Instrument..... 43 Administration of the Survey............ 45 V. THE PERCEIVED SERIOUSNESS OF ETHICAL MISCONDUCT.................................. 49 Prior Work on the Seriousness of Scientific Misconduct.............. 49 Seriousness in the Present Study........ 50 The Dimensions of Scientific Misconduct..57 The Explanation of Seriousness.......... 63 VI. THE PERCEIVED INCIDENCE OF ETHICAL MISCONDUCT........................ 67 Deviance in Science; How Much?.......... 67 VII. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS................. 60 Major Findings.......................... 80 Suggestions for Future Study............ 62 Theoretical Implications. .............. 63 Policy Implications..................... 67 APPENDICES....................................... 90 A. Survey Instrument....................... 90 B. Supplemental Enclosure...................95 C. Characteristics of the Six Samples....... 97 D. Geomeans for the Six Samples............ 104 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................. 117 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Return Rates for Each of the Six Samples.................................. 46 2. Sociodemographic and Professional Characteristics of the Combined Samples .48 3. Rank-Ordered Seriousness Ratings of Combined Sample...... 53 4. Matrix of Rho Values for Six Disciplines 57 5. Factor Loadings for Vignette Variables...... 59 6. Stepwise Regression Summary for Misrepresentation Factor.....................64 7. Stepwise Regression Summary for Propriety Factor............................. 65 a. Perceptions of How Often Scientists and Scholars Steal the Work of Their Colleagues..69 9. Perceptions of Whether Respondents' Own Work Has Been Stolen or Plagiarized: By Gender.... 71 10. Perceived Plagiarism by Productivity Level...72 11. Perceived Plagiarism by Professorial Rank....72 12. Have You Personally Known Someone Who Has Fabricated Data and Passed Them Off as Legitmate Data?.............................. 74 viii 13. Scientists Reporting that Ideas They Shared Had Eesïî Used without Their Permission by Gender...................... 76 14. Have You Ever Received Less Authorship Credit than You Believe You Actually Deserved?..... 77 Ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Science, one of the last bastions in modern society to come under attack, has been suffering a seige of accusations that some of its members are engaging in unethical practices. In some cases these accusations have proven true, resulting in the resignation of scientists, the revocation of degrees, the retraction of published papers, and the waste of research monies. For some time now journalists (Culliton, 1974; Broad, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c; Budiansky, 1985; Wheeler, 1988) have reported occasionally on such misdeeds, but it has been only relatively recently that scientists themselves (Petersdorf, 1986; Braunwald, 1987) and governmental entities such as the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Congress (Holden, 1988) have shown a willingness to frankly discuss the problem of fraud in science and its implications. Because the formal