Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present article is concerned with the symbolism of punishment, using sanctions for scientific misconduct as an exemplary case. By looking at a case not traditionally an object for criminology, it seeks to extend existing cultural theories of punishment to incorporate settings that are not defined by penal law but that nonetheless feature phenomena of deviance and punishment. The article outlines how sanctions for misconduct, much like state punishment, appeal to themes of sacred and evil, uncertainty and disorder. It argues that this appeal to the sacred is both symbolic and instrumental, in that it serves to create and legitimize a position of authority for the journals taking action against scientific misconduct, illustrating how symbolic aspects of punishment relate to aspects of power.

Keywords

Cultural theory of punishment power retractions scientific misconduct symbolic politics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bakhtin

(1984) Rabelais and His World. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Bakhtin

(2010) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Ben-Yehuda

(1986) Deviance in science: Towards the criminology of science. British Journal of Criminology 26(1): 1–27.

Ben-Yehuda

(1992) Criminalization and deviantization as properties of the social order. The Sociological Review 40(1): 73–108.

Bosch

Hernández

Pericas

, et al. (2012) Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS ONE 7(12): e51928.

Bourdieu

(1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chandler

(2007) Semiotics: The Basics. London: Routledge.

Crank

Proulx

(2009) Toward an interpretive criminal justice. Critical Criminology 18(3): 147–167.

Del Percio

Zienkowski

(2014) Von der Mikrophysik des Diskurses: Linguistische Pragmatik, Konversationsanalyse, Ethnographie der Kommunikation, Critical Discourse Analysis. In: Angermuller

Nonhoff

Herschinger

, et al. (eds) Diskursforschung Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter, 564–582.

10.

Ding

(2002) The passive voice and social values in science. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 32(2): 137–154.

11.

Douglas

(1992) Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.

12.

Durkheim

(1893) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Simon and Schuster.

13.

Durkheim

(1984) Erziehung, Moral und Gesellschaft: Vorlesung an der Sorbonne 1902/1903. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

14.

Fanelli

(2013) Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine 10(12): e1001563.

15.

Fang

Steen

Casadevall

(2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(42): 17028–17033.

16.

Faria

(2015) Scientific misconduct: How organizational culture plays its part. Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit 5(1): 38–54.

17.

Fiske

(1989) Understanding Popular Culture. Boston, MA: Taylor & Francis.

18.

Foucault

(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.

19.

Freud

(2004) The uncanny. In: Sandner

(ed.) Fantastic Literature: A Critical Reader. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 74–101.

20.

Garfinkel

(1956) Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology 61(5): 420–424.

21.

Garland

(1990) Frameworks of inquiry in the sociology of punishment. British Journal of Sociology 41(1): 1–15.

22.

Garland

(1996) The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology 36(4): 445–471.

23.

Garland

(2009) A culturalist theory of punishment? Punishment and Culture, Philip Smith. Punishment & Society 11(2): 259–268.

24.

Godecharle

Nemery

Dierickx

(2013) Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. The Lancet 381(9872): 1097–1098.

25.

Grieneisen

Zhang

(2012) A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE 7(10): e44118.

26.

Gusfield

(1984) The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

27.

Hahn

(2001) Schuld und Fehltritt, Geheimhaltung und Diskretion. In: Von Moos

(ed.) Der Fehltritt: Vergehen und Versehen in der Vormoderne, Wien: Böhlau, 177–202.

28.

Hannah-Moffat

Lynch

(2012) Theorizing punishment’s boundaries: An introduction. Theoretical Criminology 16(2): 119–121.

29.

Harwood

(2005) ‘We do not seem to have a theory … the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26(3): 343–375.

30.

Hesselmann

Graf

Schmidt

, et al. (2017) The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology 65(6): 814–845.

31.

Hesselmann

Wienefoet

Reinhart

(2014) Measuring scientific misconduct: Lessons from Criminology. Publications 2(3): 61–70.

32.

Hyland

(1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 17(4): 433–454.

33.

Hyland

(2002) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8): 1091–1112.

34.

Jin

Jones

, et al. (2013) The reverse Matthew effect: Catastrophe and consequence in scientific teams. NBER Working Paper Series. Working Paper 19489.

35.

Karabag

Berggren

(2012) Retraction, dishonesty and plagiarism: Analysis of a crucial issue for academic publishing, and the inadequate responses from leading journals in economics and management disciplines. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research 2(3): 172–183.

36.

Keller

Truschkat

(2014) Angelus Novus: Über alte und neue Wirklichkeiten der deutschen Universitäten. Sequenzanalyse und Deutungsmusterrekonstruktion in der Wissenssoziologischen Diskursanalyse. In: Angermuller

Nonhoff

Herschinger

, et al. (eds) Diskursforschung Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter, 294–327.

