Munn, N. (1948). The ethics of textbook writing. American Psychologist, 3, 88-90.

Norman L. Munn in 1936 (From: Munn, N.L. Being and Becoming: an autobiography. Adelaide Australia: Adelaide University Union Press, 1980).

The Ethics of Textbook Writing

Norman L. Munn
Bowdoin College

The ethical principles which a writer of textbooks should observe might be regarded as obvious if it were not for the fact that writers occasionally fail to observe these principles. Even the most obvious plagiarism sometimes occurs and it is well known that a member of the APA, after a thorough investigation by the Committee on Professional ethics, was dropped from the Association for copying, almost world for word, long passages from the works of other writers and, without any recognition of his sources, presenting the work as his own. Thus, even though they may appear obvious, the principles of ethics that one should follow might well be formulated for the guidance of those who write textbooks.

One should perhaps never write a book unless he feels that it fills some need of colleagues, students or the general public. There is no place for just another book of the same kind that others have written. Before undertaking to write a book on a subject previously dealt with in textbook form, the writer should feel that he can do a better job than other have done, that a different systematic treatment is worthwhile, that a fresher approach is necessary, or that a more up-to-date treatment is called for. The principle that one should contribute something new rather than just another book will probably not be cover by any formal code. Such a principle, although it should be kept in mind, is difficult to apply anyway. The person who writes a textbook is the sole judge of whether he feels that he is doing something not done before. Furthermore, if his textbook is just another of the same kind as those which already exist, the negative response, or lack of response to the book, will probably be sufficient to discourage further efforts along similar lines. Certainly neither prestige nor financial reward could be gained unless the book filled a need and was therefore accepted by colleagues or others. Thus the writing of a hackneyed textbook is a useless undertaking whether or not it infringes on principles of professional ethics.

Many textbooks appear under multiple authorship. When there is more than one author there should be clear recognition of the contributions which the different authors have made. It usually happens that some mutually agreeable form of credit is arranged by the parties concerned. But there are perhaps some instances where joint authorship is forced upon the writer of a textbook by an academic superior, who may have encouraged him to write the book and who may even have given it the advantages of his criticism. It the author rebuffs his superior it may injure his chances of advancement. But if the ethical code covers this sort of contingency the coercion may never be attempted, and if it is attempted, the writer can refer to the code as the basis of refusal to comply with the request for joint authorship. Nobody should appear as an author unless he has actually written all or part of the text. Encouragement and criticism may be appropriately recognized in the preface.

Anybody who writes a book, wholly or in part, should be recognized as the author or one of the authors of a book. This statement is important because there have been cases where psychologists allegedly wrote or rewrote large parts of textbooks for a fee without receiving credit or joint authorship. Usually the ghost writer, who is more or less well paid for his work, ha no complaint. But it is obviously unethical for any writer to receive credit for what somebody else has done. Whether our projected code should or can cover such a situation is at least an interesting question for discussion.

In keeping with the principle that the contributions of individuals should be recognized, I should also like to call attention to the fact that many government-sponsored publications have been written by individuals but published under the authorship of government agencies or committees. In one such instance a psychologist wrote certain material at the request of a committee, was paid for it out of committee funds, and was told at the outset that he would get no credit as author of the material. His agreement to carry out the assignment was motivated by patriotic and monetary incentives. The material was prepared, criticized by the committee, revised by the psychologist in the light of these criticisms, and published under the authorship of the committee with a footnote acknowledgment that the psychologist in question had given editorial assistance. There was no breach of agreement here and the psychologist had no legitimate complaint. But the question is whether it is ethical for individuals and agencies or committees to enter into such agreements. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not, but al least this is another issue which those who formulate our ethical code might wish o consider.

There are of course many instances in which several individuals, contributing to publications sponsored by committees, failed to receive individual recognition. I think that Psychology for the Armed Services might well serve as a pattern for ethical procedure in such projects. Better than anything I have see, it exemplifies appropriate acknowledgment to many individuals of what they contributed to a joint enterprise.
The individual author of a textbook, or part of a textbook, has certain ethical obligations of which our projected code might take cognizance. These have to do with borrowed material and more specifically with the correct transcription of such material and the proper acknowledgment of its origins.

The author is under obligation to go as much as possible to original sources for material, one reason being that secondary sources are not always reliable. Another reason is that textbooks based upon secondary sources are usually to superficial to be of much use. Very frequently, they give naïve readers a wrong impression of the original sources. Thus one textbook gave Hunter as the authority for the statement that the lower threshold for sound is about 20 cycles. A person who did not know better might get the impression that Hunter discovered this fact. Since it is a commonly acknowledged fact, and an outcome of everyday laboratory experience, no acknowledgment is necessary. But discussion of research or of facts which are not commonly acknowledged should not only be based on the original material acknowledgment of original sources should also be made.

