Instances of fraud and misconduct in science, along with debates regarding the nature of science and scientific practice, have led to some challenges in the reading of scientific texts. Applying the frameworks of reception theory and reader-response criticism is helpful in understanding the variations in the readings of the texts, as well as the reasons for the differing readings. The textual aspect of scientific communication illustrates both the realist and the social elements of scientific practice and the problems for reception presented by the complex dynamics of communicating scientific work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Braunwald, E.1987. On analyzing scientific fraud. Nature325:215-216.
2.
Braunwald, E.
1992. Cardiology: The John Darsee experience. In Research fraud in the behavioral and biomedical sciences, edited by D. J. Miller and M. Herson, 55-79. New York: John Wiley.
3.
Broad, W.
, and N. Wade. 1982. Betrayers of the truth: Fraud and deceit in the halls of science. New York: Simon & Schuster.
4.
Budd, J. M.
, M. Sievert, and T. R. Schultz. 1998. Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association280: 296-297.
5.
Cole, S.
1996. Voodoo sociology: Recent developments in the sociology of science. In The flight from science and reason, edited by P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, and M. W. Lewis, 274-287. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
6.
Dorfman, D. D.1978. The Cyril Burt question: New findings. Science201: 1177-1186.
7.
Eysenk, H. J.
1995. Burt as hero and anti-hero: A Greek tragedy. In Cyril Burt: Fraud or framed, edited by N. J. Mackintosh, 111-129. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
Fish, S. E.
1980. Literature in the reader: Affective stylistics. In Reader-response criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism, edited by J. P. Tompkins, 70-100. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
9.
Fletcher, R.1987. The doubtful case of Cyril Burt. Social Policy & Administration21: 40-57.
10.
Fuller, S.
2000. Science studies through the looking glass: An intellectual itinerary. In Beyond the science wars: The missing discourse about science and society, edited by U. Segerstråle, 185-217. Albany: State University of New York Press.
11.
Goldman, A. I.
1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
Gross, B. R.
1996. Flights of fancy: Science, reason, and common sense. In The flight from science and reason, edited by P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, and M. W. Lewis, 79-86. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
13.
Gross, P.1997. The so-called science wars and sociological gravitas. The Scientist, 28 April, 8.
14.
Gross, P. R.
, and N. Levitt. 1994. Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
Hearnshaw, L. S.
1979. Cyril Burt: Psychologist. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16.
Hirschkop, K.1997. Cultural studies and its discontents: A comment on the Sokal affair. Social Text50: 131-133.
17.
Iser, W.
1974. The implied reader: Patterns of communication in prose fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
Iser, W.
1989. Prospecting: From reader response to literary anthropology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
Iser, W.
2000. The range of interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press.
20.
Kamin, L.
1974. The science and politics of I.Q. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Kochan, C. A.
, and J. M. Budd. 1992. The persistence of fraud in the literature: The Darsee case. Journal of the American Society for Information Science43: 488-493.
22.
Kohn, A.
1986. False prophets: Fraud and error in science and medicine. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
23.
Koshland, D.1987. Fraud in science. Science235: 141.
24.
Poulet, G.
1980. Criticism and the experience of interiority. In Reader-response criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism, edited by J. P. Tompkins, 41-49. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
Prelli, L. J.
1989. A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
26.
Rosenblatt, L. M.
1994. The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
27.
Ross, A.
1991. Strange science: Culture, science and technology in the age of limits. London: Verso.
28.
Ross, A.1996. Introduction. Social Text46-47: 1-13.
29.
Rushton, J. P.1994. Victim of scientific hoax. Society31:40-44.
30.
Searle, J. R.
1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Segerstråle, U.
2000. Science and science studies: Enemies or allies? In Beyond the science wars: The missing discourse about science and society, edited by U. Segerstråle, 1-40. Albany: State University of New York Press.
32.
Shapin, S.
, and S. Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
Sokal, A.1996. Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text46-47:217-252.
34.
Sokal, A.
, and J. Bricmont. 1998. Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science. New York: Picador.
35.
Stewart, W. W.
, and N. Feder. 1987. The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature325:207-214.
36.
Weinberg, S.1996. Sokal's hoax. New York Review of Books, 8 August, 11-15.
37.
Willmott, P.1977. Integrity in social science: The upshot of a scandal. International Social Science Journal29: 333-336.
