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 the F r e e d o m to

R e s e a r c h a n d Teach a n d P o o r S o c i o l o g i c a l P r a c t i c e

BONNIE BERRY

Infringements upon the freedom to research and teach may be experi- enced as pressures to attend to particular topics of research to the exclusion of others, to conduct research using false parameters and inappropriate meth- odologies, to reach conclusions acceptable to funders, to apply "sexy" theo- retical explanations while ignoring other perspectives, and to respond favor- ably to consumeristic university student admission and retention policies. Al- though there is no empirical evidence to support a causal relationship be- tween 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, un- certainty 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 offer ing a set o f obse rva t ions abou t the re la t ionship b e t w e e n infringe-

men t s and prac t ice , as der ived f rom the l i tera ture and shared wi th o t h e r sociolo-

gists and f rom 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 and teacher . The o c c u r r e n c e

o f in f r ingements and thei r effect u p o n scholar ly w o r k seems to be s o m e t h i n g

that "eve ryone k n o w s " bu t no one has tested. I am sugges t ing that, a l t hough

p o o r p rac t i ce can o c c u r in the p r e s e n c e or a b s e n c e o f in f r ingements , 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 BERRYBL@PLU.edu.

Berry 53

likely to occur when impelled by infringements. My purpose is to discuss some of the issues and dilemmas related to standards by which we judge poor and good pract ice, to define and provide examples of what I mean by infr ingements in research and teaching, to describe both external and internal sources of in- fr ingements as well as sociologists ' react ions to them, and finally to offer a few proposals to reduce the effects of infringments. My comments are directed mostly to academic sociological research and teaching al though much of what I have to say applies to nonunivers i ty research and pract ice and may apply to disciplines o ther than sociology (see, for example, Lambert and McGuire 1991).

T h e Di lemma o f S t a n d a r d s

To say that infr ingements have an effect on the quality of sociological pract ice supposes that the standards of good and poor quality work are known, agreed upon, and understood. While the sociological communi ty may be able to agree that sexual harassment is not good pract ice in the classroom (al though we may not agree on what const i tutes sexual harassment) and that plagiarism and data forgery are not good research practices, many pract ices do not reach such a degree of consensus. Instead, the goodness or poorness of the quality of our work seems to have multiple and conflicting standards.

Some quest ionable pract ices are technical, having to do wi th the more me- chanical aspects of our work, such as biased sampling; and some are moral, such as sexual harassment. One might think that technical violations would be clearly unders tood, agreed upon, easily spotted, and easily judged as right or wrong. But even technically poor pract ice may be a mat ter of interpretat ion. For ex- ample, it seems to me that misapplying mathematical rules would be a fairly cut- and-dried violation of pract ice standards. When I brought up this pract ice in conversat ion with another sociologist, she said that I was mistaken and tilat "erroneous" use of mathematics is a judgment call.

Morally questionable pract ices are not easily de te rmined or agreed upon ei- ther. They have more to do with human rights violations and are more an out- come of selfishness and o ther individual traits ra ther than institutional infringe- ments upon ones research and teaching. As a consequence , moral violations are not addressed herein.

Opinions may vary but good research would seem to be research that is ethical (does not hurt anyone unnecessarily), applies mathematics within the boundaries of the data's limitations, samples wi thout bias, and, in o ther words, adheres to the methodological and ethical standards outl ined broadly in the professional code of ethics and more specifically in textbooks. Tex tbook stan- dards might be a more concise guide than a code of ethics by which to judge ones work, al though these standards too can meet with some dissension within the academic community. While agreement does not mean t ruth (we can all agree and be wrong), I would think that in the case of research methodology, t ex tbook standards do have meaning.

