Abstract:
The institution of science like other institutions involves social values,social norms, and social roles. The normative structure of science causesoccurrence or identifying scientific deviations. This paper plans to study thenorms of science and explain the deviation from them. This is a library anddocumentary research. The present study shows that the four norms including universalism,communality, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism that functiontogether comprise the ethos in scientific fields. Moreover, this study showsthat different perspectives make mention of the engagement of derangedindividuals in scientific activities, the failure of personal and social controls,a disconnection between scientific community’s goals and the legitimatemeans to achieve them, and the industrialization of science by industry andacademic laboratories, as the most important factors that cause deviancyfrom the norms of science.
Machine summary:
Investigating Scientific Norms and Theoretical Explanation of Deviance from Them Samaneh Eskandari 1 Abstract The institution of science, like other institutions, includes values, norms, and social roles.
Furthermore, this study shows that various perspectives have named various factors such as the psychological disorders of individuals involved in scientific activities, weakness of personal and social controls, the lack of alignment between the goals of scientific communities and the legitimate tools for achieving them, and the industrialization of knowledge by industry and laboratories as the most important causes of scientific deviations.
Among the deviant behaviors related to the field of science and knowledge, one can mention cheating (including forgery or fabrication of information, arranging or reshaping information, and distortion or deletion of information); theft of others' works; failure to use an appropriate control group, impartial observers, or valid assessment methods in experimental studies and the collection of necessary evidence to achieve predetermined results; failure to prevent sample bias, and many similar cases.
These three categories, corresponding to the general approaches of psychology and sociology of deviant behaviors, are discussed below: Psychopathological Perspective 4: This perspective considers abnormality and deviance to stem from the intellectual, psychological, and spiritual characteristics of individuals and justifies it in terms of personality defects; meaning that certain personality types are more prone to social deviance than others (Kohn, 1385: 163).
The psychopathological perspective justifies scientific deviations through the psychological disorders of individuals, while social control theory considers the weakness in adhering to these norms by organized scientific communities or the lack of internalization of these norms among scientists to be effective.
(
, 
, 
)
