The Business-School Scandal That Just Keeps Getting Bigger

[badgolferman]

I have warned you before not to believe everything you hear coming from
scientists and researchers. Working in that field, I have personally
witnessed how the sausage is made and now a major scandal is coming to
light in the business psychology field. And as they follow the trail,
they're realizing it's much bigger than an isolated case. Manipulating
data is way more widespread than you can imagine. And it's all to
pursue a certain agenda or to keep the golden goose.

--------------

For anyone who teaches at a business school, the blog post was bad
news. For Juliana Schroeder, it was catastrophic. She saw the
allegations when they first went up, on a Saturday in early summer
2023. Schroeder teaches management and psychology at UC Berkeley’s Haas
School of Business. One of her colleagues—­­a star professor at Harvard
Business School named Francesca Gino—­had just been accused of academic
fraud. The authors of the blog post, a small team of business-school
researchers, had found discrepancies in four of Gino’s published
papers, and they suggested that the scandal was much larger. “We
believe that many more Gino-authored papers contain fake data,” the
blog post said. “Perhaps dozens.”

The story was soon picked up by the mainstream press. Reporters reveled
in the irony that Gino, who had made her name as an expert on the
psychology of breaking rules, may herself have broken them. (“Harvard
Scholar Who Studies Honesty Is Accused of Fabricating Findings,” a New
York Times headline read.) Harvard Business School had quietly placed
Gino on administrative leave just before the blog post appeared. The
school had conducted its own investigation; its nearly 1,300-page
internal report, which was made public only in the course of related
legal proceedings, concluded that Gino “committed research misconduct
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” in the four papers. (Gino has
steadfastly denied any wrongdoing.)

But if Schroeder planned to extinguish any doubts that remained, she
may have aimed too high. More than a year since all of this began, the
evidence of fraud has only multiplied. The rot in business schools runs
much deeper than almost anyone had guessed, and the blame is
unnervingly widespread. In the end, even Schroeder would become a
suspect.

Gino was accused of faking numbers in four published papers. Just days
into her digging, Schroeder uncovered another paper that appeared to be
affected—and it was one that she herself had helped write.

Schroeder herself would come to a similar conclusion. Months later, I
asked her whether the data were manipulated. “I think it’s very likely
that they were,” she said. In the summer of 2023, when she reported the
findings of her audit to her fellow authors, they all agreed that,
whatever really happened, the work was compromised and ought to be
retracted. But they could not reach consensus on who had been at fault.
Gino did not appear to be responsible for either of the paper’s karaoke
studies. Then who was?

These risks for would-be critics reinforce an atmosphere of
complacency. “It’s embarrassing how few protections we have against
fraud and how easy it has been to fool us,” Simonsohn said in a 2023
webinar. He added, “We have done nothing to prevent it. Nothing.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careers/ar-AA1umNm3

[Fred Exley]

Post by badgolferman
I have warned you before not to believe everything you hear coming from
scientists and researchers. Working in that field, I have personally
witnessed how the sausage is made and now a major scandal is coming to
light in the business psychology field. And as they follow the trail,
they're realizing it's much bigger than an isolated case. Manipulating
data is way more widespread than you can imagine. And it's all to
pursue a certain agenda or to keep the golden goose.
--------------
For anyone who teaches at a business school, the blog post was bad
news. For Juliana Schroeder, it was catastrophic. She saw the
allegations when they first went up, on a Saturday in early summer
2023. Schroeder teaches management and psychology at UC Berkeley’s Haas
School of Business. One of her colleagues—­­a star professor at Harvard
Business School named Francesca Gino—­had just been accused of academic
fraud. The authors of the blog post, a small team of business-school
researchers, had found discrepancies in four of Gino’s published
papers, and they suggested that the scandal was much larger. “We
believe that many more Gino-authored papers contain fake data,” the
blog post said. “Perhaps dozens.”
The story was soon picked up by the mainstream press. Reporters reveled
in the irony that Gino, who had made her name as an expert on the
psychology of breaking rules, may herself have broken them. (“Harvard
Scholar Who Studies Honesty Is Accused of Fabricating Findings,” a New
York Times headline read.) Harvard Business School had quietly placed
Gino on administrative leave just before the blog post appeared. The
school had conducted its own investigation; its nearly 1,300-page
internal report, which was made public only in the course of related
legal proceedings, concluded that Gino “committed research misconduct
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” in the four papers. (Gino has
steadfastly denied any wrongdoing.)
But if Schroeder planned to extinguish any doubts that remained, she
may have aimed too high. More than a year since all of this began, the
evidence of fraud has only multiplied. The rot in business schools runs
much deeper than almost anyone had guessed, and the blame is
unnervingly widespread. In the end, even Schroeder would become a
suspect.
Gino was accused of faking numbers in four published papers. Just days
into her digging, Schroeder uncovered another paper that appeared to be
affected—and it was one that she herself had helped write.
Schroeder herself would come to a similar conclusion. Months later, I
asked her whether the data were manipulated. “I think it’s very likely
that they were,” she said. In the summer of 2023, when she reported the
findings of her audit to her fellow authors, they all agreed that,
whatever really happened, the work was compromised and ought to be
retracted. But they could not reach consensus on who had been at fault.
Gino did not appear to be responsible for either of the paper’s karaoke
studies. Then who was?
These risks for would-be critics reinforce an atmosphere of
complacency. “It’s embarrassing how few protections we have against
fraud and how easy it has been to fool us,” Simonsohn said in a 2023
webinar. He added, “We have done nothing to prevent it. Nothing.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careers/ar-AA1umNm3