Good teaching standards are those including organization and preparedness ,

54 The American Sociologist/Fall 1994

keeping up to date on materials, and fair t rea tment of students. Good teaching pract ices would seem to be those that make students more informed and be t te r thinkers than they were before taking the course. But the standards by which good teaching is commonly judged are teaching evaluations. Teaching evalua- tions are indicators of many things, such as grading practices, but of ten are not

indicators of how well the students are taught. It is difficult to state definitively what is right or wrong in the conduc t of our

work. The determinat ion of many of our pract ice standards and their violations rely upon formal and informal codes of ethics. The determinat ion of these stan- dards and their violations draws upon our professional expert ise, as would be the case in any occupat ion requiring specialized training and resulting in eso- teric knowledge.

My posit ion is that, al though research and teaching standards are arguable, there may truly be standards. The prob lem is that the measures for achievement of standards may be false, as in teaching evaluations and publicat ions evidencing good teaching and research. I am asserting that, if we as sociologists can not agree on what the standards are, let alone how the standards are inf luenced by infringements, we could at least consider our disagreements, compare observa- tions o n what might be infr ingements and poor pract ice, and finally make avail- able a set of standards that details the minimum requi rements for acceptable research and teaching practices. Of course it is true that training varies and that work contexts vary. But to say this only underl ines the need for a well-consid-

ered understanding of standards, derived from an open-minded forum on agree- ments and disagreements.

T h e M e a n i n g o f I n f r i n g e m e n t s

Infr ingements on academic work, as I define them, are pressures (a) to do ones work differently than one would do wi thout such pressures and (b) that can influence the quality of pract ice in a negative way. Not all pressures are necessari ly negative forces leading to poor quality work. To me, research ethics seem to be fair guidelines on doing the right thing methodological ly and being fair to subjects and respondents . But some researchers view research ethics as

infr ingement because they dictate how to go about ones research (Cassell, 1991). Some may view academic guidelines to publish or engage in a number of o the r academic activities as pressures and perhaps infringements.

The distinction I make be t ween pressures and infr ingements is the latter 's greater potential i ty for poor quality outcomes. Pressures by their very nature may be uncomfor table to the person pressured (such as the pressure to teach a large number of classes), may take their toll on individual stress levels and self- concepts , and may be v iewed as unfair or unwarranted. More positively, pres- sures may be viewed as helpful guidelines for career advancement . Infringe- ments are pressures that are imposed with no interest in doing the job proper ly and that may detract from doing the best job possible, as illustrated by the

following examples.

Berry 55

The presence and imposit ion of infr ingements in a work setting do not nec- essarily result in poo r pract ice since we can refuse, perhaps at some risk, to succumb to them. There are conceivably four interactions b e t w e e n infringe- ments and practice: situations where there are infringements and poo r practice, infr ingements and good practice, no infr ingements and good pract ice, and no infr ingements and poor practice.

E x a m p l e s o f I n f r i n g e m e n t s U p o n Research

I am a sociologist who studies deviance, crime, and social control , so I am most familiar wi th examples of infringed research in these areas of study. Prob- ably no subdisciplines in sociology are immune to infr ingements upon their particular topics but, according to Marvin (1992), some are more susceptible to infr ingements than others. She states that basic or "pure" sociology can be sub-

ject to infringements, but not to the ex ten t that applied work is because: (a) The outcomes of applied work have direct and immediate effects on policy, which then determines social pract ices on people , thus, there is a greater potential for harm; (b) applied sociology, because of its greater likelihood of being funded, may be more answerable to the funding agencies instead of to scientific doc- trine; and (c) applied sociology is of ten at the behest of governmenta l agencies, legislators, and others with 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 need or of an effect (Marvin, 1992; Trotman and Robertson, 1992; Wilkins, 1990). An example from my own expe- r ience illustrates this point: When I worked as a senior researcher for state government , I was instructed to emphasize an increase in drug offenses so that the government agency for which I worked would get a National Institute of Justice grant. When I examined the data, I found no such increase. More gen- erally, funders may specify that a quantitative, confirmatory analysis is in order, believing that "figures don ' t lie" and that their presupposi t ions are not arguable. Numbers, especially those derived from sophist icated arithmetic, are assumed to squelch any argument f rom opponents ; ergo, the more mathematical ly sophisti- cated the analysis, the better. The sociologist, desirous of the grant, may agree to the parameters set for the research ( the research question, the measures, etc.) and may apply a methodology that is inappropriate; for example , evaluation design w h e n a more explora tory design is appropr ia te or LISREL model ing when Chi-Square tests are appropriate .

