Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How they Hang Together

In this paper, we explore different possible explanations of research misconduct (especially falsification and fabrication), and investigate whether they are compatible. We suggest that to explain research misconduct we should pay attention to three factors: (i) the beliefs and desires of the misconductor, (ii) contextual affordances, (iii) and unconscious biases or influences. We draw on the three different narratives (individual, institutional, system of science) of research misconduct as proposed by Sovacool to review six different explanations. Four theories start from the individual: rational choice theory, bad apple theory, general strain theory, prospect theory. Organizational Justice Theory focuses on institutional factors, while New Public Management targets the system of science. For each theory, we illustrate the kinds of facts that should be known for explanations based on them to have minimal plausibility. We suggest that none can constitute a full explanation. Finally, we explore how the different possible explanations hang together. We find that they are compatible, with the exception of explanations based on Rational Choice Theory and Prospect Theory respectively are incompatible. For illustrative purposes we use the case of Diederik Stapel.