Overseeing research practice: The case of data editing

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 605-630

  Leahey, Erin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Data cleaning; Data management; Research oversight; Scientific regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 48949090091     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243907306702     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Abbott, A. 1981. Status and status strain in the professions. American Journal of Sociology 86: 819-35.
2. Abbott A. 1988. The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Abel, R.L. 1989. American lawyers. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Alberts, B., and K. Shine. 1994. Scientists and the integrity of research. Science 266: 1660-6.
5. Baer, W.C. 1987. Expertise and professional standards. Work and Occupations 13: 532-52.
6. Becker, H. 1998. Tricks of the trade: How to think about research while you're doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Bedsworth, L.W., M.D. Lowenthal, and W.E. Katenberg. 2004. Uncertainty and regulation: The rhetoric of risk in the California low-level radioactive waste debate. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29: 406-27.
8. Bok, S. 1982. Secrecy and openness in science: Ethical considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values 7: 32-41.
9. Chubin, D.E. 1985. Open science and closed science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 10: 73-81.
10. Cole, S. 1983. The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology 88: 111-39.
11. Collins, R.M. 1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
12. Corra, M., and D. Willer. 2002. The gatekeeper. Sociological Theory 20: 180-207.
13. Cournand, A. 1977. The code of the scientist and its relationship to ethics. Science 198: 699-705.
14. Firebaugh, G. 1980. The case of the missing values card and other mysteries. American Sociological Review 45: 137-46.
15. Fox, M.F., and J.M. Braxton. 1994. Misconduct and social control in science. Journal of Higher Education 65: 373-83.
16. Fuchs, S., and J.H. Turner. 1986. What makes a science "mature"?: Patterns of organizational control in scientific production. Sociological Theory 4: 143-50.
17. Gardenier, J.S., and D.B. Resnick. 2002. The misuse of statistics: Concepts, tools, and a research agenda. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 9: 65-74.
18. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19. Gieryn, T.F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
20. Greenfeld, L. 1988. Professional ideologies and patterns of "gatekeeping": Evaluation and judgment within two art worlds. Social Forces 66: 903-25.
21. Guetzkow, J., M. Lamont, and G. Mallard. 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review 69: 190-212.
22. Hannan, M.T., and J. Freeman. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review 49: 149-64.
23. Hargens, L.L., and W.O. Hagstrom. 1982. Scientific consensus and academic status attainment patterns. Sociology of Education 55: 183-96.
24. Hollander, R., and N. Steneck. 1990. Science-and engineering-related ethics and values studies: Characteristics of an emerging field of research. Science, Technology, & Human Values 15: 84-104.
25. Institute of Medicine. 2002. Integrity in scientific research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. Iutcovich, J., J.M. Kennedy, and F.J. Levine. 2003. Establishing an ethical climate in support of research integrity: Efforts and activities of the American Sociological Association. Science and Engineering Ethics 9: 210-205.
27. Jasso, G. 1985. Marital coital frequency and the passage of time: Estimating the separate effects of spouses' ages and marital duration, birth and marriage cohorts, and period influences. American Sociological Review 50: 224-41.
28. Kahn, J., and J.R. Udry. 1986. Marital coital frequency: Unnoticed outliers and unspecified interactions lead to erroneous conclusions. American Sociological Review 51: 734-7.
29. Karen, D. 1990. Toward a political-organizational model of gatekeeping: The case of elite colleges. Sociology of Education 63: 227-40.
30. Keulartz, J., M. Schermer, M. Korthals, and T. Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29: 3-29.
31. Keyfitz, N. 1993. Thirty years of demography and demography. Demography 30: 533-49.
32. Kunzel, C., and D. Sadowsky. 1989. Knowledge acquisition processes. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 30: 330-43.
33. Lavin, D., and D.W. Maynard. 2001. Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone surveys. American Sociological Review 66: 453-79.
34. Leahey, E. 2004. The role of status in evaluating research practice. Social Science Research 33: 521-37.
35. Leahey, E., and J. Cabrera. 2007. Interaction and consensus in research. Unpublished manuscript.
36. Leahey, E., B. Entwisle, and P. Einaudi. 2003. Diversity in everyday research practice: The case of data editing. Sociological Methods and Research 31: 63-89.
