The R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n I n f r i n g e m e n t s on t h e F r e e d o m to Research and Teach and Poor Sociological Practice BONNIE BERRY
Infringements upon the freedom to research and teach may be experienced as pressures to attend to particular topics of research to the exclusion of others, to conduct research using false parameters and inappropriate methodologies, to reach conclusions acceptable to funders, to apply "sexy" theoretical explanations while ignoring other perspectives, and to respond favorably to consumeristic university student admission and retention policies. Although there is no empirical evidence to support a causal relationship between infringements and poor research and teaching, I am suggesting that the presence of infringements can detract from effective teaching and unbiased research. The literature suggests that at least a portion of scholars are aware of infringements and their negative consequences, yet formal complaints about infringements are rare. Sociologists may permit these infringements out of confusion over the possible outcomes of infringements (in other words, uncertainty about the standards of good and poor practice), out of fear of being punished for noncompliance with the infringements, or because they do not recognize the infringements for what they are. Sociologists may be able to reconstruct the infringements as pressures of the job and the outcomes as acceptable sociological practice. I am o f f e r i n g a set o f o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n infringem e n t s and p r a c t i c e , as d e r i v e d f r o m t h e l i t e r a t u r e a n d s h a r e d w i t h o t h e r sociologists and f r o m m y o w n e x p e r i e n c e as a r e s e a r c h e r a n d t e a c h e r . T h e o c c u r r e n c e o f i n f r i n g e m e n t s a n d t h e i r e f f e c t u p o n s c h o l a r l y w o r k s e e m s to b e s o m e t h i n g that " e v e r y o n e k n o w s " b u t n o o n e has tested. I a m s u g g e s t i n g that, a l t h o u g h p o o r p r a c t i c e c a n o c c u r in the p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f i n f r i n g e m e n t s , it is m o r e
Bonnie Berry teaches in the Department of Sociology, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington. Address for correspondence: 2804 East Bay Drive, Gig Harbor, WA 98335, email
[email protected]. Berry
53
likely to o c c u r w h e n impelled by infringements. My p u r p o s e is to discuss some of the issues and dilemmas related to standards by w h i c h w e judge p o o r and g o od practice, to define and pr ovi de exam p l es of w h a t I m ean by infringements in r e s e a r c h and teaching, to describe b o t h external and internal sources of infringements as well as sociologists' reactions to them, and finally to offer a f e w proposals to r e d u c e the effects of infringments. My c o m m e n t s are di rect ed mostly to academic sociological r e s e a r c h and teaching although m u c h o f w h a t I have to say applies to n o nuni ve r s i t y r e s ear c h and practice and may apply to disciplines o t h e r than sociology (see, for example, Lambert and McGuire 1991). The Dilemma of Standards To say that infringements have an effect on the quality of sociological practice supposes that the standards of g o o d and p o o r quality w o r k are k n o w n , agreed upon, and u n d ers t ood. While the sociological c o m m u n i t y may be able to agree that sexual harassment is n o t g o o d pr a c t i c e in the classroom (al t hough w e may n o t agree o n w h a t constitutes sexual harassment) and that plagiarism and data forgery are n o t good r e s e a r c h practices, many practices do n o t r e a c h such a d e gr ee o f consensus. Instead, the goodness or p o o r n e s s of t he quality of our w o r k seems to have multiple and conflicting standards. Some questionable practices are technical, having to do w i t h the m o r e mechanical aspects of our w or k, such as biased sampling; and some are moral, such as sexual harassment. O ne might think that technical violations w o u l d be clearly u n d e r s t o o d , agreed upon, easily spotted, and easily judged as right or wrong. But e v e n technically p o o r p r a c t i c e may be a m at t er of interpretation. For example, it seems to me that misapplying mathematical rules w o u l d be a fairly cutand-dried violation of p r a c t i c e standards. W h e n I b r o u g h t up this practice in c o nv er s atio n wi t h a n o t h e r sociologist, she said that I was mistaken and tilat " e rr o n eo u s " use of m a t he m at i cs is a j udgm ent call. Morally questionable practices are n o t easily d e t e r m i n e d or agreed u p o n either. T h e y have m or e to do w i t h h u m a n rights violations and are m o r e an outc o m e o f selfishness and o t h e r individual traits rat her than institutional infringements u p o n ones r e s ear c h and teaching. As a c o n s e q u e n c e , moral violations are n o t addressed herein. Opinions may vary but good r e s e a r c h w o u l d seem to be r e s e a r c h that is ethical (does not hurt a n y o n e unnecessarily), applies m at hem at i cs within the boundaries o f the data's limitations, samples w i t h o u t bias, and, in o t h e r words, adheres to the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and ethical standards outlined broadly in the professional co d e of ethics and m o r e specifically in t ext books. T e x t b o o k standards might be a m or e c o n c i s e guide than a code of ethics by w h i c h to judge ones work, although these standards too can m e e t with some dissension within the academic co m m uni t y. While a g r e e m e n t does not m ean t rut h (we can all agree and be wrong), I w o u l d think that in the case of r e s e a r c h m e t h o d o l o g y , t e x t b o o k standards do have meaning. Go o d teaching standards are those including organization and preparedness,
54
The American Sociologist/Fall 1994