On a level more basic than design and methodology, consider cons t ruc t and content validity of variables. If validity is not present , then all else in the study is meaningless. Dependen t as well as independen t variables may be invalid. In criminology, we often measure the amount of time that a convic ted offender spends in an institutional or communi ty correct ional program wi thout fur ther arrests or violations of the correct ional condi t ions as a measure of success; but we often fail to measure effectiveness as an absence of repeat offenses, a t ruer

56 The American Sociologist/Fall 1994

representat ion of success. And most of us know 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, complete 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 commit ted to prove a point (see Brownstein, 1993 on the meaning of "drug-related"). The dilemma for sociological theory and research is that definitions, which symbolic interactionist and social constructivist arguments suggest can be vague, debatable and relative, are crucial to content 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 ex- amples of bad teaching. Ineffective teaching might be called "lousy" teaching and involve using much-aged and irrelevant lecture notes, reading from a text- book instead of lecturing, and giving false information to students wi thout cor- rection. These teaching practices may be the result of the individual faculty member 's laziness or incompetence . 2 Assigning grades that do not correspond to the students ' performance is another 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 demand 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 who sue universities for better grades, and win. There is nowhere to turn in such settings because the admin- istration and other university faculty support the students ' demands (Shanker, 1993b). There are also few options outside of a particular university setting should the professor voluntarily or involuntarily leave: University jobs are scarce and other universities may adhere to similar s tudent enrol lment and retention policies.

The concrete pressures facing faculty in settings where 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 where 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 own 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 ex t reme case but, years ago in a faculty meet ing not at my current work place, the quest ion came up about how to grade s tudents who do not take all of the exams. The consensus, excluding me, and the common pract ice was to average the grades from the exams that the student did take. So, a student could miss a significant p ropor t ion of the course material and still receive a grade reflecting comprehens ion of the total course material. At this school, s tudent complaints and unflattering teaching evaluations were sufficient cause to dismiss a professor. Less ex t r eme examples of ineffective teaching have come to my at tent ion through observation, through informal conversat ions with colleagues, and through more formal discussions at annual professional meetings. Most of my colleagues tell me that they are pressured by co-workers to "go easy" and a few are th rea tened wi th boycot t s by students. They are pressured to curve grades, to pass a certain p ropor t ion of students, to no t cover as much material

as the faculty mem ber sees fit, and to not assign certain tasks (such as research activities).

Coston, et al. (1993) describe the pressures expe r i enced by faculty to not only assign grades unrepresenta t ive of the students ' abilities, learning, or effort but also to enter tain students, to not address certain topics (such as race and crime), and to not offer certain perspect ives (for example, critical theory). Under these conditions, faculty are faced with the dilemma of responsibly teaching in a way that really develops students ' intellect versus formal and informal univer- sity policy to not do so.

E x t e r n a l a n d I n t e r n a l Sources o f Infr ingement

Infr ingements on research and teaching come f rom outside academics and from within academics through the academic reward and punishment system, which can, in turn, legitimate the external sources of infringement.

Externa l Sources. Infr ingements upon teaching standards, curricular content , s tudent admission and re tent ion criteria, faculty hiring and tenure standards, and open inquiry have delegitimatized the university, according to Scott (1991). Bartley (1990) places the blame for Western universities ' "intellectual depres- sion" on economic principles around which the universities are organized. Insuf- ficient financial suppor t f rom federal and state governments and consumeris t ic value placed upon quality educat ion may pressure universities to admit and retain inappropriate-to-universi ty students for tuition purposes and may pressure faculty to engage in ineffective teaching and false grading practices (Berry, 1994a).

