ABSTRACT
Explaining scholarly crime is important and, in this chapter, the authors apply several theoretical perspectives. Among the theoretical explanations that are worthwhile is interpreting scholarly misconduct are strain theory, techniques of neutralization, rational choice and opportunity theories, and moral time. General strain theory posits that various motivating forces exist to constrain or encourage harmful behavior, with an emphasis on the strain experienced by the would-be offender to adhere to proper norms or to disavow those norms. Techniques of neutralization are used by offenders to explain away their bad behavior, such as by claiming that “everyone does it.” Rational choice and opportunity explanations basically illustrate that committing offenses is the personally selfish, albeit illegal or socially harmful, means of advancement; with opportunity, such as an absence of witnesses and the presence of something worth stealing, playing an enormous role in encouraging offensive behavior. Moral time, a new perspective, is mainly a conflict theory that reveals how power and status are realigned through offending behavior and through the control of offending behavior. Relative power is a crucial piece of the scholarly misconduct puzzle, with some scholars engaging in violations being above reproach because of their status, while those with less power are more-or-less at the mercy of the victimizing scholars and a system that does little to protect from victimization. The authors conclude that despite the respective strengths of various theories of crime, none satisfactorily explains scholarly crime. While current theory advances the understanding of scholarly misconduct as socially harmful behavior, the conclusion is that a new, fresh perspective is needed to explain why society should be bothered by serious research misconduct. Any new perspective should be grounded in more general norms rather than specific norms of scholarship and science.
