Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
-
Note that some sociologists have argued, by contrast, that science is undergoing a ‘de-professionalization’ (e.g. Dickel 2016) or hybridization (e.g. Carvalho and Santiago 2010), paralleling the changes in other professions (Noordegraaf 2015). These apparently opposing views on the social evolution of science will be discussed later in "Autonomy and Competence in Scientists’ Codes of Conduct" section.
-
Note that in this paper, ‘scientific research’ will be understood to include humanities research. This usage has antecedents in the German/Dutch words Wissenschaft/wetenschap, but the main reason for adopting this usage is that most, if not all, codes of conduct for scientists and the issues treated therein (e.g., plagiarism, respect for colleagues, etc.) are intended to be applicable to humanities scholars also.
-
Besides autonomy and ideals, professionalism can also be analyzed in terms of power. Thus the service ideals of the professions have long been accused of being ideals in name only, and in reality mere means to increase the wealth and power of the professional communities (Larson 1977).
-
“Professionalism is a set of institutions which permit the members of an occupation to make a living while controlling their own work” (Freidson 2001, p. 17).
-
Professionals may, for instance, be required to carry a license to carry out certain activities; the license thus serves not just to ensure a certain standard of quality, but also to limit competition. A code of ethics, in maintaining a focus on a service ideal, also serves to weaken consumer-focused competition between professionals (Abbott 1988; Wilensky 1964).
-
Although note that Shapin does not use the term 'profession' in the technical sense defined above.
-
Since the market-based logic is, in this sense, eminently less applicable to the activity of scientific research, the rest of the discussion will focus on the contrast between the logics of professionalism and bureaucracy.
-
Note that I am using the term ‘knowledge’ in a sociological rather than an epistemological sense: a hypothesis or theory constitutes established knowledge when it is taken by the scientific community to be true (even if it may actually be false).
-
See also how Merton emphasizes the institutional element in the value of disinterestedness: “It is rather a distinctive pattern of institutional control of a wide range of motives which characterizes the behavior of scientists. For once the institution enjoins disinterested activity, it is to the interest of scientists to conform on pain of sanctions and, insofar as the norm has been internalized, on pain of psychological conflict” (Merton 1942, p. 142.).
-
Even though, of course, history shows that when the political forces are powerful enough, professional service ideals are typically compromised (as happened during the Nazi era; see Brante 2011, p.7).
-
Intent can refer to the actual state of mind (subjective intent), or to what should have been the state of mind at the time the act occurred (objective intent): see Hall 2014, p. 74.
References
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.
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.
Baker, M. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature News,533(7604), 452–454. https://doi.org/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.
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.
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.
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.
Brante, T. (2011). Professions as science-based occupations. Professions and Professionalism. https://doi.org/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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Davis, J. K. (1991a). Professions, trades, and the obligation to inform. Journal of Applied Philosophy,8(2), 167–176.
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.
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.
Dubber, M. D. (2015). An introduction to the model penal code (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. The Journal of Philosophy,87(1), 5. https://doi.org/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.
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.
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.
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.
Nature. (2018). Austrian agency shows how to tackle scientific misconduct. Nature,561, 285. https://doi.org/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.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science,349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stichweh, R. (1997). Professions in modern society. International Review of Sociology,7(1), 95–102. https://doi.org/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.
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.
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.
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/.
Funding
Supported by EnTIRE Consortium (Mapping Normative Frameworks for EThics and Integrity of Research), which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 741782. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The author would like to thank Kris Dierickx and Stijn Conix for helpful discussions and feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Desmond, H. Professionalism in Science: Competence, Autonomy, and Service. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1287–1313 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00143-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00143-x