Perverse Incentives: A Psychoanalysis of Fraud

Abstract

Prevention of scientific misconduct (e.g. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, also known as FFP) and other questionable research practices has become issues of concern. This is connected with broader issues within the research integrity debate. Should we primarily focus on individual responsibilities or on institutional responsibilities or both? In terms of diagnosis and therapy, the initial tendency in integrity discourse has been to focus on individualisation: on detecting and penalising individual deviance. Currently, however, more emphasis is given to environmental factors, for example, the quality and resilience of the research ecosystem. To highlight the relevance of a (Lacanian) psychoanalytical approach to fraudulent or questionable research, I will briefly analyse three case histories, as Fallgeschichte, in the psychoanalytic sense of the term. After discussing a first exploratory case history, presented by Lacan himself, I will outline my conceptual frame of reference, notably by zooming in on Lacan’s theorem of the four discourses. Subsequently, two additional case histories will be addressed: the case of the Majorana fermion (reflecting current developments in quantum computing and elementary particle physics) and the case of Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel (representing social psychology).