Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Virtue blindness and hegemony: qualitative evidence of negotiated ethical frameworks in the social language of university research administration

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study used critical discourse analysis (CDA) to elucidate normative structures of ethical behavior in university research administration which may be useful for knowledge transference to future studies of research integrity. Research administration appears to support integrity in the research environment through four very strong normative domains: (1) respect for authority structures; (2) respect for institutional boundaries; (3) professionalism; and (4) a strong sense of virtue. The strong norm structure of research administration, however, appears to be threatened by the fifth domain, (5) political power, which is inhabited by prestigious faculty with tenure, top-down authority misalignment, and the power for some institutional members to circumvent the system. The strong normative structure also appears threatened by the overall consequentiality of the regulatory environment, and shifting contexts that threaten personal virtue. In the end, the normative structure is fluid, politically acquiescent to power, and ambiguous. Although the professional core of the norm structure is strong, the strengths and weaknesses in the overall system can be connected to poorly constructed elements of the institutional environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1994). The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education, 35(4), 273–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson, T. N. (2006). The institutional construction of professional and corporate norms in university research administration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

  4. Atkinson, T. N, Gilleland, D. S., & Barrett, T. G. (2007). The dimensions of influence on research administrator behavior: Toward a theoretical model of research administration as a public service profession. The Journal of Research Administration, 38(1) In Press.

  5. Atkinson, T. N., Gilleland, D. S., & Pearson, L. C. (2007). The Research Environment Norm Inventory (RENI): A study of integrity in research administrative systems. Accountability in Research, 14, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barber, B. (1952). Science and the social order. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations, artistry, choice, and leadership. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Braxton, J. M. (1989). Institutional variability in the faculty conformity to the norms of science: A force of integration or fragmentation in the academic profession? Research in Higher Education, 30(4), 419–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., Quinn, R. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Developing a discipline of positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 361–370). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chouliaraki, L., & Fariclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2004). The sociology of deviant behavior. (12th Ed.) New York: Thompson-Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deverterre, R. J. (2002). Introduction to virtue ethics: Insights from the ancient Greeks. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  14. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Donaldson, T. (1999). Response: Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 237–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1999). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gee, J. P. (2005). Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. (2nd Ed.) New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Glasberg, D. S., & Skidmore, D. (1998). The dialectics of crime: The anatomy of the savings and loan crisis and the case of Silverado banking, savings and loan association. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57(4), 423–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goode, W. J. (1969). The theoretical limits of professionalization. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The semi-professions and their organization (pp. 266–313). New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hackett, E. J. (1994). A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 242–260. Retrieved June 16, 2004, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Harries-Jenkins, G. (1970). Professionals in organizations. In J. A. Jackson (Ed.), Professions and professionalization (pp. 53–108). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hensley, O. D. (1986). University research support personnel. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: creating and environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kalas, J. W. (1987). The grant system. New York: The State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kurtz, R. S. (2003). Organizational culture, decision making, and integrity, The national park service and the Exxon Valdez. Public Integrity, 5(4), 305–317.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Commentary: Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 439(9), 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meyer, H., & Rowan, B. (2006). The New Institutionalism in Education. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations, A Synthesis of the Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mintzberg, H. (2000). The professional bureaucracy. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization and Governance in Higher Education (5th ed.) Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

  33. Mitroff, I. I. (1983). Stakeholders of the organizational mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pershing, J. L. (2002). Whom to betray? Self-regulation of occupational misconduct at the United States Naval Academy. Deviance, 23, 149–175.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell, & W. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Scott, W. (2003). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Scott, R. W., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Solomon, W. D. (1995). Ethics: Normative Ethical Theories. In The Encyclopedia of Bioethics (pp. 738–746). New York: Macmillan.

  39. Spriestersbach, D. (1975). Research administration in academic organizations. Occasional Paper. Office of Leadership Development in Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vaughn, D. (1990). Autonomy, interdependence, and social control: NASA and the space shuttle challenger. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 225–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vaughn, D. (1998). Rational choice, situated action, and the social control of organizations. Law & Society Review, 32(1), 23–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Weick K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An early abstract of this work was presented at the Society of Research Administrators (SRA) Annual Meeting in Quebec in 2006; The National Council of Research Administrators (NCURA) Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.; and the 2006 Research Conference on Research Integrity, Tampa, FL (December 1–3).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham, SLOT 812, Little Rock, AR, 72205, USA

    Timothy N. Atkinson

  2. Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 S. University Ave., Little Rock, AR, 72204, USA

    Diane S. Gilleland

Authors
  1. Timothy N. Atkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diane S. Gilleland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy N. Atkinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atkinson, T.N., Gilleland, D.S. Virtue blindness and hegemony: qualitative evidence of negotiated ethical frameworks in the social language of university research administration. SCI ENG ETHICS 13, 195–220 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9007-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9007-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation