Abstract
This paper examines the normative orientations of doctoral students with respect to academic research. In particular, it analyzes the effects of graduate department structure, department climate, and students' mentoring experiences on students' subscription to the traditional norms of science and to alternative counternorms. Findings are based on data from a nationwide survey of students in chemistry, civil engineering, microbiology, and sociology. The analysis demonstrates substantial ambivalence among graduate students about the traditional norms of academic research. It also reveals significant differences in the normative orientations of U.S. and international students.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almanac. (1988). Washington, DC: THe Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc.
Anderson, M., and Louis, K. S. (1991). The changing locus of control over faculty research: From self-regulation to dispersed influence. In John C. Smart (ed.),Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. VII. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 57–101.
Ashforth, B. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions.Academy of Management Review 10(4): 837–847.
Baird, L. (1990). The melancholy of anatomy: The personal and professional development of graduate and professional school students. In John C. Smart (ed.),Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. VI. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 361–392.
Ben-Yehuda, N. (1986). Deviance in science.The British Journal of Criminology 26(1): 1–27.
Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3): 195–203.
Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure of and output of university departments.Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3): 204–213.
Bragg, A. K. (1976).The Socialization Process in Higher Education. ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 7. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Braxton, John M. (1986). The normative structure of science: Social control in the academic profession. In John C. Smart (ed.).Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. II, New York: Agathon Press, pp. 309–357.
Braxton, John M. (1991). The influence of graduate department quality on the sanctioning of scientific misconduct.Journal of Higher Education 62(1): 87–108.
Chalk, R. (1985). Overview: AAAS project on secrecy and openness in science and technology.Science, Technology, and Human Values 10(2): 28–35.
Chubin, D. E. (1983). Misconduct in research: An issue of science policy and practice.Minerva 23(2): 175–202.
Clark, Burton R. (1983).The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clark, S., and Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socialization of women faculty: A case of accumulative disadvantage?Journal of Higher Education 57(1): 20–43.
Daft, R., and Becker, S. (1979).The Innovative Organization. New York: Elsevier.
Educational Testing Service (1989).Directory of Graduate Programs: 1990 & 1991. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Goldman, A. H. (1987). Ethical issues in proprietary restrictions on research results.Science, Technology, and Human Values 12(1): 22–30.
Hackett, E. J. (1990). Science as a vocation in the 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science,Journal of Higher Education 61(3): 241–279.
Hearn, James C. (1992). The teaching roles of contemporary American higher education: Popular imagery and organizational reality. In W. E. Becker and D. R. Lewis (eds.),The Economics of American Higher Education. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 17–68.
Kanter, R. (1983).The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam, S. B., Thomas, K., and Zeph, C. (1987). Mentoring in higher education: What we know now.The Review of Higher Education 11(2): 199–210.
Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy.Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1(1–2): 115–126.
Merton, R. K., and Barber, E. (1963). Sociological ambivalence. In E. A. Tiryakian (ed.),Sociological Theory, Values, and Sociocultural Change, Glencoe: The Free Press, pp. 91–120.
Mitroff, I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists.American Sociological Review 39(August): 579–595.
Mulkay, M. (1976). Norms and ideology in science.Social Science Information 15(4–5): 637–656.
Mulkay, M. (1979).Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Mulkay, M. (1980). Interpretation and the use of rules: The case of the norms of science.Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences series 2, 39: 111–125.
Rosenzweig, R. M. (1985). Research as intellectual property: Influences within the university.Science, Technology, and Human Values 10(2): 41–48.
Swazey, J., and Anderson, M. (1991).Graduate Student Training in Professional Values and Ethics, Bar Harbor, ME: The Acadia Institute.
Van Maanen, J., and Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. Staw (ed.),Research in Organization Behavior, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 209–264.
Victor, B., and Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates.Administrative Science Quarterly 33(1): 101–135.
Zuckerman, H. (1988). The sociology of science. In N. J. Smelser (ed.),Handbook of Sociology, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. 511–574.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, M.S., Louis, K.S. The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Res High Educ 35, 273–299 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496825
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496825