Plagiering i forskning. Videnskabsetiske og videnskabssociologiske aspekter

Abstract

Plagiering betragtes normalt som en af dodssynderne i den akademiske verden, en form for videnskabelig uredelighed. For forskere kan plagiering have meget alvorlige karrieremaessige konsekvenser, fx tilbagekaldelse af akademiske grader og disciplinaere sanktioner. I Tyskland har to ministre indenfor de senere ar mattet traede tilbage efter at vaere blevet grebet i plagiering. Plagiering ser ud til at vaere et voksende problem og kontrollen er skaerpet. Mange universiteter, forlag og tidskrifter har indfort rutinemaessig plagiatkontrol. Efter en gennemgang af selve begrebet betydning og formelle regler i videnskabsetiske kodekser praesenteres og diskuteres forskellige etiske begrundelser for forbud mod plagiering. Tre positioner diskuteres. En naturretlig: andelig ejendomsret, retten til viden, man selv har frembragt folger af retten til ”frugten af eget arbejde” (Locke), eller en ret, som er forudsaetning for personens dannelse (Hegel). Den har svag stotte. En utilitaristisk – funktionalistisk begrundelse (Mill/ Merton): at plagiat undergraver videnskabernes anerkendelsesregime, der skal belonne efter praestation til gavn for vidensvaekst. Den har staerkere stotte, om end funktionalitet kan vaere vanskelig at opna og pavise i praksis. Dysfunktionalitet og perverse effekter, fx pa grund af for staerkt publiceringspres, kan forekomme. Afslutningsvis inddrages Axel Honneths anerkendelsesteori op som et supplement og korrektiv til utilitarismen. ENGELSK ABSTRACT Heine Andersen: PLAGIARISM IN RESEARCH. Research ethical and sociological aspects Plagiarism is usually regarded as one of the deadly sins in science, a form of scientific misconduct. Plagiarism can have serious consequences for researcher careers, such as revocation of academic degrees and disciplinary sanctions. In recent years, two ministers in Germany had to resign after being caught in plagiarism. Plagiarism seems to be a growing problem, and many universities, publishers and scientific journals have introduced routine control for it. After a review of meaning and formal rules of ethical codes, this article discusses three ethical traditions, representing different reasons for prohibiting plagiarism. The first is natural law: a right to spiritual property, to knowledge that you yourself have generated. This is a right to “the fruit of one’s own labor” (John Locke), or that which is essential for the person’s self-realization (Hegel). There appears to be weak support for this position. The second is a utilitarian-functionalist reason (Mill/ Merton): plagiarism undermines the recognition regime in modern science, the principle of reward according to contribution to the growth of knowledge. This position has greater support, but it is often difficult to validate in practice. The strong pressure on researchers to publish may create dysfunctional and perverse effects. Finally, Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition theory is presented as a supplement and corrective to utilitarianism. Keywords: Plagiarism, scientific misconduct, research ethics.