Citation

Kovacs J. Med. Health Care Philos. 2016; 20(1): 51-59.

Affiliation

Department of Bioethics, Institute of Behavioural Sciences, Semmelweis University, 1089. Budapest, VIII. Nagyvárad tér 4, POB 2, Budapest, 1428, Hungary. kovacs.jozsef@med.semmelweis-univ.hu.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s11019-016-9722-5

PMID

27522373

Abstract

This paper invokes the conceptual framework of Bourdieu to analyse the mechanisms, which help to maintain inappropriate authorship practices and the functions these practices may serve. Bourdieu's social theory with its emphasis on mechanisms of domination can be applied to the academic field, too, where competition is omnipresent, control mechanisms of authorship are loose, and the result of performance assessment can be a matter of symbolic life and death for the researchers. This results in a problem of game-theoretic nature, where researchers' behaviour will be determined more by the logic of competition, than by individual character or motives. From this follows that changing this practice requires institutionalized mechanisms, and change cannot be expected from simply appealing to researchers' individual conscience. The article aims at showing that academic capital (administrative power, seniority) is translated into honorary authorship. With little control, undetected honorary authorship gives the appearance of possessing intellectual capital (scientific merit). In this way a dominant position is made to be seen as natural result of intellectual ability or scientific merit, which makes it more acceptable to those in dominated positions. The final conclusion of this paper is that undemocratic authorship decisions and authorship based performance assessment together are a form of symbolic violence.

Language: en