tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post6129056761943144383..comments2024-03-07T15:19:55.343+01:00Comments on Copy, Shake, and Paste: Whistleblowing in GermanyDebora Weber-Wulffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602911135725939409noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-47334422539903285742013-07-10T21:12:55.291+02:002013-07-10T21:12:55.291+02:00Nature comments and demands punishment for whistle...Nature comments and demands punishment for whistle blowers when allegations cannot be confirmed: http://www.nature.com/news/in-the-dark-1.13347Stefan Heßbrüggenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01372456572066860671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-70549734516093768102013-07-09T22:38:12.639+02:002013-07-09T22:38:12.639+02:00Another blog comment from Ulrich Herb, 4 July, htt...Another blog comment from Ulrich Herb, 4 July, http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/topics/whistleblowing-die-wissenschaft.php "Whistleblowing & die Wissenschaft"Debora Weber-Wulffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036864220530629908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-8253832944648702882013-07-09T08:57:38.856+02:002013-07-09T08:57:38.856+02:00More documentation: there's an interesting dis...More documentation: there's an interesting discussion at Klaus Graf's Archivalia-Blog concerning the legal ramifications of the new recommendations: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/444866075/ It refers to the Strohschneider interview. <br /><br />Your point 2: according to the Strohschneider interview (for your convenience: http://www.dradio.de/dkultur/sendungen/thema/2170176/), a 'whistle blower' is the person that turns to an ombudsperson in order to address a grievance that cannot be solved by other means.<br /><br />Your point 3: the position of ombudspersons in the university should be strengthened (p. 4 of the DFG-'Ergänzungen'). <br /><br />Your point 4: there was much noise in the media because of a strange statement of Ms. Dzwonnek, the DFG secretary. In fact, anonymous submissions to an ombudsperson remain possible, I read the DFG position as saying that they must be exceptionally well argued (i. e. there must be some reason to overcome the presumption that anonymity is not desirable). <br /><br />Your point 5: "This must be made clear from the very beginning, whether confidentiality can be guaranteed." That is a point that I do not really understand, too: the kind of proof required should be clear from what the 'whistle blower' submits to the ombudsperson. So it should be possible in principle to estimate in the beginning of the proceedings whether confidentiality is guaranteed. <br /><br />But I have some more fundamental reservations even in the light of Prof. Strohschneider's clarifications. Apparently, the work of the ombudsperson and the commission is modeled as some sort of conflict resolution or mediation. In such a model, both sides agree to set their differences aside and come to a conclusion that is, in the end, acceptable to both sides. This may be acceptable for cases of mobbing, misuse of hierarchical power etc. Here, an internal investigation, some sort of face-saving for both sides etc. is totally acceptable. But if you investigate what I would call 'hardcore academic misconduct' that touches on the validity of results that have been communicated in public there is a third party that currently has no seat at the table, namely the scientific community. As you said rightly, there is no lack of institutions within a German university. So why is there an institution that has a strange double function, namely internal conflict resolution *and* investigation of academic misconduct as a service to the scientific community as a whole?<br /><br />Stefan Heßbrüggenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01372456572066860671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-24482195500561462762013-07-09T01:08:40.579+02:002013-07-09T01:08:40.579+02:00Thank you! I totally agree with your analysis.
Re...Thank you! I totally agree with your analysis.<br /><br />Regarding (6): While you are formally not in conflict with the DFG recommendations, the Ombudsman for the Sciences has made it clear last year that confidentiality is required during and forever after the ombuds process [1]. <br />At least to me it is not clear whether the new DFG recommendations supersede this view, and whether the Ombudsman's view has any relevance for a university's investigation.<br /><br />[1] http://www.ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de/fileadmin/Ombudsman/Dokumente/Downloads/Berichte/Jahresbericht_2011_Ombudsman.pdfRaphaelhttp://raphaelwimmer.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com