Fraudulent and Misleading Data

The Use of Fraudulent or Misleading Data

Researchers can tamper with data when they record, report, or use data for instructional purposes. According to federal guidelines for research misconduct, “current, make federal guidelines for research misconduct” the use of fraudulent or misleading data is in violation of U.S. federal laws when a researcher has (a) deviated from standard practices in the field, (b) intentionally deceived or engaged in reckless research practices, and (c) when there is sufficient evidence to support these accusations. Under federal guidelines, using fraudulent or misleading data can be classified as either falsification (when data or elements of the research process have been manipulated to improperly represent the actual data) or fabrication (data or results have been made up).

The use of fraudulent or misleading data is not limited to quantitative research activities. Researchers employing qualitative or rhetorical methods can also engage in this unprofessional activity. In the most egregious cases of research misconduct, researchers have intentionally falsified or fabricated data to achieve different results than their actual data show. For example, some researchers have made up data to inflate their results or omitted data that did not support their hypotheses. Other researchers have unintentionally reported misleading data. For example, some researchers have ignorantly created graphs that exaggerate their results.

There are many reasons why researchers would intentionally use fraudulent or misleading data. Environmental reasons may include financial pressure (e.g., pressure to win government grants), institutional demands (e.g., requirements and time constraints in the tenure process), competition (e.g., colleagues competing for resources), and public pressure (e.g., pressure to solve an important societal problem). Personal reasons may include desires for prestige, recognition by colleagues, and financial gain. Some scholars have criticized universities for perpetuating competitive and pressured environments that tempt researchers to engage in research misconduct. Although intriguing, this criticism does not release individual researchers from the ethical responsibility to truthfully present their research.

A case from educational measurement and intelligence testing involves British psychologist Cyril Burt, who published studies in the 1950s and 1960s, showing a strong correlation between the IQs of twins who had been raised in separate homes. The [Page 707]high correlation supports the view that intelligence is largely inherited. After Burt’s death, it was suggested that the reported results of different studies that involved growing numbers of pairs of twins were too similar statistically to be likely. It was also suggested that one could not locate and recruit so many twins raised in the conditions required by Burt. Some have defended Burt, however, believing that he did not fake any data, and among educational researchers the case is not closed.

...