k e e p i n g u p to date on materials, and fair t r e a t m e n t o f students. G o o d teaching practices w o u l d seem to be those that make students m o r e i n f o r m e d and b e t t e r thinkers than they w e r e b e f o r e taking the course. But the standards by w h i c h g o od teaching is c o m m o n l y judged are teaching evaluations. Teaching evaluations are indicators of m a ny things, such as grading practices, but oft en are not indicators o f h o w well the students are taught. It is difficult to state definitively w hat is right or w r o n g in the c o n d u c t of our work. T h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of m a ny of our p r a c t i c e standards and their violations rely u p o n formal and informal codes of ethics. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of these standards and their violations draws u p o n our professional expertise, as w o u l d be the case in any o c c u p a t i o n requiring specialized training and resulting in esoteric knowledge. My position is that, although r e s e a r c h and teaching standards are arguable, t h er e may truly be standards. T he p r o b l e m is that the measures for a c h i e v e m e n t o f standards may be false, as in teaching evaluations and publications evi denci ng g o o d teaching and research. I am asserting that, if w e as sociologists can n o t agree on w h a t the standards are, let alone h o w the standards are i n f l u e n c e d by infringements, w e could at least c o n s i d e r our disagreements, c o m p a r e observations o n w h a t might be infringements and p o o r practice, and finally make available a set o f standards that details the m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t s for a c c e p t a b l e r e s e a r c h and teaching practices. Of cour s e it is true that training varies and that w o r k c o n t e x t s vary. But to say this only underlines the n e e d for a well-conside red understanding of standards, derived from an o p e n - m i n d e d f o r u m on agreem e n ts and disagreements. The Meaning of Infringements Infringements on academic work, as I define them, are pressures (a) to do ones w o r k differently than one w o u l d do w i t h o u t such pressures and (b) that can influence the quality of p r a c t i c e in a negative way. Not all pressures are necessarily negative forces leading to p o o r quality work. To me, research ethics seem to be fair guidelines on doing the right thing m et hodol ogi cal l y and being fair to subjects and r e s p o n d e n t s . But s om e r e s e a r c h e r s vi ew research ethics as infringement because t he y dictate h o w to go about ones r e s e a r c h (Cassell, 1991). Some may v i e w academic guidelines to publish or engage in a n u m b e r of o t h e r academic activities as pressures and p e r h a p s infringements. The distinction I make b e t w e e n pressures and infringements is t he latter's greater potentiality for p o o r quality out com es. Pressures by their very nature may be u n c o m f o r t a b l e to the p e r s o n pr e s s u red (such as t he pressure to t e a c h a large n u m b e r of classes), may take their toll on individual stress levels and selfc o n c e p t s , and may be v i e w e d as unfair or unw arrant ed. More positively, pressures may be v i e w e d as helpful guidelines for c a r e e r advancem ent . Infringem e n ts are pressures that are i m p o s e d with no interest in doing t he job p r o p e r l y and that may detract from doing the best job possible, as illustrated by the following examples.
Berry
55
The p r e s e n c e and imposition of infringements in a w o r k setting do not necessarily result in p o o r pr a c t i c e since w e can refuse, perhaps at some risk, to s u c c u m b to them. T h e r e are c o n c e i v a b l y four interactions b e t w e e n infringements and practice: situations w h e r e t h e r e are infringements and p o o r practice, infringements and g o o d practice, no infringements and good practice, and no infringements and p o o r practice. Examples of Infringements
Upon Research
I am a sociologist w h o studies deviance, crime, and social control, so I am most familiar w i t h e x a m p l e s of infringed r e s e a r c h in these areas of study. Probably no subdisciplines in sociology are i m m u n e to infringements u p o n their particular topics but, a c c or di ng to Marvin (1992), some are m o r e susceptible to infringements than others. She states that basic or "pure" sociology can be subject to infringements, but not to the e x t e n t that applied w o r k is because: (a) The o u t c o m e s of applied w o r k have direct and immediate effects on policy, w h i c h t h en d e t e r m i n e s social practices on p e o p l e , thus, t here is a great er potential for harm; (b) applied sociology, b e c a u s e o f its g r e a t e r likelihood o f being funded, may be m o r e answerable to the funding agencies instead o f to scientific doctrine; and (c) applied sociology is of t e n at the b e h e s t of g o v e r n m e n t a l agencies, legislators, and others w i t h an agenda requiring scientific legitimation (see also Berry, 1994a; 1994b). Scientifically unsound research can begin with a governmental or private funding source's agenda and desire for "proof" of a n e e d or of an effect (Marvin, 1992; T r o t m a n and Robertson, 1992; Wilkins, 1990). An e x a m p l e from m y o w n experience illustrates this point: W h e n I w o r k e d as a senior r e s e a r c h e r for state g o v e r n m e n t , I was instructed to e m phas i z e an increase in drug offenses so that the g o v e r n m e n t agency for w h i c h I w o r k e d w o u l d get a National Institute o f Justice grant. W h e n I e x a m i n e d the data, I f o u n d no such increase. More generally, funders may specify that a quantitative, confi rm at ory analysis is in order, believing that "figures d o n ' t lie" and that their p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s are not arguable. Numbers, especially t hos e derived f r om sophisticated arithmetic, are assumed to squelch any ar g u m ent f r om o p p o n e n t s ; ergo, the m ore mathematically sophisticated th e analysis, the better. The sociologist, desirous o f the grant, may agree to the p ar ameter s set f or t he r e s ear c h ( t h e research question, t he measures, etc.) and may apply a m e t h o d o l o g y that is inappropriate; for e x a m p l e , evaluation design w h e n a m o r e e x p l o r a t o r y design is a p p r o p r i a t e or LISREL m odel i ng w h e n Chi-Square tests are appropriate. On a level m o r e basic than design and m et hodol ogy, c o n s i d e r c o n s t r u c t and c o n t e n t validity of variables. If validity is not present, then all else in the study is meaningless. D e p e n d e n t as well as i n d e p e n d e n t variables may be invalid. In criminology, we often measure the a m o u n t of time that a c o n v i c t e d o f f e n d e r spends in an institutional or c o m m u n i t y c o r r e c t i o n a l p r o g r a m w i t h o u t furt her arrests or violations o f the c o r r e c t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s as a m easure of success; but w e often fail to measure effectiveness as an absence of r e p e a t offenses, a truer
56
The American Sociologist/Fall 1994
representation of success. And most of us k n o w that arrests measure police behavior rather than criminal behavior, yet arrest is used as a standard measure of crime in research and policy development.m Targeted moral panics, c o m p l e t e with official though vague and widely encompassing definitions of sex offenses, drug offenses, gang war activity, and so on, may be especially likely to result in biased research design, biased research findings, and biased social control since they are not only subjective but committed to prove a point (see Brownstein, 1993 on the meaning of "drug-related"). The dilemma for sociological theory and research is that definitions, w h i c h symbolic interactionist and social constructivist arguments suggest can be vague, debatable and relative, are crucial to c o n t e n t validity (see Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1951; and Anderson, 1992).
Examples of Infringements Upon Teaching Ineffective teaching practices are not necessarily unethical. They may not involve discriminatory grading, sexual harassment, or other more obvious examples of bad teaching. Ineffective teaching might be called "lousy" teaching and involve using much-aged and irrelevant lecture notes, reading from a textbook instead of lecturing, and giving false information to students w i t h o u t correction. These teaching practices may be the result of the individual faculty m e m b e r ' s laziness or i n c o m p e t e n c e . 2 Assigning grades that do not correspond to the students' performance is a n o t h e r form of ineffective teaching practices and may be the result of infringements imposed by colleagues or the university administration. In an article entitled "Students as Customers," Shanker (1993a) says that in some universities and colleges, students want and d e m a n d that professors not educate but give them good grades. The students apparently call the shots in these institutions, as Shanker relates through professors' horror stories, since student complaints ensure that faculty will not be reappointed. Cautionary tales are passed from faculty to faculty about students w h o sue universities for better grades, and win. There is n o w h e r e to turn in such settings because the administration and other university faculty support the students' demands (Shanker, 1993b). There are also f e w options outside of a particular university setting should the professor voluntarily or involuntarily leave: University jobs are scarce and o t h e r universities may adhere to similar student enrollment and retention policies. The c o n c r e t e pressures facing faculty in settings w h e r e student enrollment is of intense interest are threats from university administration and departmental superordinates to not reappoint and to deny tenure, promotion, and raises to faculty adhering to high teaching standards. In settings w h e r e the superordinates will not support faculty and will not treat faculty fairly, faculty may be inhibited from questioning the validity of teaching evaluations and the meaning of pass-fail ratios (Shankar, 1993a; 1993b). My o w n experience in teaching and that of some of my colleagues suggests that, in some settings, it is normative to not teach well. I realize that the follow-
Berry
57
ing is an e x t r e m e case but, years ago in a faculty m e e t i n g not at my c u r r e n t w o r k place, the question cam e up about h o w to grade st udent s w h o do not take all o f the exams. Th e consensus, excl udi ng me, and the c o m m o n practice was to average the grades from the exams that the student did take. So, a student coul d miss a significant p r o p o r t i o n of the cour se material and still receive a grade reflecting c o m p r e h e n s i o n of the total course material. At this school, st udent complaints and unflattering teaching evaluations w e r e sufficient cause to dismiss a professor. Less e x t r e m e e x a m p l e s o f ineffective t eachi ng have c o m e to m y attention t h r o u g h observation, t h r o u g h informal conversat i ons with colleagues, and t h r o u g h m o r e formal discussions at annual professional meetings. Most of m y colleagues tell me that t hey are pressured by co-w orkers to "go easy" and a few are t h r e a t e n e d w i t h b o y c o t t s by students. T h e y are pressured to curve grades, to pass a certain p r o p o r t i o n of students, to n o t c o v e r as m u c h material as the faculty m e m b e r sees fit, and to not assign certain tasks (such as r e s e a r c h activities). Coston, et al. (1993) describe the pressures e x p e r i e n c e d by faculty to not only assign grades u n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the students' abilities, learning, or effort b u t also to entertain students, to not address certain topics (such as race and crime), and to n o t offer certain p e r s p e c t i v e s (for