Once an article has been published it becomes part of the permanent research record. Only when there is clear evidence of data fabrication or plagiarism should an article be retracted. Even then, both the article and the reasons for its retraction should remain on the public record.
Recently, the editorial board of the Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists ‘retracted’ an article by Māori clinical psychologist Dr Arna Mitchell. The New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP), which publishes the journal, had claimed the article was "not aligned with our values" and "could perpetuate harm to Māori." According to neuropsychologist Dr Helen Buckland-Wright, the article is the most widely read in the history of the journal.
In her article, Dr Mitchell argued that a draft code of ethics from the New Zealand Psychologists’ Board (NZPB) treats Māori as a homogeneous collective. For example, the board claimed that the privacy rights of Māori clients might sometimes need to be traded off to involve whānau in their cases. She was critical of the research on which the code was based, which was entirely qualitative and ungeneralisable. She defended psychologists’ scientist-practitioner approach to clinical practice from an NZPB assertion that spiritual beliefs should be given equal weight to scientific evidence in shaping practice. The article is scholarly in tone. It is no polemic.
In fact, Dr Mitchell’s article wasn’t retracted. It was censored. The editorial board removed it from the journal’s website following pressure from the College.
Whether or not Dr Mitchell is right in her views is irrelevant. That is a matter for scholarly debate. The job of an academic editorial board is to test and disseminate scholarly work, not to censor it when a powerful organisation – even its parent organisation – expresses disagreement or offence. The board did not have to publish Dr Mitchell’s work, but once it had, it had an academic duty to stand by its decision, short of research misconduct or gross error being proven.
There was no suggestion that Dr Mitchell had plagiarised, falsified data, or otherwise acted unethically. She was given no opportunity to respond to the NZCCP’s allegations before her work was censored. The article was simply erased from the journal’s website. If it had not been independently preserved in online repositories, scholars would have been left unable to judge for themselves whether those allegations have any substance.
The editorial board should resign. But the rot runs deeper than the NZCCP, which is a professional body rather than a regulator. The organisation that registers and regulates practising psychologists is the NZPB – the same organisation Dr Mitchell criticised for undermining science-based practice through its code of ethics – a clear misuse of its statutory powers.
The NZPB is not the only professional regulator to have overstepped its authority. The Nursing Council has been criticised for trying to control nurses’ public expression outside their professional roles. Its draft code would require them to refrain from "offensive, inflammatory or ill-informed" public statements. Only the Council can know what that means, and nurses may be intimidated into keeping their views to themselves. But they have as much right as other New Zealanders to express their opinions.
The New Zealand Law Society censured lawyer Stephen Franks and his firm over a letter sent on behalf of a client to health practitioners, warning them of potential liability in relation to the prescription of puberty blockers. The Standards Committee dismissed all but one of the Society’s allegations. The one that was upheld – that Franks had used legal processes for an improper purpose – was later quashed by the Legal Complaints Review Officer, who observed that sending letters to lend weight to their clients’ positions "is what lawyers do."
Auckland real estate agent Janet Dickson was banned from her profession for five years when she refused to complete a tikanga course the Real Estate Authority (REA) had made compulsory. Dickson argued that the course was largely irrelevant to her work, politically biased, and in conflict with her personal beliefs. The case prompted Justice Minister Nicole McKee to direct the REA to focus its requirements on matters relevant to real estate practice.
There is a common theme through all these cases, from the erasure of Dr Mitchell’s article at the behest of the NZCCP, to the banning of Janet Dickson by the REA. Professional bodies that should be politically neutral are seeking to codify political agendas and censor dissent.
ACT is now promising to take a policy to the election to make professional regulators stick to their knitting. They would be prohibited from disciplining members for lawful speech outside their professional roles. They would have to remain neutral on political and ideological issues. Mandatory training would be restricted to matters directly relevant to professional competence and public safety.
