[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-594835-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-594835-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","silencing-behaviours-in-contested-research-their-implications-for-academic-freedom","Silencing behaviours in contested research - their implications for academic freedom","","Attacks on contested research expose boundaries around academic freedom that are not captured by misconduct-based accounts. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 18 researchers and mixed-methods thematic analysis, the paper examines how moral objection triggers visceral reactions and constraints that universities often frame as rights with responsibilities. It identifies 42 silencing behaviours and argues that “freedom” is contingent on institutional and disciplinary values, becoming visible when rules are breached.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/silencing-behaviours-in-contested-research-their-implications-for-academic-freedom/594835/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/silencing-behaviours-in-contested-research-their-implications-for-academic-freedom/594835.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Mary Man","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the paper’s focus regarding academic freedom?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The paper examines how attacks on research reveal how “academic freedom” is bounded, especially when silencing is driven by moral objection rather than wrongdoing.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How was the research conducted?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It uses qualitative interviews with 18 researchers and mixed-methods data analysis to identify shared themes and characteristics.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What does the paper identify about silencing in contested research?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It identifies 42 silencing behaviours and explains how these make the rule-based limits to freedom visible only after they have been broken.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},594835,1792188869,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},7421720224475,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nSilencing behavioursin contested research & their implications for academic freedom  \nJacqui Hoepner  \nAustralian National University  \nWhat do attacks on ‘unpalatable’ research reveal about academic freedom? When academic work is curtailed, this cherished yet misunderstood concept is undermined. Silencing based on moral objection – rather than wrongdoing – suggests academic freedom is more constrained than we believe. On paper, academic freedom is rule-bound, yet ‘dangerous’ ideas produce overwhelmingly visceral reactions. It was these emotional responses I examined to explore the difference between what we believe academic freedom to be, and how it manifests in contentious fields. I conducted qualitative interviews with 18 researchers whose work elicited condemnation or constraint beyond ‘legitimate’ scholarly critique. I used mixed-methods data analysis to determine shared themes and characteristics. While academic institutions uphold their commitment to unfettered enquiry,‘academic freedom’ is highly contingent and subject to the values of players in a range of disciplinary and institutional fields that together yield a generalised field of ‘academic research’. This research challenges assumptions about ‘freedom’ by identifying parameters that bound the notion. I argue the concept is indeed bounded, and that academics become aware of those bounds when they bump up – often unexpectedly– against them.  \nKeywords: Academic freedom, silencing, moral disgust, peer review, qualitative research, reflexivity  \nIntroduction  \nThis paper is concerned with attacks on research and what they reveal about the revered yet poorly understood notion of ‘academic freedom’. I present data from interviews with academics from Australia, Canada, the US and UK whose work has been attacked on what appear to be moral grounds, rather than for demonstrable misconduct or flawed methods. Although academic institutions promote and defend an ideal of academic freedom–that unfettered pursuit of knowledge is vital to the function of universities–research silencing reveals boundaries around what distinguishes ‘acceptable’ and  \n‘unacceptable’ enquiry in particular fields. I conclude these boundaries are only visible as ‘the rules’ once they have been transgressed, when those actors threatened by the transgression act to penalise rule breakers.  \nThis paper identifies 42 silencing behaviours present in attacks on research and interrogates what these behaviours mean for our understanding of academic freedom. It is important to distinguish between attacks based on moral objections and patent cases of wrongdoing, as the former are not accounted for in the‘legitimate’limits to academic freedom we see from an institutional perspective.That is, universities stress that with rights come responsibilities: that research must take place according to scholarly  \nvol. 61, no. 1, 2019 Silencing behaviours in contested research & their implications for academic freedom Jacqui Hoepner 31  \nA U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nconventions; ethics clearance, peer review and so on. Research silencing reveals more insidious limits to academic freedom, as these silencing behaviours make the rules that curtail freedom visible only once they have been broken.  \nAcademic freedom  \nThis paper challenges what we expect and believe about academic freedom. It is often considered an unbounded ideal–only by allowing researchers unfettered freedom to pursue lines of enquiry can learning and knowledge flourish (Department of Education University of Oxford, n.d.) . According to Jackson (2005, 2006) a typical Australian university policy considers academic freedom‘fundamental to the proper conduct of teaching, research and scholarship. Academic and research staff should be guided by a commitment to freedom of inquiry’(Jackson, 2005, p. 110) . Conversely, other scholars point to a dangerous erosion of academic","cbCaijzkWuFncaJC","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijzkWuFncaJC","pdf",257767,11,"English","# Introduction\n## Academic freedom\n## Method and analysis\n## Silencing behaviours in contested research\n## Implications for academic freedom","[{\"question\":\"What is the paper’s focus regarding academic freedom?\",\"answer\":\"The paper examines how attacks on research reveal how “academic freedom” is bounded, especially when silencing is driven by moral objection rather than wrongdoing.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the research conducted?\",\"answer\":\"It uses qualitative interviews with 18 researchers and mixed-methods data analysis to identify shared themes and characteristics.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the paper identify about silencing in contested research?\",\"answer\":\"It identifies 42 silencing behaviours and explains how these make the rule-based limits to freedom visible only after they have been broken.\"}]","Silencing behaviours in contested research - their implications for academic freedom | PDF",1792079932,28]