exam pl e, critical theory). U nder these conditions, faculty are faced w i t h the dilemma of responsibly t eachi ng in a w ay that really de ve l ops students' intellect versus formal and informal university policy to n ot do so. E x t e r n a l a n d I n t e r n a l Sources o f I n f r i n g e m e n t Infringements on r e s e a r c h and teaching c o m e f r o m outside academics and fr o m within academics t h r o u g h the academic r e w a r d and p u n i s h m e n t system, w h i c h can, in turn, legitimate the external sources o f infringement. E x t e r n a l Sources. Infringements u p o n teaching standards, curricular c o n t e n t , s t u d en t admission and r e t e n t i o n criteria, faculty hiring and t e n u r e standards, and o p e n inquiry have delegitimatized the university, accordi ng to Scott (1991). Bartley (1990) places the blame for W es t e rn universities' "intellectual depression" on e c o n o m i c principles ar ound w h i c h the universities are organized. Insufficient financial s u p p o r t f r om federal and state g o v e r n m e n t s and consum eri st i c value placed u p o n quality e d u c a t i o n may pressure universities to admit and retain inappropriate-to-university students for tuition p u r p o s e s and may pressure faculty to engage in ineffective teaching and false grading practices (Berry, 1994a). Appropriate c o n t e n t of social science teaching material is a m at t er of o p i n i o n as judged by the r e c e n t de ba t e o n racial harassment and cultural diversity: Regardless of o n e' s political poi nt of view and regardless of a g r e e m e n t versus disagreement wit h the ruling p o w e r , resistance to curtailments on s p e e c h in the university can be e x p e c t e d (Davis, 1992; Robbins, 1991; Kors, 1991; T h o m p s o n and Tyagi, 1992). A related issue is political c o r r e c t n e s s . As this o v e r u s e d t erm implies, some may a d o p t a p o p u l a r sociopolitical line as "correct " while ot hers may v iew these same strictures to espouse political c o r r e c t n e s s as intrusive,
58
The American Sociologist/Fall 1994
wrong, or "incorrect." According to discussants in the P a r t i s a n R e v i e w (1992) and Scott (1991), forced "politically correct" teaching and research have greatly reduced the effectiveness, diluted the honesty, and detracted from the freedom to search out and state scientific truths on the part of university faculty. From a liberal perspective, the outcomes of conservative governmental influence on education have b e e n a decline of the university curriculum (for example, politicization of the curriculum), inadequately educated university students, teaching fictional history instead of facts, decisions made by national funding sources about w h i c h projects to fund, a shifting of the intellectual foundation from Marxism to Nietzche-ism, the mainstream academic press disseminating politically correct views, and in general watered-down scholarship (P art i san R e v i e w 1992). Ultimately, the sources of external infringements may be a mixture of politics and economics that determine function, mission, and direction of the university. An examination of U.S. research and d e v e l o p m e n t laboratories shows the combined effects of political and market forces on R&D activity (Bozeman and Crow, 1990). While universities are not R&D laboratories, among the purposes of both types of organizations are the c o n d u c t of science, the c o n d u c t of w h i c h is impacted by mixed e c o n o m i c and political authority, as illustrated by the examples from criminology above and by the fluctuating patterns of funding for politically-endorsed social programs and social science research (Marvin, 1992; Berry, 1991). As for the mixed economic and political effects on teaching, Helsby and Saunders (1993) describe the move from self-regulation to public accountability in the U.K. They find that n e w Right philosophies of the conservative political party has led to a value system that monitors education through measures of cost effectiveness rather than educational needs. If Shanker (1993a; 1993b), Berry (1994a), Wilkins (1990), and Bartley (1990) are right, the U.S. may have e x p e r i e n c e d a similar devaluation of education and emphasis on cost-effectiveness. I n t e r n a l Sources. The degree and type of infringements u p o n academic freedom to research and teach sociology are probably relative across settings. Some university work may be m u c h infringed u p o n depending u p o n the university's economic condition and the specific university mission. Standards can vary within one university, within one department, across time depending u p o n the chairperson, the dean, and the departmental composition. Especially in recent decades, universities in the United States and elsewhere have been emphasizing research over teaching (Ramsden and Moses, 1992; Freyberg and Ponarin, 1993), w h i c h is neither here n o r there as far as affecting the quality of scholarship unless the pressure to do research for research sake results in research not c o n d u c t e d well. In the case cited by Berry (1991), the faculty m e m b e r misapplied a research technique because he n e e d e d the publication. Socialization in graduate school and continuing on t h r o u g h o u t the academic career may influence our practice t h r o u g h faulty or absent training in research and teaching or t h r o u g h a training process that leads us to r e s p o n d to intense career pressures to "do the w r o n g thing" in research and teaching. I n c o m p e t e n t Berry
59