Like last year’s legislation requiring universities to uphold academic freedom and institutional neutrality, none of this should be necessary. Sadly, many of New Zealand’s professional bodies have shown that it is.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was published HERE
In her article, Dr Mitchell argued that a draft code of ethics from the New Zealand Psychologists’ Board (NZPB) treats Māori as a homogeneous collective. For example, the board claimed that the privacy rights of Māori clients might sometimes need to be traded off to involve whānau in their cases. She was critical of the research on which the code was based, which was entirely qualitative and ungeneralisable. She defended psychologists’ scientist-practitioner approach to clinical practice from an NZPB assertion that spiritual beliefs should be given equal weight to scientific evidence in shaping practice. The article is scholarly in tone. It is no polemic.
In fact, Dr Mitchell’s article wasn’t retracted. It was censored. The editorial board removed it from the journal’s website following pressure from the College.
Whether or not Dr Mitchell is right in her views is irrelevant. That is a matter for scholarly debate. The job of an academic editorial board is to test and disseminate scholarly work, not to censor it when a powerful organisation – even its parent organisation – expresses disagreement or offence. The board did not have to publish Dr Mitchell’s work, but once it had, it had an academic duty to stand by its decision, short of research misconduct or gross error being proven.
There was no suggestion that Dr Mitchell had plagiarised, falsified data, or otherwise acted unethically. She was given no opportunity to respond to the NZCCP’s allegations before her work was censored. The article was simply erased from the journal’s website. If it had not been independently preserved in online repositories, scholars would have been left unable to judge for themselves whether those allegations have any substance.
The editorial board should resign. But the rot runs deeper than the NZCCP, which is a professional body rather than a regulator. The organisation that registers and regulates practising psychologists is the NZPB – the same organisation Dr Mitchell criticised for undermining science-based practice through its code of ethics – a clear misuse of its statutory powers.
The NZPB is not the only professional regulator to have overstepped its authority. The Nursing Council has been criticised for trying to control nurses’ public expression outside their professional roles. Its draft code would require them to refrain from "offensive, inflammatory or ill-informed" public statements. Only the Council can know what that means, and nurses may be intimidated into keeping their views to themselves. But they have as much right as other New Zealanders to express their opinions.
The New Zealand Law Society censured lawyer Stephen Franks and his firm over a letter sent on behalf of a client to health practitioners, warning them of potential liability in relation to the prescription of puberty blockers. The Standards Committee dismissed all but one of the Society’s allegations. The one that was upheld – that Franks had used legal processes for an improper purpose – was later quashed by the Legal Complaints Review Officer, who observed that sending letters to lend weight to their clients’ positions "is what lawyers do."
Auckland real estate agent Janet Dickson was banned from her profession for five years when she refused to complete a tikanga course the Real Estate Authority (REA) had made compulsory. Dickson argued that the course was largely irrelevant to her work, politically biased, and in conflict with her personal beliefs. The case prompted Justice Minister Nicole McKee to direct the REA to focus its requirements on matters relevant to real estate practice.
There is a common theme through all these cases, from the erasure of Dr Mitchell’s article at the behest of the NZCCP, to the banning of Janet Dickson by the REA. Professional bodies that should be politically neutral are seeking to codify political agendas and censor dissent.
ACT is now promising to take a policy to the election to make professional regulators stick to their knitting. They would be prohibited from disciplining members for lawful speech outside their professional roles. They would have to remain neutral on political and ideological issues. Mandatory training would be restricted to matters directly relevant to professional competence and public safety.
Like last year’s legislation requiring universities to uphold academic freedom and institutional neutrality, none of this should be necessary. Sadly, many of New Zealand’s professional bodies have shown that it is.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was published HERE
1 comment:
Michael, you are not understanding NZ 's new (emerged the past five years) academic culture to avoid Hurt Feelings. Articles cannot make arguments to hurt anybody's feelings. One cannot argue against Maori myths, legends and oral traditions. An archeological work cannot, for example, prove that no evidence of Maori this or that if the findings challenge Maori traditions. Look at how NZ unis now prioritize research funding. Not about contributing to major academic debates and advancing scholarship and knowledge but about engaging with local communities and making them feel good and participatory. Remember, lived experience equally important to 15 years of intensive academic study. Universities now exist to pull up academics who know squat about anything other than a narrow PhD topic and who can't teach anything outside that puny area. One should compare information contained in Diderot's Encyclopedia with all the knowledge produced by any indigenous people in the eighteenth century.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.