This, to the best of my knowledge, is ignored in the republic of science, especially by methodologists. I mention this not because I think that it is significant, I really do not know, but because as an anthropologist Professor Jarvie takes it for granted that the rules described and the rules followed need not be the same. Researchers want such variances explained and reformers want them changed, and he is both. This is contrary to the latest fashion in the sociology of science, which is fashionable because it repeatedly presents researchers as having no intention to follow the canons of proper conduct, that to the extent that they follow the rules, they do so only out of fear of discredit. In other words, it presents as the chief interest of researchers not the satisfaction of curiosity but the sale of their wares.
Pretenders appear in different field, and their conduct is of little interest.
Honest discussion of this may reduce pretence such as that of the fashionable sociologists of science. Rules of research first appeared around 1600, during the scientific revolution. Galileo said then, researchers must know mathematics, as the Book of Nature is written in mathematical symbols. Bacon said then, researchers must believe only their own eyes. Today these rules sound strange, because of the great influence of William Whewell of the mid-nineteenth century.