Professionalism in Science: Competence, Autonomy, and Service.
Autonomy
Professionalism
Research integrity
Self-regulation
Service
Journal
Science and engineering ethics
ISSN: 1471-5546
Titre abrégé: Sci Eng Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516228
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
03
04
2019
accepted:
25
09
2019
pubmed:
7
10
2019
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
7
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Some of the most significant policy responses to cases of fraudulent and questionable conduct by scientists have been to strengthen professionalism among scientists, whether by codes of conduct, integrity boards, or mandatory research integrity training programs. Yet there has been little systematic discussion about what professionalism in scientific research should mean. In this paper I draw on the sociology of the professions and on data comparing codes of conduct in science to those in the professions, in order to examine what precisely the model of professionalism implies for scientific research. I argue that professionalism, more than any other single organizational logic, is appropriate for scientific research, and that codes of conduct for scientists should strengthen statements concerning scientific autonomy and competence, as well as the scientific service ideal.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31587149
doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00143-x
pii: 10.1007/s11948-019-00143-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1287-1313Références
ABA, (American Bar Association). (2018). Model rules of professional conduct. Retrieved January 27, 2019 from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/ .
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226189666.001.0001
AMA, (American Medical Association). (2001). AMA Code of Medical Ethics. Retrieved 28 March 2019 from https://www.amaassn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/principles-of-medical-ethics.pdf .
Andersen, H., & Hepburn, B. (2016). Scientific method. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2016.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved July 2, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/scientific-method/ .
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics,13(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5
Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature News,533(7604), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a .
doi: 10.1038/533452a
Besley, J. C., McCright, A. M., Zahry, N. R., Elliott, K. C., Kaminski, N. E., & Martin, J. D. (2017). Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLoS ONE,12(4), e0175643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175643 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175643
Bicchieri, C. (2016). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bornmann, L. (2013). Research misconduct—definitions. Manifestations and Extent. Publications,1(3), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications1030087 .
doi: 10.3390/publications1030087
Bouter, L. M. (2015). Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples? Accountability in Research,22(3), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.950253 .
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.950253
Boyce, R. A. (2008). Professionalism meets entrepreneurialism and managerialism. In E. Kuhlmann & M. Saks (Eds.), Rethinking professional governance: International directions in healthcare. Bristol: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781861349569.001.0001 .
doi: 10.1332/policypress/9781861349569.001.0001
Brante, T. (2011). Professions as science-based occupations. Professions and Professionalism. https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.v1i1.147 .
doi: 10.7577/pp.v1i1.147
Bulmer, M. (2004). Did Jenkin’s swamping argument invalidate Darwin’s theory of natural selection? The British Journal for the History of Science,37(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087404005850 .
doi: 10.1017/S0007087404005850
Carvalho, T. (2014). Changing connections between professionalism and managerialism: A case study of nursing in Portugal. Journal of Professions and Organization, 1(2), 176–190.
doi: 10.1093/jpo/jou004
Carvalho, T. (2017). The study of the academic profession—Contributions from and to the Sociology of Professions. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 3, pp. 59–76). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2056-375220170000003004 .
doi: 10.1108/s2056-375220170000003004
Carvalho, T., & Correia, T. (2018). Editorial: professions and professionalism in market-driven societies. Professions and Professionalism, 8(3), e3052. https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.3052 .
doi: 10.7577/pp.3052
Carvalho, T., Correia, T., & Serra, H. (2018). Professions under suspicion: what role for professional ethics and commitment in contemporary societies? 17.
Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2010). Still academics after all…. Higher Education Policy,23(3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2010.17 .
doi: 10.1057/hep.2010.17
Clark, C. (2005). The deprofessionalisation thesis, accountability and professional character. Social Work and Society,3(2), 9.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science,32(2), 235–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003 .
doi: 10.1177/0306312702032002003
Davis, J. K. (1991a). Professions, trades, and the obligation to inform. Journal of Applied Philosophy,8(2), 167–176.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.1991.tb00279.x
Davis, M. (1991b). Thinking like an engineer: The place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philosophy & Public Affairs,20(2), 150–167.
De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,1(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43 .
doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43
DFG (German Research Foundation). (2013). Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis/Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice. Retrieved February 7 2019 from http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/download/empfehlung_wiss_praxis_1310.pdf .
Dickel, S. (2016). Trust in technologies? Science after de-professionalization. Journal of Science Communication,15(5), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050303 .
doi: 10.22323/2.15050303
Dubber, M. D. (2015). An introduction to the model penal code (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190243043.001.0001
Elliott, P. (2013). The sociology of the professions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elliott, K. C. (2018). Addressing industry-funded research with criteria for objectivity. Philosophy of Science,85(5), 857–868. https://doi.org/10.1086/699718 .
doi: 10.1086/699718
Enders, J. (2007). The academic profession. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 5–21). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_2 .
