Professionalism in Science: Competence, Autonomy, and Service

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.

[1]  D. Fanelli.  How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data , 2009, PloS one.

[2]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  A manifesto for reproducible science , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[3]  G. Ritzer,et al.  The Sociology of the Professions , 1988 .

[4]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Research Misconduct - Definitions, Manifestations and Extent , 2013, Publ..

[5]  Meghna Sabharwal,et al.  Comparing Research Productivity Across Disciplines and Career Stages , 2013 .

[6]  D. E. Hall.  Criminal Law and Procedure , 1995 .

[7]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research , 2006, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[8]  J. Labinger.  The scientific life : a moral history of a late modern vocation , 2008 .

[9]  D. Resnik,et al.  Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by U.S. Research Institutions , 2015, Accountability in research.

[10]  Cristina Bicchieri,et al.  Norms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms , 2016 .

[11]  S. Toulmin,et al.  Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Does the Distinction between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water? , 1970 .

[12]  C. Lionis,et al.  “A manager in the minds of doctors:” a comparison of new modes of control in European hospitals , 2013, BMC Health Services Research.

[13]  R. Merton,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1975, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

[14]  P. Elliott,et al.  The sociology of the professions , 1974 .

[15]  A. Abbott.  The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor , 1988 .

[16]  Philip Kitcher,et al.  The Division of Cognitive Labor , 1990 .

[17]  Teresa Carvalho,et al.  The Study of the Academic Profession – Contributions from and to the Sociology of Professions , 2017 .

[18]  H. Perkin.  Key Profession , 2018 .

[19]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  The methodology of scientific research programmes: Contents , 1978 .

[20]  T. Brante.  Professions as Science-Based Occupations , 2011 .

[21]  Teresa Carvalho.  Changing connections between professionalism and managerialism: a case study of nursing in Portugal , 2014 .

[22]  Michael Davis,et al.  Thinking like an engineer: the place of a code of ethics , 2017 .

[23]  E. Freidson.  Claims Examined. (Book Reviews: Profession of Medicine. A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge) , 1970 .

[24]  T. Gieryn.  Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .

[25]  Nicholas H. Steneck,et al.  Global Research Integrity Training , 2013, Science.

[26]  M. Dubber.  An Introduction to the Model Penal Code , 2015 .

[27]  D. Resnik,et al.  An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies , 2015, Accountability in research.

[28]  A. R. Price.  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 , 2013, Accountability in research.

[29]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science , 2015, Science.

[30]  Jürgen Enders,et al.  The Academic Profession , 2007 .

[31]  B. Nemery,et al.  Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe , 2013, The Lancet.

[32]  Teresa Carvalho,et al.  Editorial: Professions and Professionalism in Market-Driven Societies , 2018, Professions and Professionalism.

[33]  Daniele Fanelli,et al.  Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  L. Bouter.  Commentary: Perverse Incentives or Rotten Apples? , 2015, Accountability in research.

[35]  M. Bulmer.  Did Jenkin's swamping argument invalidate Darwin's theory of natural selection? , 2004 .

[36]  Nagwan R. Zahry,et al.  Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships , 2017, PloS one.

[37]  R. Stichweh.  Professions in modern society , 1997 .

[38]  C. Clark.  The Deprofessionalisation Thesis, Accountability and Professional Character , 2005 .

[39]  Patrick L. Taylor.  Scientific Self-Regulation—So Good, How Can it Fail? , 2009, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[40]  K. Elliott.  Addressing Industry-Funded Research with Criteria for Objectivity , 2018, Philosophy of Science.

[41]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[42]  Brian C. Martinson,et al.  The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[43]  David B. Resnik,et al.  Responsible Conduct of Research , 2002 .

[44]  Hub Zwart,et al.  Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement , 2018, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[45]  German Data Forum.  Building on Progress - Expanding the Research Infrastructure for the Social, Economic, and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 1 , 2011 .

[46]  Håkan Salwén,et al.  The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A Critique , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[47]  C. N. Stewart,et al.  Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement , 2012, Accountability in research.

[48]  Mirko Noordegraaf,et al.  Hybrid professionalism and beyond: (New) Forms of public professionalism in changing organizational and societal contexts , 2015 .

[49]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling , 2012, Psychological science.

[50]  Talcott Parsons,et al.  Action theory and the human condition , 1978 .

[51]  David Moher,et al.  Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure , 2018, PLoS biology.

[52]  M. Weber.  Economy and society : an outline of interpretive sociology , 2008 .

[53]  Teresa Carvalho,et al.  Still Academics After All… , 2010 .

[54]  H. M. Collins,et al.  The Third Wave of Science Studies , 2002, Science, Technology, and Society.

[55]  M. Baker.  1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility , 2016, Nature.

[56]  K. Popper,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1960 .

[57]  Harold L. Wilensky,et al.  The Professionalization of Everyone? , 1964, American Journal of Sociology.

[58]  M. Larson.  The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis , 1977 .

[59]  E. Shuster.  Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[60]  Roy B Lacoursiere,et al.  Attempts to understand better the lives of violent individuals. , 2002, The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.