Author
Jason W. Patton
Bio: Jason W. Patton is an academic researcher. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 206 citations.
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: Information is provided on how to identify the wood of several species common to the Northern Hemisphere using a hand-magnifying lens, as well as some techniques used in the study of Japan.
Abstract: Section (CRN) Meets in: Instructor: Office Ofc Hrs. STSH1110-01(60478) Carnegie 102 Jeanette Simmonds (simmoj@rpi.edu) Sage 5706 TBA STSS1110-01 (60138) Carnegie 205 Selma Sabanovic (sabans@rpi.edu) Sage 5703 Tue 4-5p IHSS1963-01 (62348) Sage 2701 Atsushi Akera (akeraa@rpi.edu) (see above) IHSS1963-02 (62349) DCC 236 Meredith Wells (wellsm@rpi.edu) TBA TBA IHSS1963-03 (62350) Sage 4203 Camar Diaz (diaztc@rpi.edu) Sage 5710 Tue./Fri. 4-5p IHSS1963-04 (62351) Carnegie 208 Lorna Ronald (ronall@rpi.edu) Sage 5706 TBA IHSS1963-05 (62352) Sage 2112 Jeffrey Hannigan (hannij@rpi.edu) Sage 5202 TBA *office hours also by appointment.
225 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct, and when these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
Abstract: The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, "cooking" of data, etc... Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86-4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once--a serious form of misconduct by any standard--and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words "falsification" or "fabrication", and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.
1,387 citations
TL;DR: This article explored some recent anthropological conceptions of ethnographic fieldwork that have provided potent models for the study of scientific and technological cultures and explored alternative ways of making contributions to development of theory and practice.
Abstract: The paper draws its inspiration from the provocation which Merton offered sociology both to engage with empirical data and to perform analyses adequate to guide intervention beyond the particular case. Whilst contemporary STS is very different both in its models of theory and its forms of methodology, this paper suggests Merton's concerns with engagement and adequacy provide a useful way to interrogate current approaches. Specifically, the paper explores some recent anthropological conceptions of ethnographic fieldwork that have provided potent models for the study of scientific and technological cultures. These multi-sited approaches have also provided the opportunity to develop new notions of intervention and explore alternative ways of making contributions to development of theory and practice. In the process of pursuing the goals of engagement and adequacy notions of ethnography have however become stretched. This sense of detachment from methodological canons accentuates the need for methodological d...
258 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors revisited the Burrell and Morgan model for classifying organization theory through meta-theoretical analysis of the major intellectual movement to emerge in recent decades, post-structuralism and more broadly post-modernism.
Abstract: The Burrell and Morgan model for classifying organization theory is revisited through meta-theoretical analysis of the major intellectual movement to emerge in recent decades, post-structuralism and more broadly postmodernism. Proposing a retrospective paradigm for this movement, we suggest that its research can be characterized as ontologically relativist, epistemologically relationist and methodologically reflexive; this also represents research that can be termed deconstructionist in its view of human nature. When this paradigm is explored further, in terms of Burrell and Morgan’s assumptions for the ‘nature of society’, two analytical domains emerge – normative post-structural and critical post-structural. Assessing the types of research developed within them, and focusing on actor-network theory in particular, we describe how post-structural and postmodern thinking can be classified within, rather than outside, or after, the Burrell and Morgan model. Consequently we demonstrate not only that organiza...
130 citations
TL;DR: This view suggests that scientists may look to cues from their professional reference groups to resolve sociological ambivalence arising from conflicting role expectations, and the implications for the professions literature, theories of organizational learning, and knowledge management initiatives in firms.
Abstract: Why do scientists withhold information from colleagues, violating the professional norm of sharing? Norm violations are usually attributed to individual interests that lead scientists to reject professional norms. In contrast, we take the view that norm violations can occur when professional norms are valued but it is difficult to ascertain the appropriate course of professional conduct. This view suggests that scientists may look to cues from their professional reference groups to resolve sociological ambivalence arising from conflicting role expectations. We analyze a data set of 1,251 geneticists and other life scientists from 100 U.S. universities and find that beyond individual-level explanations, information withholding is influenced by the behaviors of peers as well as the attitudes of superiors in the profession. We discuss the implications for the professions literature, theories of organizational learning, and knowledge management initiatives in firms.
128 citations
TL;DR: The concept of mindlines challenges the naïve rationalist view of knowledge implicit in some EBM publications, but the term appears to have been misunderstood (and prematurely dismissed) by some authors.
Abstract: Background
In 2004, Gabbay and le May showed that clinicians generally base their decisions on mindlines—internalised and collectively reinforced tacit guidelines—rather than consulting written clinical guidelines. We considered how the concept of mindlines has been taken forward since.
115 citations