Suchergebnisse

Plagiering betragtes normalt som en af dødssynderne i den akademiske verden,
en form for videnskabelig uredelighed. For forskere kan plagiering have
meget alvorlige karrieremæssige konsekvenser, fx tilbagekaldelse af akademiske
grader og disciplinære sanktioner. I Tyskland har to ministre indenfor
de senere år måttet træde tilbage efter at være blevet grebet i plagiering. Plagiering
ser ud til at være et voksende problem og kontrollen er skærpet. Mange
universiteter, forlag og tidskrifter har indført rutinemæssig plagiatkontrol.
Efter en gennemgang af selve begrebet betydning og formelle regler i videnskabsetiske
kodekser præsenteres og diskuteres forskellige etiske begrundelser
for forbud mod plagiering. Tre positioner diskuteres. En naturretlig: åndelig
ejendomsret, retten til viden, man selv har frembragt følger af retten til
"frugten af eget arbejde" (Locke), eller en ret, som er forudsætning for personens
dannelse (Hegel). Den har svag støtte. En utilitaristisk – funktionalistisk
begrundelse (Mill/ Merton): at plagiat undergraver videnskabernes anerkendelsesregime,
der skal belønne efter præstation til gavn for vidensvækst. Den
har stærkere støtte, om end funktionalitet kan være vanskelig at opnå og påvise
i praksis. Dysfunktionalitet og perverse effekter, fx på grund af for stærkt
publiceringspres, kan forekomme. Afslutningsvis inddrages Axel Honneths
anerkendelsesteori op som et supplement og korrektiv til utilitarismen.


ENGELSK ABSTRACT

Heine Andersen: PLAGIARISM IN RESEARCH. Research ethical and sociological aspects

Plagiarism is usually regarded as one of the deadly sins in science, a form of
scientific misconduct. Plagiarism can have serious consequences for researcher
careers, such as revocation of academic degrees and disciplinary sanctions.
In recent years, two ministers in Germany had to resign after being
caught in plagiarism. Plagiarism seems to be a growing problem, and many
universities, publishers and scientific journals have introduced routine control
for it.
After a review of meaning and formal rules of ethical codes, this article discusses
three ethical traditions, representing different reasons for prohibiting
plagiarism. The first is natural law: a right to spiritual property, to knowledge
that you yourself have generated. This is a right to "the fruit of one's own labor"
(John Locke), or that which is essential for the person's self-realization
(Hegel). There appears to be weak support for this position. The second is
a utilitarian-functionalist reason (Mill/ Merton): plagiarism undermines the
recognition regime in modern science, the principle of reward according to
contribution to the growth of knowledge. This position has greater support,
but it is often difficult to validate in practice. The strong pressure on researchers
to publish may create dysfunctional and perverse effects. Finally, Axel
Honneth's theory of recognition theory is presented as a supplement and corrective
to utilitarianism.

Keywords: Plagiarism, scientific misconduct, research ethics.

Artiklen fokuserer på den meget store skævhed i bestanden af forskere, betinget af oprindelsesklasse. Hovedparten af denne skævhed opstår i uddannelses-forløbet, men skævheden forstærkes yderligere ved selektion til forskerkarriere. Det undersøges, om disse skævheder i forhold til social oprindelse fortsat gør sig gældende i forskningens konkurrencesystem, hvor inklusion og belønninger i henhold til officielle normer skulle være baseret på faglig meritering, jf. Mertons CUDOS-normsæt. Analysen viser stærk indikation på socialt betinget selvselektion ved selve indgangen til forskerkarriere med overvægt af ansøgere med baggrund i en kulturel overklasse. Derimod er økonomisk overklasse ikke overrepræsenteret. På efterfølgende selektionstrin finder vi ikke tilsvarende skævheder, et enkelt sted ligefrem modsat, at arbejderklassebaggrund giver bedre odds. En markant undtagelse udgør Ung Eliteforskerpris, hvor vi finder en stærk overrepræsentation af unge fra kulturel overklasse. Meritter ser samtidig ud til at have betydning på alle trin. Forskellige teser til forklaring heraf afprøves og diskuteres.

ENGELSK ABSTRACT:

Heine Andersen: Researchers – Recruitment, Career and Social Origins

The focus in this article is the strong social class bias in the population of researchers in Denmark. Most of this bias arises in selection processes occurring during education, but the bias is further enhanced at the commencement of the researcher career. The article analyses the impact of social origins of this bias at different steps in the research competition system, where inclusion and rewards according to official standards should be based on academic merit, according to Merton's CUDOS-norms. The analysis shows strong evidence of self-selection based on class origins at the very beginning of the researcher career, with candidates of cultural upper class origin being highly over-represented (but not economic upper class). In subsequent selection steps, we found no such bias, in one case exactly the opposite, a working class background giving better odds. One notable exception was Danish Research Council's "Young Researchers Award", where we find a strong over-representation of young researchers from the cultural upper class. Merits seem to have an impact on all stages.

Key words: Researchers, social origins, social mobility, career, CUDOS-norms.

The article is based on a survey of 788 Danish researchers, mainly from the social sciences, and analyses differences between female and male researchers concerning cognitive styles and cognitive convictions. Sandra Harding's portrait of modern science as androcentric and characterized by a set of gender-related dualisms is taken as a point of departure, and the results by and large show gender differences which can be related to this picture. Male researchers give more importance to methodological ideals taken from natural science, objectivity, mathematical methods, rationality, universality and cumulative results, etc., than female researchers do. These differences are shown to be correlated with the degree of power orientation of research topics.