37.

Kleinert

(2009) COPE’s retraction guidelines. The Lancet 374: 1876–1877.

38.

Koziol

(2016) Who is Ranjit Kumar Chandra? A timeline of notoriety. Retraction Watch. Available at: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/07/26/who-is-ranjit-kumar-chandra-a-timeline-of-notoriety/ (accessed 6 November 2017).

39.

Kress

(1993) Against arbitrariness: The social production of the sign as a foundational issue in critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 169–191.

40.

Loader

(1997) Policing and the social: Questions of symbolic power. British Journal of Sociology 48(1): 1–18.

41.

Jin

Uzzi

, et al. (2013) The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports 3(3141). Available at: http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/131106/srep03146/full/srep03146.html (accessed 5 May 2014).

42.

Lucken

(2013) You say regulation, I say punishment: The semantics and attributes of punitive activity. Critical Criminology 21(2): 193–210.

43.

McGowen

(1994) Civilizing punishment: The end of the public execution in England. Journal of British Studies 33(3): 257–282.

44.

Marcus

Oransky

(2013) What’s behind paper retractions? The Euphemism Parade. Labtimes Online. Available at: http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/ranking/dont/2013_07.lasso (accessed 14 April 2016).

45.

Martschukat

(2008) Diskurse und Gewalt: Wege zu einer Geschichte der Todesstrafe im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. 3., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl. In: Keller

Hirseland

Schneider

, et al. (eds) Handbuch sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse. 2. Forschungspraxis. Opladen: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften, 67–95.

46.

Meier

(1998) Apologies: What do we know? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(2): 215–231.

47.

Melossi

(2001) The cultural embeddedness of social control: Reflections on the comparison of Italian and North-American cultures concerning punishment. Theoretical Criminology 5(4): 403–424.

48.

Merton

(1957) Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review 22(6): 635–659.

49.

Mongeon

Lariviere

(2016) Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(3): 535–542.

50.

Peirce

(1955) Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

51.

Pontille

Torny

(2015) From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: The changing technologies of journal peer review. Human Studies 38(1): 57–79.

52.

Powell

(2016) Does it take too long to publish research? Nature 530(7589): 148–151.

53.

Redman

Merz

(2006) Research misconduct policies of high impact biomedical journals. Accountability in Research 13(3): 247–258.

54.

Rundblad

(2007) Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication 24(3): 250–277.

55.

Rundblad

Chilton

Hunter

(2006) An enquiry into scientific and media discourse in the MMR controversy: Authority and factuality. Communication & Medicine 3(1): 69–80.

56.

Sarat

(2014) Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.

57.

Schmidt

(2017) An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in Pubmed and the Web of Science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Epub ahead of print 4 November 2017. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23913.

58.

Smith

Sparks

Girling

(2000) Educating sensibilities: The image of ‘the lesson’ in children’s talk about punishment. Punishment & Society 2(4): 395–415.

59.

Smith

(2008) Punishment and Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

60.

Storey

(2010) Culture and Power in Cultural Studies: The Politics of Signification. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

61.

Swales

(1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

62.

Tambiah

(2003) Eine performative Theorie des Rituals. In: Belliger

Krieger

(eds) Ritualtheorien: ein einführendes Handbuch, Westdeutscher Verlag, 227–250.

63.

Tarone

Dwyer

Gillette

, et al. (1998) On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes 17(1): 113–132.

64.

Thérèse

Martin

(2010) Shame, scientist! Degradation rituals in science. Prometheus 28(2): 97–110.

65.

Tracy

(2004) The construction of correctional officers: Layers of emotionality behind bars. Qualitative Inquiry 10(4): 509–533.

66.

Upton

Cohen

(2009) An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies 11(5): 585–605.

67.

Vaidyanathan

Khalsa

Ecklund

(2016) Gossip as social control: Informal sanctions on ethical violations in scientific workplaces. Social Problems 63(4): 554–572.

68.

Van Leeuwen

(2005) Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.

69.

Van Noorden

(2013) Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495(7442): 426–429.

70.

Vannini

(2006) Toward an interpretive analytics of the sign: Interactionism, power, and semiosis (and George W. Bush). Studies in Symbolic Interaction 27: 149–174.

71.

Vannini

(2007) Social semiotics and fieldwork method and analytics. Qualitative Inquiry 13(1): 113–140.

72.

Velloso

JGV

(2013) Beyond criminocentric dogmatism: Mapping institutional forms of punishment in contemporary societies. Punishment & Society 15(2): 166–186.

73.

Willis

(2008) Punishment and the cultural limits to state power in late 18th-century Britain. Punishment & Society 10(4): 401–428.

Punishing crimes of the mind: Sanctions for scientific misconduct as a case for the cultural theory of punishment

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References