Research in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 2, 1993 DEVIANCY FROM THE NORMS OF SCIENCE: The Effects of Anomie and Alienation in the Academic Profession John M. Braxton ° ° ° • ù ù , • ° ù • . ù • ° , • ° ù . , ° . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . • . ù ° ù ù , . . . . . ~ . . . . . Anomie Theory, as formulated by Robert K. Merton, has been posited as a possible explanatory framework for deviancy from the norms of science. Anomie is the inabil- ity of some individuals to achieve excessively emphasized group goals through ad- herence to group norms. This study tests Anomie Theory by using alienation from the reward system of academic disciplines as an operationalization of this theory. Findings suggest support for Anomie Theory as an explanation for deviancy from the norms of communality, disinterestedness, and universalism. Implications for such topics as the use of norms as interpretative devices and the ambivalence of aca- demics over compliance with dominant and subsidiary (counter-norms) are dis- cussed. Implications for professional practice are also offered. • . . . . . . ° . . . . . . . • . ù . . . . . •• . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •• . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding deviancy from the norms of science is of fundamental impor- tance, as the norms of science are mechanisms of informal social control in the academic profession (Merton, 1942, 1973; Braxton, 1986). The functionalist perspective holds that larger society grants professional autonomy to profes- sions that control the work of its members in the interests of their clients (Goode; 1969); hence, mechanisms of social control are of importance given the claims to professional autonomy made by the academic profession (Clark, 1963; Kadish, 1972). ~ The four norms of science, which function as a set, are as follows: Communality. This norm prescribes that the findings of research taust be made public, because such findings are the property of the research commu- nity. However, the individual scientist should receive recognition or esteem for such findings by the scientific community in exchange for his or her contribu- tion. In specific terms, secrecy is prohibited, and the failure to give appropriate recognition to a scholar is scorned. John M. Braxton, Department of Educational Leadership, Peabody College of Education, Box 514, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203. 213 0361-0365/93/0400-0213507.00/0 © 1993 Human Sciences Press, Inc.