sociological practice can be explained by inadequate graduate training, sloppy professional review procedures (inappropriate advice from university, editorial, and o t h e r peer reviewers), and o t h e r subjective and quizzical disciplinary gatekeeping mechanisms (such as hiring practices). Training is the responsibility of the university and the discipline more broadly is responsible for attentive peer review of research and its products (journal articles and books) and appropriate advice on teaching. One could argue that the individual is responsible for not letting poor sociological practices slide and for engaging in and socializing others in good research and teaching practices. But on the whole, I think that organizational forces impact the individual's behavior more than the individual affects the organization. Douglas (1992) uses the innocuous-sounding term "bureaucratization" to describe another academic force that infringes u p o n research. A desire for power, prestige, or fame coupled with "large science bureaucracies" as might be found in strictly research institutes and in universities result in violations of the rules of science, such as scientific fraud. It is difficult to tease out h o w m u c h bureaucratization, leading to scientific errors, is internally and externally induced. Douglas says that scientific deviance can be influenced by "bureaucratized criteria for judging scientific w o r t h and accomplishment," which, Douglas suggests, may have more to do with n u m b e r of publications and size of grants than with scientific contribution. Douglas also finds that "big science" (that is, large science bureaucracies) has eroded the spirit of scientific c o m m u n i t y and team morale. He concludes that our competitiveness outweighs a team search for the truth.
Sociologists' Perceptions and Reconstructions of I n f r i n g e m e n t s and Violations Let us examine more closely the relationship between infringements and practice. First of all, it is difficult to k n o w sometimes w h e t h e r poor professional practice is accidental or intentional. Accidental poor practice is more forgivable than knowingly and purposely committed violations. Truly accidental violations are probably infrequent; for example, writing the w r o n g grade in a grade book or forgetting to have a research subject sign an informed consent form. Ignorance and i n c o m p e t e n c e explain poor practice w h e n the person simply does not k n o w what she or he is doing, as in cases of misapplying research principles or wrongful classroom instruction because the professor does not understand the material. The relationship b e t w e e n infringements and poor practice may be less clear. The dilemma of rewards for poor research and teaching versus punishments for good research and teaching can explain intentional and k n o w i n g p o o r professional practice. In a sense, poor research and teaching due to infringements u p o n academic freedom are violations under duress, assuming that faculty w o u l d not engage in poor practice w i t h o u t the fear of punishment. It w o u l d be helpful to k n o w if sociologists w h o s e w o r k is infringed u p o n
60
The American Sociologist/Fall 1994
define the infringements as not infringements, as appropriate, as just pressures of the job. To the e x t e n t that poor practice is an o u t c o m e of infringements and to the extent that infringements are perceived as appropriate or acceptable, p o o r practice will be encouraged since it is the o u t c o m e of "legitimate" pressures. Infringers may construct a false reality of science and teaching and infringees may adopt it. For example, in settings w h e r e most of the faculty go along with pressures to not require m u c h in the way of student performance and understanding, the odd professor w h o maintains stringent teaching standards is engaged in nonnormative teaching and may easily be singled out as "not good." The assumption is that n o b o d y else receives the complaints from students that this professor does, so there must be something wrong with her or him. Organizational processes within the university that create an environment u n p r o t e c t e d from infringements create uncertain and inequitable faculty reward systems (Elman, 1991) and perceptual difficulties and poor self-esteem among colleagues and students (Machell, 1991). Survival instincts being what they are, faculty may comply with infringements u p o n their work. Infringees may adopt a victim's perspective; for example, "it must be m y fault s o m e h o w " (self-blame) or "if I d o n ' t say anything maybe I'll survive and will be left alone" (fear). Infringees may be unwilling to report infringements or even admit to themselves that their w o r k has been infringed u p o n because such an admission w o u l d require them to either defend their compliance or to do something about the infringements, if cognitive dissonance is any judge. If they were to recognize infringements for w h a t they are and admit that they complied, it may be difficult to maintain a strong sense of self as a scholar. People w h o refuse to be co-opted may be perceived or perceive themselves as "losers" w h o are not to be taken seriously. The "winners" have the signs of success (high teaching evaluations, grants, tenure, promotion, publications) all of w h i c h may be invalid representations of quality scholarship. It is true that losers and winners can be valid losers and winners; but w h e n infringements are a significant force in sociological practice, losing and winning may be a more arbitrary p h e n o m e n o n . The Not So Mysterious Lack of Data. Given fear and a desire for self-survival, it is no w o n d e r that extremely few complain to the American Sociological Association Committee on Freedom of Teaching and Research (ASA COFRAT), the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE), or similar organizations. 3 Moreover, sociologists may not turn to COPE or COFRAT if these organizations are viewed as pushing political correctness and political ideology. An altered, falsely constructed reality of scholarship imposed u p o n the sociological c o m m u n i t y by external and internal sources of infringement may have caused a feeling of helplessness among individual teachers and researchers as far as taking their concerns to professional organizations, such as the ASA COPE or COFRAT, w h i c h have the symbolic if not real authority to determine and maintain quality teaching and research.
