Situation
Professor Mary O’Meara is a sociologist interested in classical social theory and its history. She discovered an unknown and unpublished manuscript written by Georg Simmel in French which she translated and for which she wrote a foreword. She had found evidence suggesting that this piece was presented during one of the scholarly sessions that were part of the 1900 World’s Fair in Paris. Because it was written in French rather than German, she assumed that Simmel had traveled to the World’s Fair to present the paper in the presence of other social theorists who she knew had been in attendance (Spenser, Tarde, Tonnies, Wundt, etc.). The possible significance of her discovery, she thought, was that it might suggest Simmelian influence on other major social theorists that contemporary theorists had not investigated. For example, she was hoping to build on this discovery in a second paper in which she argued that Simmel’s work had, in fact, been a major source of ideas for Durkheim’s The Elementary Form of the Religious Life. She submitted the translation and her foreword for publication in an edited collection. It was accepted for publication. Shortly after her work appeared in print, another historian of social theory provided Professor O’Meara with evidence that Simmel may not have presented the paper himself at all and, in fact, may not have gone to Paris for the World’s Fair. Professor O’Meara now feels that she should have been more tentative about Simmel’s attendance at the World’s Fair, but still feels that Simmel may have been there and that if his paper was read, that her argument about influence still stands.
Questions
- What, if anything should Professor O’Meara do?
Discussion
Sociologists should certainly try to be as accurate as they can be in all of their professional work. Whether or not Professor O’Meara took due care in coming to her conclusions is a judgement perhaps only she can make. If there was any doubt about the accuracy of her statements, however, she certainly should have written her argument in such a way as to reflect that doubt.
Another very important guard against unintentional error is the practice of asking colleagues to read and comment on one’s work prior to publication. The risk here is, of course, that one will be “scooped.” However, one should assume that colleagues will act ethically in these matters and seek competent critique nonetheless, particularly if one has doubts about the accuracy of one’s data or one’s interpretation of it.
Once an error has been made, a sociologist has a clear ethical duty to try to inform the relevant public. Professor O’Meara might consider writing a short piece of the ASA Theory Section Newsletter describing the possible error in her work given that it was published in a book. She might also write that second article she was considering and in it discuss her possible error. If the error occurs in a journal article, the author should ask that an erratum be run as soon as possible in a subsequent issue of the journal. If an error has been made and research findings containing that error disseminated in a talk, one may not be able to inform those who heard the talk of the error. If there is a way to do so, however, it is incumbent upon the researcher to try.
