Search

In the past two decades, individual explanations of scientific misconduct ('bad apples') have increasingly given way to systemic explanations ('bad systems'). Where did this interest in systemic factors (publication pressure, competition for research funding) come from? Given that research ethicists often present their interventions as responses to scientific misconduct, this article tests the hypothesis that these systemic explanations were triggered by high-visibility cases of scientific norm violation. It does so by examining why Dutch scientists in 2011 explained Diederik Stapel's grand-scale data fabrication largely in systemic terms, whereas only fifteen years earlier, in the René Diekstra affair (1996), such explanations had been close to absent. Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, the article suggests that cases like Stapel's "as such" do not explain why early 21st-century commentators exchanged individual explanations for systemic ones. Only against the background of an existing discourse of criticism of the science system, developed in the 1990s and 2000s in response to rapidly increasing competition for research funding, could the Stapel affair achieve notoriety as an example of how systemic factors provoke bad conduct.

Why did Leopold von Ranke become, and remain, globally known as ‘the father of modern history’? Throughout the twentieth century, historians associated Ranke with the emergence of ‘modern’, ‘scientific’, or ‘critical’ historical writing. They hailed him as a father figure in the most diverse of places, from the United States and Mexico to Japan and India. Insofar as this global reputation has been studied in any detail – the literature is sparse and uneven – this has been done mainly along national lines. The story of how Ranke-related stereotypes (objectivity) and slogans (wie es eigentlich gewesen) travelled around the world, thereby creating a historiographical memory culture of truly global proportions, is yet to be told. This article uncovers some elements of this story by examining how Japanese, American, German, and Soviet images of Ranke were received in China – sometimes with enthusiasm, sometimes with reservation, but always selectively. The article explains why some images of Ranke found their way to China while others were kept at bay, or accepted only with considerable delay. In doing so, it shows that local demands shaped the dynamics of appropriation at least as much as the supply of Ranke images in foreign-language historical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How feasible would it be to develop a virtue ethics for historians that is analogous or similar to virtue‐ethical approaches to research integrity that have been proposed for other areas of academic inquiry? The field of history is an interesting one, as few disciplines have an equally well‐documented history of thinking, talking, and writing about virtues. This history merits ethicists' attention, as it offers a unique opportunity for grounding ethical reflection in the lived realities of historical research and teaching. In the spirit of a "history and philosophy of history," this article contributes to such a project by staging a conversation between virtue ethics and the history of historiography. Drawing on a range of nineteenth‐ and twentieth‐century examples, it argues that much of what applied virtue ethicists are recommending scholars to do has a long pedigree in the history of historiography. Critical virtue ethics, too, is a project to which historians can easily relate, especially insofar as they are committed to virtues of truthfulness in an age of post‐truth. If this suggests that there is room, or perhaps even a need, for a virtue ethics for historians, the cases examined in this article also prompt critical questions, especially ones regarding the teachability of virtue, the potential of virtue talk to be misused for polemical and exclusionary purposes, and the sort of tasks that a virtue ethics is capable of addressing. In light of these considerations, the article calls for reflection on the "affordances" of virtue. It claims that the case for a virtue ethics will be strongest if it is grounded in a realistic understanding not only of the beneficial uses to which categories of virtue can be put but also of unintended uses to which virtue talk is susceptible and of tasks for which virtue thinking is less prepared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article traces the history of a scholarly vice of little renown: hypercriticism. Focusing on classical philologists and biblical scholars in nineteenth-century Germany, it examines how Hyperkritik developed from a technical philological term into a pejorative label that was widely invoked to discredit the latest trends in classical philology and, especially, biblical scholarship. Methodologically, this broad use of the term challenges historians' preference for treating scholarly virtues and vices as norms tied to scholars' research practices. The article therefore develops a rhetorical approach, complementary to the praxeological one, in which scholarly vice terms are interpreted as parts of a repertoire of scholarly "don'ts" on which both specialists and nonspecialists could draw in addressing the perceived ills of scholarly work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a collaborative commentary on the first volume of a two-part anthology of works by Hayden White, The Ethics of Narrative, edited by Robert Doran. Informed by the collection and inspired by the co-authors, in this paper we discuss White's writing. Herman Paul compares White's constructivism with that of Berger and Luckmann, and discusses the extent to which the tools of historical narrative criticism developed by White are expeditious in analyzing stories about the climate crisis. Kalle Pihlainen captures White's writing in a three-stage process of emancipatory politics of history, to further reconfigure it using the concept of fidelity. Jakub Muchowski writes about the relationship between the titular ethics and politics, asking to what extent White regarded them as separate spheres of practice, and whether in choosing the former White was apolitical. Ewa Domańska considers how White's critical approach to history might help to explore possibilities of bridging Indigenous and Western approaches to the past as well as reflects on White's attitude toward metaphysics. Finally, Miguel Valderrama considers the ways in which White uses the concept of event. The exchange closes with Robert Doran's response to all the commentaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]