Journal article
A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: do they really mean it?
Science and engineering ethics, v 16(1)
Mar 2010
PMID: 19597968
Featured in Collection : UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
Abstract
Since published acknowledgements of scientific misconduct are a species of image restoration, common strategies for responding publicly to accusations can be expected: from sincere apologies to ritualistic apologies. This study is a rhetorical examination of these strategies as they are reflected in choices in language: it compares the published retractions and letters of apology with the letters that charge misconduct. The letters are examined for any shifts in language between the charge of misconduct and the response to the charge in order to assess whether the apology was sincere or ritualistic. The results indicate that although most authors' published acknowledgments of scientific misconduct seem to minimize culpability by means of the strategic use of language, their resulting ritualistic apologies often still satisfy in some way the accusers' (and thus their community's) concerns.
Metrics
Details
- Title
- A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: do they really mean it?
- Creators
- Lawrence Souder - Department of Culture and Communication, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. LS39@drexel.edu
- Publication Details
- Science and engineering ethics, v 16(1)
- Publisher
- Springer Nature; England
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Language
- English
- Academic Unit
- Communication
- Web of Science ID
- WOS:000276074700015
- Scopus ID
- 2-s2.0-77949285126
- Other Identifier
- 991014877889604721
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
InCites Highlights
Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:
- Web of Science research areas
- Engineering, Multidisciplinary
- Ethics
- History & Philosophy Of Science
- Philosophy