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_2
ESF-ALLEA, (European Science Foundation and All European Academies). (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity. Retrieved July 2, 2018 from http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf .
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE,4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Fanelli, D. (2018). Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,115(11), 2628–2631. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114 .
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708272114
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: Humanities Press.
Forsberg, E.-M., Anthun, F. O., Bailey, S., Birchley, G., Bout, H., Casonato, C., et al. (2018). Working with research integrity—Guidance for research performing organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER statement. Science and Engineering Ethics,24(4), 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4
Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: On the practice of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
German Data Forum (Ed.). (2011). Building on progress: Expanding the research infrastructure for the social, economic, and behavioral sciences. Leverkusen: Budrich UniPress.
doi: 10.3224/94075558
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review,48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325 .
doi: 10.2307/2095325
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. The Lancet,381(9872), 1097–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X
Hall, D. E. (2014). Criminal law and procedure. Boston: Cengage Learning.
IBA, (International Bar Association). (2011). International Principles on Conduct for the Legal Profession. Retrieved March 28 2019 from https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=1730FC33-6D70-4469-9B9D-8A12C319468C .
IAP, (The Interacademy Partnership) (2018). A call for action to improve the reproducibility of biomedical research. Retrieved 25 March 2019 from http://www.interacademies.org/39535/Improving-the-reproducibility-of-biomedical-research-a-call-for-action .
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science,23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953 .
doi: 10.1177/0956797611430953
Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. The Journal of Philosophy,87(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026796 .
doi: 10.2307/2026796
Kuhlmann, E., Burau, V., Correia, T., Lewandowski, R., Lionis, C., Noordegraaf, M., & Repullo, J. (2013). A manager in the minds of doctors: A comparison of new modes of control in European hospitals. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 246. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-246.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-246
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621123
Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Macdonald, K. M. (1995). The sociology of the professions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2018). The communist manifesto. Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House.
Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy. J. Legal & Pol. Soc.,1, 115.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I. A., Miedema, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Goodman, S. N. (2018). Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour,1(1), 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021 .
doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nature. (2018). Austrian agency shows how to tackle scientific misconduct. Nature,561, 285. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06733-2 .
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-06733-2
Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Hybrid professionalism and beyond: (New) Forms of public professionalism in changing organizational and societal contexts. Journal of Professions and Organization,2(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov002 .
doi: 10.1093/jpo/jov002
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science,349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 .
doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716
Parsons, T. (1978). Action theory and the human condition. New York: Free Press.
Perkin, H. (1969). Key profession: The history of the association of university teachers. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
doi: 10.4324/9780203994627
Price, A. R. (2013). Research misconduct and its federal regulation: The origin and history of the office of research integrity—With personal views by ORI’s former associate director for investigative oversight. Accountability in Research,20(5–6), 291–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822238 .
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822238
Resnik, D. B., Neal, T., Raymond, A., & Kissling, G. E. (2015a). Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research,22(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891943 .
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.891943
Resnik, D. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Kissling, G. E. (2015b). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in research,22(5), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.958218 .
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.958218
Resnik, D. B., & Stewart, C. N. (2012). Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Accountability in Research,19(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2012.650948 .
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2012.650948
Sabharwal, M. (2013). Comparing research productivity across disciplines and career stages. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice,15(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2013.785149 .
doi: 10.1080/13876988.2013.785149
Salwén, H. (2015). The Swedish Research Council’s definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A critique. Science and Engineering Ethics,21(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9523-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9523-2
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2015). Responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226750170.001.0001
Shuster, E. (1997). Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg code. New England Journal of Medicine,337(20), 1436–1440. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJM199711133372006
Smith, A. (2008). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Steneck, N. H. (2013). Global research integrity training. Science,340(6132), 552–553. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236373 .
doi: 10.1126/science.1236373
Stichweh, R. (1997). Professions in modern society. International Review of Sociology,7(1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.1997.9971225 .
doi: 10.1080/03906701.1997.9971225
Taylor, P. L. (2009). Scientific self-regulation-so good, how can it fail? Commentary on “The problems with forbidding science”. Science and Engineering Ethics,15(3), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9123-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-9123-8
Toulmin, S. E. (1970). Does the distinction between normal and revolutionary science hold water? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 39–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139171434.005 .
doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139171434.005
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. California: University of California Press.
Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology,70(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1086/223790 .
doi: 10.1086/223790
WMA, (The World Medical Association) (1975). Declaration of Helsinki.
WMA, (The World Medical Association) (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved January 28, 2019 from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ .