Virtue blindness and hegemony: qualitative evidence of negotiated ethical frameworks in the social language of university research administration

The study used critical discourse analysis (CDA) to elucidate normative structures of ethical behavior in university research administration which may be useful for knowledge transference to future studies of research integrity. Research administration appears to support integrity in the research environment through four very strong normative domains: (1) respect for authority structures; (2) respect for institutional boundaries; (3) professionalism; and (4) a strong sense of virtue. The strong norm structure of research administration, however, appears to be threatened by the fifth domain, (5) political power, which is inhabited by prestigious faculty with tenure, top-down authority misalignment, and the power for some institutional members to circumvent the system. The strong normative structure also appears threatened by the overall consequentiality of the regulatory environment, and shifting contexts that threaten personal virtue. In the end, the normative structure is fluid, politically acquiescent to power, and ambiguous. Although the professional core of the norm structure is strong, the strengths and weaknesses in the overall system can be connected to poorly constructed elements of the institutional environment.

[1]  J Gross.  The grant system. , 1966, Science.

[2]  Robert K. Merton,et al.  Science and the Social Order , 1938, Nature.

[3]  Brian Rowan,et al.  New Institutionalism in Education, The , 2007 .

[4]  Jana L. Pershing.  whom to betray? self-regulation of occupational misconduct at the United States Naval Academy , 2002 .

[5]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[6]  Amitai Etzioni,et al.  The Semi-Professions and Their Organization , 1969 .

[7]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The structuring of organizations : a synthesis of the research , 1980 .

[8]  L. Preston,et al.  The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications , 1995 .

[9]  Pepi Leistyna.  Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis , 2001 .

[10]  Rick S. Kurtz.  Organizational Culture, Decision-Making, and Integrity: The National Park Service and the Exxon Valdez , 2003 .

[11]  Norman Fairclough,et al.  Discourse in Late Modernity , 2021 .

[12]  J. Jackson,et al.  Professions and professionalization , 1972 .

[13]  J. Dutton,et al.  Positive Organizational Scholarship , 2007 .

[14]  J. Dutton,et al.  Developing a Discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship Chapter 23 , 2001 .

[15]  John M. Braxton.  Institutional variability in faculty conformity to the norms of science: A force of integration or fragmentation in the academic profession? , 1989 .

[16]  Karen Seashore Louis,et al.  The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science , 1994 .

[17]  T. Donaldson.  Making Stakeholder Theory Whole , 1999 .

[18]  W. Powell,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1992 .

[19]  W. Scott.  Stakeholders of the organizational mind , 1983 .

[20]  D. Glasberg,et al.  The Dialectics of White-Collar Crime.: The Anatomy of the Savings and Loan Crisis and the Case of Silverado Banking, Savings and Loan Association , 1998 .

[21]  The Dimensions of Influence on Research Administrator Behavior: Toward a Theoretical Model of Research Administration as a Public Service Profession. , 2007 .

[22]  E. Hackett.  A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. , 1994, The Journal of higher education.

[23]  K. Weick.  FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[24]  A. Wicks,et al.  Convergent Stakeholder Theory , 1999 .

[25]  Chad Cook,et al.  Real-Time Updates of Meta-Analyses of HIV Treatments Supported by a Biomedical Ontology , 2007, Accountability in research.

[26]  Thomas Donaldson,et al.  Response: Making Stakeholder Theory Whole , 1999 .

[27]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Scientists behaving badly , 2005, Nature.

[29]  Timothy N. Atkinson,et al.  The Research Environment Norm Inventory (RENI): A Study of Integrity in Research Administrative Systems , 2007, Accountability in research.

[30]  J. Creswell.  Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. , 1998 .

[31]  C. Hardy.  Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems , 1983 .

[32]  James Paul Gee,et al.  话语分析入门 : 理论与方法 = An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method , 1999 .

[33]  W. Scott,et al.  Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives , 2006 .

[34]  D. Clapham,et al.  Whole-cell patch-clamp measurements of spermatozoa reveal an alkaline-activated Ca2+ channel , 2006, Nature.

[35]  L. Bolman,et al.  Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Management Series, Social and Behavioral Science Series, and Higher and Adult Education Series. , 1991 .

[36]  D. Vaughan.  Rational choice, situated action, and the social control of organizations , 1998 .

[37]  N. Fairclough.  Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research , 2003 .

[38]  D. Vaughan.  Autonomy, Interdependence, and Social Control: NASA and the Space Shuttle "Challenger.". , 1990 .

[39]  W. Richard Scott.  Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems , 1981 .