A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: Do they really mean it?

Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):175-184 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX


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.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,480

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles


Added to PP

55 (#212,382)

6 months
1 (#417,896)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Arguments From Ignorance.Douglas N. Walton - 1995 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
Arguments From Ignorance.Douglas N. Walton - 1997 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 30 (1):97-101.
Death Notice.[author unknown] - 2020 - Philosophia Mathematica 28 (1):77-78.
On Apologies.Paul Davis - 2002 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 19 (2):169–173.

View all 11 references / Add more references