-
Chapter 12: The Rights of Research Assistants and the Rhetoric of Political Suppression: Morton Grodzins and the University of California Japanese-American Evacuation and Resettlement Study
- University of Nebraska Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
211 12 The Rights of Research Assistants and the Rhetoric of Political Suppression Morton Grodzins and the University of California Japanese-American Evacuation and Resettlement Study In a classic 1938 article Robert Merton described common ownership of the products of science as one of the four institutional norms of science: “The substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and are assigned to the community. They constitute a common heritage in which the equity of the individual producer is severely limited. . . . The scientist’s claim to ‘his[/her]’ intellectual ‘property’ is limited to that of recognition and esteem” (1968:610). A prerequisite to sharing knowledge is access to it. Therefore, the institutional conception of science as part of the public domain is linked with the imperative for communication of findings. Secrecy is the antithesis of this norm; full and open communication its enactment. The pressure for diffusion of results is reinforced by the institutional goal of advancing the boundaries of knowledge and by the incentive of recognition which is, of course, contingent upon publication. (611) Once he has made his contribution, the scientist no longer has exclusive access to it. It becomes part of the public domain of science. Nor has he the right of regulating its use by others by withholding it unless it is acknowledged as his. In short, property rights in science become whittled down to just this one: the recognition by others of the scientist’s distinctive part in having brought the result into being. (Merton 1957:640) 212 Research Assistants and Political Suppression Scientific work that is not publicly available cannot bring recognition and the more tangible rewards of professional advancement to those who have done it. The norm of communism does not, however, solely determine the dissemination of research results. Institutions sponsoring research and publication consider “property rights,” whether or not science as an entity does. Moreover, individual scientists may deviate from the ideal norms of the institution of science and also are likely to interpret specific situations in divergent ways in rationalizing their interests . At the level of characterizing the behavior of individual scientists (i.e., in the context of discovery), several sociologists have vigorously challenged Merton’s idealization of science as an institution (e.g., Mulkay 1969; Barnes and Dolby 1970; cf. Stehr 1978). Merton himself applied to the domain of science his theory that anomie produces deviance, including science as “a culture giving emphasis to aspirations for all, aspirations which cannot be realized by many, [which] exerts a pressure for deviant behavior and for cynicism, for rejection of the reigning moralities and the rules of the game” (1957:655–58; for elaboration, see Zuckerman 1977). It seems to me that the norms are invoked within the more public context of justification rather than in the more private context of discovery and that they have been misunderstood in the same way as have post hoc rationalizations of methods, also supposed by many to be descriptions of how research is done. The rules—cognitive and ethical—are better seen as secondary elaborations than as primary processes but are often internalized and have real consequences. In the case study examined here, one research assistant took data from a large research project that had employed him to gather it. Backed by prominent social scientists at one leading American university he, in effect , accused those who had supervised his research at another leading American university of conduct contrary to one of the fundamental norms of science, communism. His most polemical backer added charges of deviating from another, the norm of disinterestedness, as well. In response , his opponents (former teachers) questioned his own disinterestedness , both personal and political. Their substantive criticisms can be seen as instances of yet another norm of science, organized skepticism. This case involved a number of the most prominent American social scientists of the late 1940s and early 1950s. More importantly for seeing the operations of science distinct from the behavior of scientists, the [44.206.248.122] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 03:00 GMT) Research Assistants and Political Suppression 213 administrators and presses of two major American universities asserted their views of what ought to be the rights and obligations of research assistants , those supervising them, and the institutions employing researchers and research assistants. This case study of the contested attempt to publish one PhD dissertation from a large research project on the forced migration and subsequent incarceration of West Coast Japanese Americans during World War II shows one...