Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):175-184 (2010)
AbstractSince 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.
Similar books and articles
Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science? [REVIEW]Benjamin K. Sovacool - 2008 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4):271-282.
Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct.Anne Victoria Neale, Rhonda K. Dailey & Judith Abrams - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (2):251-261.
Misconduct in Science and the German Law.Stefanic Stegemann-Bochl - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):57-62.
Scientific Misconduct: Present Problems and Future Trends.Barbara Mishkin - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Effectiveness of Research Guidelines in Prevention of Scientific Misconduct.Eleanor G. Shore - 1995 - Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):383-387.
Official Apologies in the Aftermath of Political Violence.Ernesto Verdeja - 2010 - Metaphilosophy 41 (4):563-581.
Correction and Use of Biomedical Literature Affected by Scientific Misconduct.Anne Victoria Neale, Justin Northrup, Rhonda Dailey, Ellen Marks & Judith Abrams - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):5-24.
Using Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct.Benjamin K. Sovacool - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (5):W1-W7.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Why Saying “I’M Sorry” Isn’T Good Enough: The Ethics of Corporate Apologies.Daryl Koehn - 2013 - Business Ethics Quarterly 23 (2):239-268.
Do Investors See Value in Ethically Sound CEO Apologies? Investigating Stock Market Reaction to CEO Apologies.Daryl Koehn & Maria Goranova - 2018 - Journal of Business Ethics 152 (2):311-322.
Correcting the Scholarly Record in the Aftermath of Plagiarism: A Snapshot of Current‐Day Publishing Practices in Philosophy.M. V. Dougherty - 2017 - Metaphilosophy 48 (3):258-283.
References found in this work
Death Notice.[author unknown] - 2020 - Philosophia Mathematica 28 (1):77-78.
Taking the Sincerity Out of Saying Sorry: Restorative Justice as Ritual.Christopher Bennett - 2006 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2):127–143.