It is of course true that anybody who had had extensive experience in psychological work absorbs a great deal of fact and theory without remembering its specific origins. Take, for example, the statement that, as skill in the performance of a complex activity develops, the individual becomes decreasingly aware of the separate acts; or the statement that, under these circumstances, performance becomes increasingly automatic. Who first formulated such a statement? I can remember reading something like it in William James, but I feel sure that it was not originally formulated by James. In such instances of well-established fact or theory, there is probably no reason for giving any source. Any fact, idea, or theory of fairly recent origin should perhaps be acknowledged. It should certainly be acknowledged if it is new and novel and the writer is aware of its origin. But just where on passes from facts or ideas that are part of the public domain to those which require acknowledgment is a question that cannot be answered in any categorical fashion.

Quite apart form the ethical question, but worthy of note in this connection, is the problem of how many names and dates are going to appear in a text, and where. There beginning student should not have his textbook cluttered up with the names of individuals and the dates of their discoveries. The best plan, probably, is to follow the recent custom of putting sources at the end of a chapter or at the end of the book, calling attention to them by use of inconspicuous numbers at appropriate places in the text. In this way he sources are acknowledge, and may be traced by the interested reader, but the emphasis in the text proper is where it should be --on fact and ideas. The only exception to his rule should be names and date of outstanding historical importance. Sometimes, of course, as in the case of the James-Lange theory, the name of the originator is necessarily involved in the discussion of ideas. In higher level textbooks or handbooks whose function is primarily to present and integrate research or theory, there is probably good reason to mention names in the body of the text. The more advanced reader may wish to have these names and even dates before him as he reads and attempts to evaluate what he reads. It is frustrating to him to have to search for the elsewhere in the book. When such books are used with less mature students, the instructor should, in my opinion, explain to the students why the references are there and make it clear that they will not be required to memorize names and dates.

After he has decided to write a book, at whatever level, and has settled to his satisfaction the issues considered so far in this paper, the author is still confronted with certain ethical problems pertaining to quotations and use of illustrations. Obviously the textbook writer must not copy any material verbatim without giving his source somewhere in the book. Material so copied should appear in quotes, in smaller type than original material, or indented so that it is evident that the author is now using another's material. The name of the author of quoted material should appear, as will as the title of the original book or article, the name of the publisher or journal, and the pages of the source from which the particular material is quoted. Before publication, moreover, permission to reproduce should be obtained form the publisher or the editor of a journal. In the case of quotations form journal owned by the American Psychological Association, permission should be requested from the Executive Secretary of the Association.

One should of course be sure that he is quoting an author accurately. This requires a careful word-by-word check of the quotation and the original material. When statements are quoted only in part, care should be taken to see that the author's meaning has not been distorted by the lifting of items out of their context. Whether the quotation is of words or of ideas, equal care should be exercised. To give an author credit for some distorted version of his ideas is irritating to him and to the reader who recognizes the error. An ethical code should, if possible, protect the author against those who misrepresent the outcome of his research, or his ideas, even though they may do so without intention to deceive. Although it is common enough in the popular press, such misrepresentation is probably rear in textbooks.

When material is paraphrased one should clearly indicate that it is paraphrased. Its source should be indicated, as when it is quoted, but permission to paraphrase is usually not necessary. It would of course be a serious breach of ethics if material were paraphrased without proper recognition of its source or if it were paraphrased in such a manner as to misrepresent the facts or ideas presented by the original author.

What has been said about verbal material applies also to illustrations. No photograph or line drawing should be copies wholly or in part without obtaining permission from the publisher. The source of the illustration should be indicated under the reproduction or in the preface or some other suitable place. When permission to reproduce is requested of them, publishers of books usually specify the form of acknowledgment. When illustrations are modifications of those already published by another, the source should be acknowledged in some such form as "After Lashley" or "Redrawn from Lashley." Whether or not permission is needed may depend upon the amount of modification introduced. If a line drawing is a tracing of or is based directly on a published photograph, permission should certainly be requested.

Although some writers request permission of authors as well as publishers, this is not necessary. Authors are usually glad to have summaries of their work in textbooks. Their only objections come when their material is not appropriately acknowledged or when it is inadequately represented.

Although there are many problems involved in the writing of textbooks, those mentioned are the only ones which, in my opinion, seriously or directly involve the interests of other psychologists.