Appropriate con ten t of social science teaching material is a mat ter of opinion as judged by the recent debate on racial harassment and cultural diversity: Re- gardless of one 's political point of view and regardless of agreement versus disagreement with the ruling power , resistance to curtai lments on speech in the university can be expec t ed (Davis, 1992; Robbins, 1991; Kors, 1991; Thompson and Tyagi, 1992). A related issue is political correctness . As this overused term implies, some may adopt a popular sociopolitical line as "correct" while others may view these same strictures to espouse political cor rec tness as intrusive,

58 The American Sociologist/Fall 1994

wrong, or "incorrect." According to discussants in the Part isan Rev iew (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 educat ion have been a decline of the universi ty curriculum (for example, politicization of the curriculum), inadequately educated university students, teaching fictional history instead of facts, decisions made by national funding sources about which projects to fund, a shifting of the intellectual foundat ion from Marxism to Nietzche-ism, the mainstream academic press disseminating politi- cally correct views, and in general watered-down scholarship (Part isan Rev iew

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 development laboratories shows the com- bined 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 conduct of science, the conduct of which is impacted by mixed economic and political authority, as illustrated by the ex- amples 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 account- ability in the U.K. They find that new Right philosophies of the conservative political party has led to a value system that monitors education through mea- sures 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 exper ienced a similar devaluation of education and emphasis on cost-effec- tiveness.

In terna l Sources. The degree and type of infringements upon academic free- dom to research and teach sociology are probably relative across settings. Some university work may be much infringed upon depending upon the university's economic condition and the specific university mission. Standards can vary within one university, within one department, across time depending upon the chair- person, 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), which is neither here nor there as far as affecting the quality of scholarship unless the pressure to do research for research sake results in research not conducted well. In the case cited by Berry (1991), the faculty member misapplied a research technique because he needed the publication. Socialization in graduate school and continuing on throughout the academic career may influence our practice through faulty or absent training in research and teaching or through a training process that leads us to respond to intense career pressures to "do the wrong thing" in research and teaching. Incompetent

Berry 59

sociological practice can be explained by inadequate graduate training, sloppy professional review procedures (inappropriate advice from university, editorial, and other peer reviewers), and other 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 appro- priate 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 de- scribe another academic force that infringes upon 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 how much bureau- cratization, leading to scientific errors, is internally and externally induced. Douglas says that scientific deviance can be influenced by "bureaucratized criteria for judging scientific wor th and accomplishment," which, Douglas suggests, may have more to do with number of publications and size of grants than with scientific contribution. Douglas also finds that "big science" (that is, large sci- ence bureaucracies) has eroded the spirit of scientific communi ty and team morale. He concludes that our competit iveness outweighs a team search for the truth.

Sociologists' Perceptions and Reconstruct ions of Infr ingements and Violations

Let us examine more closely the relationship between infringements and practice. First of all, it is difficult to know sometimes whe ther poor professional practice is accidental or intentional. Accidental poor practice is more forgivable than knowingly and purposely commit ted violations. Truly accidental violations are probably infrequent; for example, writing the wrong grade in a grade book or forgetting to have a research subject sign an informed consent form. Ignorance and incompetence explain poor practice when the person simply does not know what she or he is doing, as in cases of misapplying research principles or wrong- ful classroom instruction because the professor does not understand the mate- rial. The relationship be tween 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 knowing poor pro- fessional practice. In a sense, poor research and teaching due to infringements upon academic freedom are violations under duress, assuming that faculty would not engage in poor practice wi thout the fear of punishment.