Berry
61
Solutions I have addressed external and internal sources of infringement u p o n academic freedom to teach and research and I have considered the rewards and punishments for those w h o comply and for those w h o do not comply w i t h the infringements. The remaining question is w h a t to do to enhance academic freedom. If, as scholars, we have limited or no control over economics and politics, we can at least examine our ability to resist infringements from inside the university and to better assist our professional monitoring organizations in advising us w h e n faced with infringements. Examination of university missions, objectives, and reward systems would be helpful. Elman (1991) has p r o p o s e d a means of equitably rewarding faculty for teaching, research, and other academic tasks through a process resembling accreditation. In this way, faculty can be evaluated by the stated university objectives and have a clearer idea about what is expected. Clarity is better than confusion but this accreditation process may have the same limitations as unionization. In institutions that are unionized, essentially the union rules exist to protect us against unfair treatment assuming that we go along w i t h the rules. These rules, w h i c h have the beauty of p r e s u m e d equal application, have the debatable quality of resembling some of the infringements that I have herein described as artificial guidelines for "good" work. Clearly stated objectives may be contrary to good scholarship and therefore are insufficient protection against infringements. If the reward system merely indicates, for example, that faculty will be r e w a r d e d for positive teaching evaluations and bringing in grant money, t h e n we may still be pressured to engage in activities that are academically n o t up to snuff. However, we might reconsider the criteria for meaningful standards of good teaching and research. Such a reexamination can take place in our specific work settings and t h r o u g h our professional organizations. The reexamination could then be followed by a cohesive delivery about appropriate expectations of faculty presented in a strong and direct impression on university administration. An obvious place to look for self-control and self-protection w o u l d be the ASA, the British Sociological Association (BSA), and our other professional organizations. These organizations and their codes of professional ethics are probably less geared toward doing something about (punishing, preventing, noticing) rule violations than protecting the profession as an insular elite organization (Homan, 1992; Berry, 1990; 1991). Although their utility is limited (Davis, 1992) and m e m b e r awareness of the codes of c o n d u c t may be low (British Sociological Association, 1992), these organizations have formalized codes of ethics that offer vague recommendations; describe our responsibilities toward research participants, research sponsors, funders, students, the public, the academic review process, and our colleagues; and set general standards for ethics and professional integrity. Committees such as the ASA COPE and COFRAT serve as listeners, manage inquiries, and in the case of COPE stand ready to be used as an investigation and sanctioning board. Lately, we as sociologists have b e e n ques62
The American Sociologist/Fall 1994
tioning the function, role, and purpose of ASA COPE and COFRAT (Levine, 1994). And it has been noted, for example, that the ASA has a very limited and confusing involvement in protecting scholarly and human ethical interests (Clarke, 1994). If sociologists feel that COPE and COFRAT can not help, we will not report. If w e do not report, t h e n we have no idea about the quality and quantity of violations and infringements that occur. Marvin (1992), in addressing failures of the ASA Code of Ethics, suggests providing detailed depictions of actual violations and very specific guidelines to reduce research violations. Given the lack of agreement on what is "good" and "poor" practice and the lack of understanding of w h e n we have crossed over the line of p o o r practice, case histories and improved clarity of standards w o u l d be of great benefit. Concrete changes in professional codes, taking into account the role that infringements and professional pressures play in professional violations, could actually w o r k to reduce unwitting or witting practice violations. Assuming that we can get to the point w h e r e standards are clear, helpful, and well-known, resistance to codes of practice still must be resolved (Long and Dorn, 1982-83). While sociologists may agree that we n e e d explicit guidelines in (for example) our ASA Code of Ethics, we are less sure that w e want a code of ethics that would apply sanctions to violators. 4 It may be that we see ethical codes themselves, complete with explicit guidelines and sanctions, as infringements on our academic freedom. If so, there may be resistance to our o w n professional organization's adding further strictures to those under w h i c h we already must operate. Having the discipline's advisory c o m m i t t e e act as enforcer may create resistance to reporting any concerns about practice. Tattling and greater sanctioning probably are not the routes to take to improve sociological practice. Education of the membership would be the better remedy. Open and frank discussion about infringements, pressures of the job, and the purpose of codes of ethics can be made available t h r o u g h journals, newsletters, direct communication from committees of professional ethics and committees on the freedom to teach and research, and sessions at annual meetings. Rather than a police function, the ASA COPE and COFRAT might (1) initially encourage input from the membership on matters of infringement and practice, (2) recognize the multiple and varying standards, (3) clarify in code revision, as well as possible, the r e c o m m e n d e d research and teaching practices, and (4) offer themselves as data gatherers and advisors. It is essential to accumulate a knowledge base about the problems that exist, which can be made k n o w n through anonymous self-reports of concerns about ones o w n practices. And it is just as essential to know h o w the sociological community determines standards of practice. These four suggestions look like they would create more work. This need not be the case if information gathering and pre-investigation advice heads off legal action and if volunteer committees or individual members could be enlisted. As sociologists, we k n o w that formal social control is usually less effective than is informal social control. For this reason, I suggest that informal associations among colleagues be encouraged to support a quest for meaningful teaching and research and to reduce the competitive and self-survival c o m p o n e n t s of Berry
63
our work. As scholars ourselves, we have some control over the socialization of other scholars. Pertinent to compliance versus resistance to postgraduate infringements on academic freedom, we may want to reconsider graduate training that leads to highly competitive, cutthroat behaviors (Granfield and Koenig, 1992). To the extent that sociology faculty are pressured to teach inadequate, minimalistic material and to engage in survival-oriented research, this pressure could be reduced t h r o u g h intercollegial cohesion. The eventual o u t c o m e of such cohesion might be a generation of sociologists w h o would not impose or comply with infringements u p o n academic freedom. An informal support system should be in addition to formal organizations (university committees, COPE, COFRAT) doing w h a t they can to clearly lay out rules and provide advice in cases of infringement and poor practice. Summary I n f r i n g e m e n t s u p o n f r e e d o m to t e a c h and r e s e a r c h can be p a r r i e d by self-reflection, recognition of reward and p u n i s h m e n t structures that detract from scholarship rather than support it, and close and open-minded examination of the appropriate procedures and goals of the scientific process. Professional codes of ethics and professional organizations, such as the ASA COPE and COFRAT, can help but not until we have greater clarity on practice standards and widespread e n c o u r a g e m e n t for scholarship. Informal support and open discussion can supplement the formal professional processes. Through informal and formal measures, we can get on with the tasks of social science and social change. Acknowledgements T h e a u t h o r e x p r e s s e s a p p r e c i a t i o n to t w o a n o n y m o u s r e v i e w e r s o f The American Sociologist f o r t h e i r comments.
Notes An earlier d r a f t o f this p a p e r w a s p r e s e n t e d at t h e 1994 Pacific S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n a n n u a l m e e t i n g s . 1. N o t a cure-all b u t a p r o p o s e d i m p r o v e m e n t f o r t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f c r i m e , marital difficulties, d r u g - u s e , o r o t h e r less t h a n visible v a r i a b l e s is to c o n d u c t self-report studies. See, f o r e x a m p l e , C h i l t o n ' s ( 1 9 9 5 ) suggest i o n f o r a n a t i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t d a t a b a s e o f c r i m i n a l activity. 2. This d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n " l o u s y " a n d u n e t h i c a l t e a c h i n g w a s b r o u g h t f o r t h at t h e 1994 ASA a n n u a l m e e t ings, s p e c i f i c a l l y at t h e C o m m i t t e e o n P r o f e s s i o n a l Ethics w o r k s h o p o n c o d e revision. 3. I c o n s u l t e d Felice Levine, E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r of t h e ASA a n d m e m b e r o f t h e ASA's Task F o r c e to revise t h e C o d e o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Ethics, to g e t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c a s e s t h e y m i g h t r e c e i v e t h r o u g h COFRAT o r COPE ( p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . She e s t i m a t e s t h a t t h e ASA COPE r e c e i v e s e i g h t to t e n inquiries a year, o f t h e s e t h e r e are t h r e e to f o u r filings, a n d o n l y t w o c a s e s w e n t t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h o f COPE c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n c e May 1993. N o b o d y k n o w s h o w m a n y c a s e s o f i n f r i n g e m e n t o n a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m a n d c a s e s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l c o d e violations t h e r e are, b u t I s u s p e c t t h a t t h e r e are m a n y m o r e t h a n r e p o r t e d . 4. T h i s w a s t h e c o n s e n s u s a m o n g t h e COPE w o r k s h o p a t t e n d e e s at the 1994 ASA a n n u a l m e e t i n g s .
References A n d e r s o n , J a m e s A. 1992. " O n t h e Ethics o f R e s e a r c h in a Socially C o n s t r u c t e d Reality." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 36:3, 3 5 3 - 3 5 8 . Bartley, William W a r r e n , Ill. 1990. Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth: On Universities and the Wealth of Nations. LaSalle, IL: O p e n C o u r t P u b l i s h i n g Co.
