Situation
Jill Alexander is a graduate student completing her Ph.D. in sociology at a highly respected university in the U.S. Her professor and advisor, Lawrence Fairchild, is a well-known sociologist who has been working in the area of social stratification; he has numerous publications, many of which are with former students. For her doctoral dissertation, Jill applies some of his theoretical developments and collects other primary data to further test and refine a number of his formulations. Jill completes her degree and moves on to a position as an assistant professor at another college. She submitted her dissertation to a publisher who immediately recognized its value and offered to publish it. Jill, of course, is thrilled since she considers this a great opportunity for professional recognition and advancement in her new position. In the meantime, Fairchild learns of the impending publication of the book and attempts to stop it, arguing that he should be listed as co-author since it is his original thinking that provides the basis for her study and it is his advising that brought the doctoral dissertation to fruition.
Questions
- What are the ethical violations that each of these parties may claim against the other? Does one take precedence over the other?
- What are the implications for each party, given this controversy?
- Are there precautions that can taken in situations such as this which could eliminate possible disagreements over the rights to intellectual property?
Discussion
Jill, no doubt, feels that Professor Fairchild’s expectation that he be listed as co-author on all of her publications is a case of student exploitation; she may also feel he is using his position of power to intimidate those subordinate to him. Furthermore, his threat to pursue legal action to stop the publication of her master’s thesis is a form of harassment. Jill feels he is claiming work that she did to be his own. Jill did give proper reference to his theoretical formulations which she applied in her study; she felt confident that she abided by all the standards related to citing others and giving appropriate credit.
Lawrence Fairchild, on the other hand, knows that his work significantly contributed to the study completed by Jill; furthermore, it was through his advisement that she was able to produce the excellent piece of research. It has long been his practice to have joint authorship on publications that are the result of student research drawn from his research area. This practice has never been questioned in the past and he is only seeking the recognition for his significant contribution to her book, for which he feels justified.
In these kinds of situations, particularly where the disagreement becomes “public,” both parties have much to lose. Alexander can alienate not only her former professor, but others in the department, as well. Her professional advancement can be jeopardized if she antagonizes senior faculty on whom she could rely for recommendations, as mentors, as future collaborators in other research, etc. Fairchild, on the other hand, could possibly “lose face” and create a great deal of antagonism/conflict within the department, with students and faculty “taking sides.”
It is not always easy to “draw the line” and clearly distinguish what is a significant contribution to a scholarly work that requires joint authorship vs. that which merely needs proper reference and/or acknowledgement. Given this difficulty, it is imperative that institutions have specific policies governing authorship and intellectual property. It is also important that two or more parties working together on a project specify authorship agreements ahead of time.
In this situation, Professor Fairchild should have made clear to Jill what his practice was regarding joint authorship when students draw from his work to complete their thesis or dissertation. Reaching mutually satisfactory agreements among the parties involved is very important. There may be some areas of negotiation, which is all the more reason to make agreements explicit from the beginning. It may even be feasible to put these agreements in writing, whether through a formal document or just through a letter written to one of the parties.