37. Levine, R.J. 1986. Ethics and regulation of clinical research. Baltimore: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
38. Macklin, R. 1999. Is ethics universal? In Beyond regulations: Ethics in human subjects research, ed. by Nancy King, Gail Henderson, and Jane Stein (p. 23-46). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
39. Mason, J.O., L.W. Bivens, and B.D. Davis. 1990. Scientific integrity. Science 247: 144-46.
40. Maynard, D.W., and N.C. Schaeffer. 2000. Toward a sociology of social scientific knowledge: Survey research and ethnomethodology's asymmetric alternatives. Social Studies of Science 30: 323-70.
41. McGrath, J.E. 1981. Introduction to special edition on "judgment calls." American Behavioral Scientist 25: 127-30.
42. Merton, R. and T. Gieryn. 1982. Institutionalized altruism: The case of the professions. In Social Research and the practicing professions, edited by A. Rosenblatt and Thomas Gieryn (p. 109-134). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
43. Mitroff, I.I. 1974. Norms and counter-norms in a select group of Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review 39: 579-95.
44. Moore, K. 1996. Organizing integrity: American science and the creation of public interest organizations: 1955-1975. American Journal of Sociology 101: 1592-627.
45. Morrill, C., D.B. Buller, M.K. Buller, and L.L. Larkey. 1999. Toward an organizational perspective on identifying and managing formal gatekeepers. Qualitative Sociology 22: 51-72.
46. Nass, C. 1986. Bureaucracy, technical expertise, and professionals: A Weberian approach. Sociological Theory 4: 61-70.
47. National Academy of Science. 1992. Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process, Vol. I and II. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. Office of Human Research Protections. 1993. Protecting human research subjects: Institutional review board guidebook. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
49. Owen-Smith, J. 2001. Managing scientific laboratory work through skepticism. American Sociological Review 66: 427-52.
50. Peterson, R. 1996. A re-evaluation of the economic consequences of divorce. American Sociological Review 61: 528-36.
51. Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal knowledge. London: Routledge.
52. Shah, S. 2002. Rx needed for medical journals. The Nation. January 28.
53. Shapin, S. 1994. A social history of truth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54. Sieber, J. 1992. Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal review boards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55. Star, S.L. 1983. Simplification in scientific work: An example from neuroscience research. Social Studies of Science 13: 205-28.
56. Star S.L. 1999. The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43: 377-91.
57. Star, S.L., and E.M. Gerson. 1986. The management and dynamics of anomalies in scientific work. The Sociological Quarterly 28: 147-69.
58. Staw, B.M. 1981. Some judgments on the judgment calls approach. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 225-32.
59. Steneck, N. 1984. Commentary: The university and research ethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values 9: 6-15.
60. Swidler, A., and J. Arditi. 1994. The new sociology of knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology 20: 305-29.
61. Taubes, G. 1995. McGill: Analyzing the data and Stanford: Bringing in the big guns. Science 268: 1711-1714.
62. Tropp, R.A. 1982. A regulatory perspective on social science research. In Ethical issues in social science research, edited by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. Jay Wallace Jr., and LeRoy Walters (p. 391-415). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
63. Tunick, M. 1998. Practices and principles: Approaches to ethical and legal judgment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64. Viterna, J.S., and D.W. Maynard. 2002. How uniform is standardization? Variation within and across survey research centers regarding protocols for interviewing. In Standardization and tacit knowledge: Interaction and practice in the survey interview, ed. Douglas Maynard, Hannake Houtkoop-Steenstra, Nora Cate Schaeffer, and Johannes van der Zouwen (p. 365-397). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
65. Weiss, C.H., and M.J. Bucuvalas. 1980. Truth tests and utility tests. American Sociological Review 45: 302-13.
66. Weitzman, L.J. 1985. The divorce revolution: The unexpected social and economic consequences for women and children in America. New York: Free Press.
67. Whitley, R. 1984. The institutional and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68. Wilkins, D.B. 1998. Everyday practice is the troubling case: Confronting context in legal ethics. In Everyday practices and trouble cases, ed. Austin Sarat, Marianne Constable, David Engel, Valerie Hans, and Susan Lawrence (pp. 68-108). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.