64
The American
Sociologist/Fall
1994
Becket, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press. Berry, Bonnie. 1990. "The Sanctioning of Physicians: A Theory of Response to Professional Threats." Presented at the 1990 American Sociological Association annual meetings. Berry, Bonnie. 1991. "An Account of a Professional Ethics Violation in Sociology." The American Sociologist, 22: 261-266. Berry, Bonnie. 1994a. "Artificiality in the Construction of Crime, Criminal Justice, and Criminology." Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 22:1, 33-43. Berry, Bonnie. 1994b. "The Isolation of Crime, Law, and Deviance from the Core of Sociology." The American Sociologist, 25:2, 5-20. Bozeman, Barry and Crow, Michael. 1990. "The Environments of U.S. R&D Laboratories: Politics and Market Influences." Policy Sciences, 23:1, 25-56. British SocioIogical Association. 1992. ~BSA Guidelines for Good Professional Conduct." Sociology, 26:4, 699707. Brownstein, Henry H. 1993. "What Does 'Drug-Related' Mean? Reflections on the Problem of Objectification." The Criminologist, 18:!, 5-7. Cassell, Joan. 1991. "Subtle Manipulation and Deception in Fieldwork: Opportunism Knocks. ~ International Journal of Moral and Social Studies, 6:3, 269-274. Chilton, Roland. 1993. "Twenty-Five Years After the Crime Commission Report: Is the Field Still Data Starved?" The Criminologist, 18:5, 1, 6-8. Clarke, Lee. 1994. "Some Questions about Confidentiality." ASA Footnotes, 22:3: 8. Coston, Charisse T.M.; Berry, Bonnie; Ross, Lee; and Heard, Chinita. 1993. "The Pressures (and the Joys) of Academic Work: Minority Statuses and Other Considerations." Presented at the 1993 annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology. Davis, Michael. 1992. "Wild Professors, Sensitive Students: A Preface to Academic Ethics." Social Theory and Practice, 18:2, 117-141. Douglas, Jack D. 1992. "Betraying Scientific Truth." Society, 30:1: 76-82. Elman, Sandra E. 1991. "The Faculty Reward System and Accreditation." Metropolitan Universities, 1:4, 29-39. Freyberg, Mark and Ponarin, Ed. 1993. "Resocializing Teachers: Effects of Graduate Programs on Teaching Assistants. ~ Teaching Sociology, 21:2, 140-147. Granfield, Robert and Koenig, Thomas. 1992. "Learning Collective Eminence: Harvard Law School and the Social Production of Elite Lawyers." The Sociological Quarterly, 33:4, 503-520. Helsby, Gill and Saunders, Murray. 1993. "Taylorism, Tylerism and Performance Indicators: Defending the Indefensible?" Educational Studies, 19:1, 55-77. Homan, Roger. 1992. "The Ethics of Open Methods." The British Journal of Sociology, 43:3, 321-332. Kors, Alan Charles. 1991. ~Harassment Policies in the University." Society, 28:4, 22-30. Lambert, David A. and McGuire, Thomas G. 1991. "Determinants of Stringency of Psychologist Licensure." International Journal o f Law and Psychiatry, 14:4, 315-329. Lemert, Edwin M. 1951. Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory o f Sociopathic Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill. Levine, Felice J. 1994. "Academic Freedom and the Role of the ASA." ASA Footnotes, 22:3, 2. Levine, Felice J. Personal communication. April 12, 1994. Long, Gary L. and Dorn, Dean S. 1982-83. "Sociologists' Attitudes Toward Ethical Issues: The Management of an Impression." Sociology and Social Research, 67: 288-300. Machell, David F. 1991. "A Professor Realizes the Potential Poison of Ivy." Innovative Higher Education, 16: 2, 173-185. Marvin, Grace M. 1992. "Sociological Research Ethics: The ASA Codes Need Strengthening." Sociological Practice Review. 3:4, 264-267. Partisan Review (Discussion Panel). 1992. "Education beyond Politics." Vol. 59, No. 3: 343-419. Ramsden, Paul and Moses, Ingrid. 1992. "Associations between Research and Teaching in Australian Higher Education." Higher Education, 23:3, 273-295. Robbins, Bruce. 1991. Othering the Academy: Professionalism and Multiculturalism." Social Research, 58:2, 355372. Scott, Joan Wallach. 1991. "The Campaign against Political Correctness: What's Really at Stake?" Change~ 23;6, 3O-43. Shanker, Albert. 1993a. "Students as Customers." New York Times, August 8: E7. Shanker, Albert. 1993b. "Pseudo-education." The New Republic, November 8: I I. Thompson, Becky Wangsgaard and Tyagi, Sangeeta. 1992. "Multicultural Education and its Challenges for Sociology." Presented at the 87th American Sociological Association annual meetings. Trotman, Janina and Robertson, Susan. 1992. "Taking the Queen's Shilling: Public Policy, Research and Academics in the 1990s." Discourse, 13:1, 67-89. Wilkins, Leslie T. 1990. "The Future of Graduate Education in Criminal Justice: Keeping Curriculum Fashionable? A Personal View." Journal o f Criminal Justice Education, l: 21-31.
Berry
65