It would be helpful to know if sociologists whose work is infringed upon

60 The American Sociologist/Fall 1994

define the infringements as not infringements, as appropriate, as just pressures of the job. To the extent that poor practice is an outcome of infringements and to the extent that infringements are perceived as appropriate or acceptable, poor practice will be encouraged since it is the outcome of "legitimate" pres- sures. Infringers may construct a false reality of science and teaching and infringees may adopt it.

For example, in settings where most of the faculty go along with pressures to not require much in the way of student performance and understanding, the odd professor who maintains stringent teaching standards is engaged in nonnormative teaching and may easily be singled out as "not good." The assumption is that nobody 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 unprotec ted 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 upon their work.

Infringees may adopt a victim's perspective; for example, "it must be my fault somehow" (self-blame) or "if I don ' 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 work has been infringed upon because such an admission would require them to either defend their compliance or to do some- thing about the infringements, if cognitive dissonance is any judge. If they were to recognize infringements for what they are and admit that they complied, it may be difficult to maintain a strong sense of self as a scholar.

People who refuse to be co-opted may be perceived or perceive themselves as "losers" who are not to be taken seriously. The "winners" have the signs of success (high teaching evaluations, grants, tenure, promotion, publications) all of which may be invalid representations of quality scholarship. It is true that losers and winners can be valid losers and winners; but when infringements are a significant force in sociological practice, losing and winning may be a more arbitrary phenomenon.

The Not So Mysterious Lack of Data. Given fear and a desire for self-survival, it is no wonder that extremely few complain to the American Sociological Asso- ciation Committee on Freedom of Teaching and Research (ASA COFRAT), the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE), or similar organizations. 3 More- over, 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 upon the sociological communi ty 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, which have the symbolic if not real authority to determine and maintain quality teach- ing and research.

Berry 61

So lu t i ons

I have addressed external and internal sources of infringement upon academic freedom to teach and research and I have considered the rewards and punish- ments for those who comply and for those who do not comply with the infringe- ments. The remaining question is what 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 when faced with infringements.

Examination of university missions, objectives, and reward systems would be helpful. Elman (1991) has proposed a means of equitably rewarding faculty for teaching, research, and other academic tasks through a process resembling ac- creditation. In this way, faculty can be evaluated by the stated university objec- tives and have a clearer idea about what is expected. Clarity is bet ter than confusion but this accreditation process may have the same limitations as union- ization. In institutions that are unionized, essentially the union rules exist to protect us against unfair t reatment assuming that we go along with the rules. These rules, which have the beauty of presumed 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 protect ion against infringements. If the reward system merely indicates, for example, that faculty will be rewarded for positive teaching evalu- ations and bringing in grant money, then we may still be pressured to engage in activities that are academically not 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 through our professional organizations. The reexamination could then be fol lowed by a co- hesive delivery about appropriate expectat ions of faculty presented in a strong and direct impression on university administration.

An obvious place to look for self-control and self-protection would be the ASA, the British Sociological Association (BSA), and our other professional orga- nizations. These organizations and their codes of professional ethics are prob- ably 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 member awareness of the codes of conduct may be low (British Sociological Association, 1992), these organizations have formalized codes of ethics that offer vague recommendations; describe our responsibilities toward research partici- pants, research sponsors, funders, students, the public, the academic review process, and our colleagues; and set general standards for ethics and profes- sional integrity. Committees such as the ASA COPE and COFRAT serve as listen- ers, manage inquiries, and in the case of COPE stand ready to be used as an investigation and sanctioning board. Lately, we as sociologists have been ques-

62 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 we do not report, then 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 when we have crossed over the line of poor practice, case histories and improved clarity of standards would be of great benefit. Concrete changes in professional codes, taking into account the role that infringements and professional pressures play in professional viola- tions, could actually work to reduce unwit t ing or witt ing practice violations.

