David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):175-184 (2010)
Since published acknowledgements of scientific misconduct are a species of image restoration, common strategies for responding publicly to accusations can be expected: from sincere apologies to ritualistic apologies. This study is a rhetorical examination of these strategies as they are reflected in choices in language: it compares the published retractions and letters of apology with the letters that charge misconduct. The letters are examined for any shifts in language between the charge of misconduct and the response to the charge in order to assess whether the apology was sincere or ritualistic. The results indicate that although most authors’ published acknowledgments of scientific misconduct seem to minimize culpability by means of the strategic use of language, their resulting ritualistic apologies often still satisfy in some way the accusers’ (and thus their community’s) concerns.
|Keywords||Rhetoric Apology Research misconduct Ethics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Christopher Bennett (2006). Taking the Sincerity Out of Saying Sorry: Restorative Justice as Ritual. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2):127–143.
John E. Dahlberg & Christian C. Mahler (2006). The Poehlman Case: Running Away From the Truth. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):157-173.
Paul Davis (2002). On Apologies. Journal of Applied Philosophy 19 (2):169–173.
Nelson Yuan-sheng Kiang (1995). How Are Scientific Corrections Made? Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):347-356.
Marshall Thomsen & D. Resnik (1995). The Effectiveness of the Erratum in Avoiding Error Propagation in Physics. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (3):231-240.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Benjamin K. Sovacool (2008). Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science? [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4):271-282.
Anne Victoria Neale, Rhonda K. Dailey & Judith Abrams (2010). Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (2):251-261.
Luc Bovens (2008). Apologies. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108 (1pt3):219-239.
Stefanic Stegemann-Bochl (2000). Misconduct in Science and the German Law. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):57-62.
Barbara Mishkin (1999). Scientific Misconduct: Present Problems and Future Trends. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Eleanor G. Shore (1995). Effectiveness of Research Guidelines in Prevention of Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):383-387.
Nick Smith (2005). The Categorical Apology. Journal of Social Philosophy 36 (4):473–496.
Ernesto Verdeja (2010). Official Apologies in the Aftermath of Political Violence. Metaphilosophy 41 (4):563-581.
Anne Victoria Neale, Justin Northrup, Rhonda Dailey, Ellen Marks & Judith Abrams (2007). Correction and Use of Biomedical Literature Affected by Scientific Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):5-24.
Benjamin K. Sovacool (2005). Using Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (5):W1-W7.
Added to index2009-07-18
Total downloads20 ( #90,207 of 1,102,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #192,049 of 1,102,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?