Ethics of Authorship--Part 3
By neglect, I mean failing to care for the reader as a learner. Research from fields such as cognitive psychology and educational psychology have provided a lot of useful information about how people learn and about factors that affect individuals' motivation to learn, learning rate, mastery or expertise, and retention or memory. Many authors of college textbooks think that this information has nothing to do with them (if they think of it at all). These authors assume or believe that students are entirely responsible for their own learning. In both classroom teaching and textbook teaching, intentionally or out of ignorance, they may make no effort to apply learning theory or research-based knowledge about learning. To me, this a breach of ethics on a par with "First, do no harm."
In their quest to sell more textbooks, the large higher education publishing houses do attempt to apply learning theory and research. They know that the blockbuster textbooks are the ones that engage learners and facilitate students' success in the course of study. And they know these things cannot be taken for granted. The publisher's request for "pedagogy" and the chapter opening and chapter closing elements of the chapter apparatus are derived directly from learning theory. Boldfaced key terms, margin annotations, headings, content applications, interim review questions, pedagogical captions, summaries, and so on all address particular realities about the way humans think and acquire knowledge.
Some textbook authors refuse to supply these elements, thinking they are fluff or windowdressing or some kind of gamesmanship among publishers. Pedagogy can be done studpidly and wrong, of course. Everyone has seen textbooks cluttered with thematic "boxes" that clearly were outsourced and bear little connection with the narrative context. This is not the way it is supposed to be, but a perversion. Done right, those "boxes" can aid learning in significant ways, connecting content with the learner's direct experiences or aspirations, real-world examples or issues, or the latest news or developments. A textbook author's conscious aim should be to provide content and organization in a pedagogically responsible way that will enable readers to think clearly about new content and to acquire new knowledge swiftly, efficiently, and permanently. For this, some appreciation of learning theory is required along with a sincere consideration of textbook apparatus and pedagogy.
My posts on the ethics of authorship have focused on 3 negative factors: (1) author misrepresentation to the publisher or reader; (2) undeclared bias; and (3) neglect of the learner through ignorance or rejection of learning theory and pedagogical principles. I would be very interested to hear visitors' views and about other factors that might be included in a discussion of the ethics of authorship.
Labels: authorship, ethics
Ethics of Authorship--Part 2
By exploitation of the learner I mean using the textbook as a medium to advance one's hidden agenda or to trash another's. An undergraduate introductory textbook is not the place for liberal, conservative, radical, reactionary, religious, or feminist posturing, grandstanding, or proselytizing. Yet, I see this all the time. Authors screen facts through their ideological filters, which is fine and probably unavoidable, but then present those nuances or distortions without alerting the (usually naive) reader that this is what is happening. This is not okay. The ethics of authorship require self-awareness and honesty, especially wherever we depart from objectivity. The reader has a right to know (and a responsibility to understand) the sources of your thoughts as well as your words.
Whatever happened to those values? Sometimes I think that objectivity, for one, must be part of the post-modern world we are leaving behind as we enter Brave-New-World times for real. Subjectivity (intellectual anarchy?) reigns. Literary and social criticism of the 21st century seems to insist that facts are fictions, that even science is storytelling, that all reality is alternate. In which case, nobody is really wrong and it doesn't matter what we believe! Bring me back to when we at least still tried to discover and speak truths (even if doomed to fall short of any absolutes). In any case, clearly stating your frame of reference and theoretical or ideological perspectives, and explaining how they might affect what you say, is de rigeur in textbook publishing. Students, even neophytes, have a right to this.
Exploitation of naive readers takes other forms as well--undocumented assertions, for example, when readers don't even understand the significance of a missing source citation, don't realize that a conclusion is being drawn without reference to any authority or body of knowledge other than yours. Students also have a right to know what is not being said, and why. They don't care about this stuff, you may say. True enough, but they would if we worked harder at bringing them to the intellectual level we claim to prefer in a student. They would question what they read. They would question your conclusions along with your grounds for making them. And this would be good, right?
So, to me, the second ethical principle of authorship after honest representation is a little humility, that and firm restraint against exploiting students' ignorance and gullibility. This relates to the third ethical principle: We should not neglect learners. Neglect will be the subject of my next post. I hope you are reading these, by the way. The SiteMeter so far says not yet.
All the best,
Mary Ellen
Labels: ethics, textbook authorship
Ethics of Authorship--Part 1
In my career in textbook development I have worked with many authors of the highest integrity. Whatever issues arose over manuscript or reviews, I could always count on honest and open discussions and productive resolutions. The few times I have been disappointed in this have been instructive, however. I have come to realize that some unethical attitudes and behaviors may be so subtle or commonplace as to escape notice. I'm not talking about the obvious, such as plagiarizing or breaching a contract. I'm talking about misrepresentation, exploitation, and neglect.
I have known authors who misrepresent themselves to acquisitions editors to win unearned advances upon signing, or perhaps just to put one over on an evil empire--for example, a Marxist (to anyone in the know) claiming to be writing a mainstream introduction to sociology or a creationist claiming to be writing a mainstream introduction to evolutionary biology.
Worse, to me, is textbook authors who misrepresent themselves as educators when they clearly care little for their readers and know nothing about learning theory or educational psychology. These authors have a "no pain no gain" attitude toward students. They don't see themselves as teachers (or even as learners in their own fields), and they tend to reject pedagogy in textbook development. Rather, they see themselves as experts and as gatekeepers of their professions--keeping out the riffraff. This all comes across in their writing, of course, but usually they don't see it. They write above grade level and fail to engage. Their textbooks are authoritative but unpopular and seldom survive more than a couple of editions.
But textbooks teach. That is their function. A textbook permits and encourages readers to learn and gives them what they need to do so efficiently. In the ethics of authorship, I believe that intending to communicate audience-appropriate content in a pedagogically sound way is the prime directive. The second is resisting opportunities to exploit that audience (or its champion, the editor), which I will take up in my next blog post: Ethics of Authorship--Part 2.
Labels: ethics, textbook authorship