Assuming that we can get to the point where 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 need explicit guidelines in (for example) our ASA Code of Ethics, we are less sure that we 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 infringe- ments on our academic freedom. If so, there may be resistance to our own professional organization's adding further strictures to those under which we already must operate. Having the discipline's advisory commit tee 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 bet ter remedy. Open and frank discussion about infringements, pressures of the job, and the purpose of codes of ethics can be made available through journals, newsletters, direct com- municat ion from committees of professional ethics and committees on the free- dom 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 recommended 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 known through anonymous self-reports of concerns about ones own practices. And it is just as essential to know how 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 know that formal social control is usually less effective than is informal social control. For this reason, I suggest that informal associa- tions among colleagues be encouraged to support a quest for meaningful teach- ing and research and to reduce the competit ive and self-survival components 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 in- fringements on academic freedom, we may want to reconsider graduate training that leads to highly competitive, cut throat 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 through intercollegial cohesion. The eventual outcome of such cohesion might be a generation of sociologists who would not impose or com- ply with infringements upon academic freedom. An informal support system should be in addition to formal organizations (university committees, COPE, COFRAT) doing what they can to clearly lay out rules and provide advice in cases of infringement and poor practice.

S u m m a r y

Infr ingements upon f r eedom to teach and research can be parr ied by self-reflection, recognit ion of reward and punishment 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 wide- spread encouragement 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.

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

The 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 for t he i r c o m m e n t s .

N o t e s

An ear l ie r d ra f t o f th is p a p e r w a s p r e s e n t e d at the 1994 Paci f ic Soc io log ica l Assoc ia t ion a n n u a l mee t ings . 1. Not a cure-all bu t a p r o p o s e d i m p r o v e m e n t for the m e a s u r e m e n t o f c r ime , mar i ta l diff icult ies, d rug-use , o r

o t h e r less than visible va r i ab les is to c o n d u c t se l f - repor t s tudies . See, fo r e x a m p l e , Ch i l ton ' s (1995) sugges- t ion for a na t iona l se l f - repor t da ta base o f c r imina l ac t iv i ty .

2. This d i s t inc t ion b e t w e e n " lousy" a n d une th i ca l t e a c h i n g w a s b r o u g h t fo r th at the 1994 ASA a n n u a l meet - ings, spec i f ica l ly at t he C o m m i t t e e o n Profess iona l Ethics w o r k s h o p o n c o d e revis ion.

3. I c o n s u l t e d Felice Levine, Execu t ive Of f i ce r of t he ASA a n d m e m b e r o f t he ASA's Task Force to revise the Code o f Profess ional Ethics , to ge t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t he cases t h e y m i g h t r ece ive t h r o u g h COFRAT or COPE (pe r sona l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . She es t imates tha t t he ASA COPE rece ives e igh t to t en inquir ies a year , o f these the re are t h ree to fou r filings, a n d on ly t w o cases w e n t the en t i r e l eng th o f COPE c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ince May 1993. N o b o d y k n o w s h o w m a n y cases 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 cases o f p ro fes s iona l c o d e viola t ions the re are, bu t I s u s p e c t tha t the re are m a n y m o r e t h a n r epo r t ed .

4. This w a s the c o n s e n s u s a m o n g the COPE w o r k s h o p a t t e n d e e s at the 1994 ASA annua l mee t ings .

R e f e r e n c e s

A n d e r s o n , J a m e s A. 1992. " O n the Ethics o f R e s e a r c h in a Social ly 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, Wil l iam War ren , Ill. 1990. Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth: On Universities and the Wealth of Nations. LaSalle, IL: O p e n Cour t Pub l i sh ing Co.

6 4 T h e A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i s t / F a l l 1 9 9 4

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 In-

quiry 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, 699-

707. 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 Inde-

fensible?" 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 of 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 Prac-

tice 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, 355-

372. 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 Soci-

ology." Presented at the 87th American Sociological Association annual meetings. Trotman, Janina and Robertson, Susan. 1992. "Taking the Queen's Shilling: Public Policy, Research and Academ-

ics 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