Diederik Stapel, the Dutch social psychologist and admitted data fabricator — and owner of 54 retraction notices — is now teaching at a college in the town of Tilburg.
According to Omroep Brabant, Stapel was offered the job as a kind of adjunct at Fontys Academy for Creative Industries to teach social philosophy. The site quotes a Nick Welman explaining the rationale for hiring Stapel (per Google Translate):
“It came about because students one after another success story were told from the entertainment industry, the industry which we educate them .”
The students wanted something different.
“They wanted to also focus on careers that have failed. On people who have fallen into a black hole, acquainted with the dark side of fame and success.”
Last month, organizers of a drama festival in The Netherlands cancelled a play co-written by Stapel.
Fontys describes itself thusly:
Fontys Academy for Creative Industries (Fontys ACI) in Tilburg has 2500 students working towards a bachelor of Business Administration (International Event, Music & Entertainment Studies and Digital Publishing Studies), a bachelor of Communication (International Event, Music & Entertainment Studies) or a bachelor of Lifestyle (International Lifestyle Studies). Fontys ACI hosts a staff of approximately one hundred (teachers plus support staff) as well as about fifty regular visiting lecturers.
A letter from the school’s dean, Pieter Bon, adds:
We like to be entertained and the length of our lives increases. We seek new ways in which to improve our health and we constantly look for new ways to fill our free time. Fashion and looks are important to us; we prefer sustainable products and we like to play games using smart gadgets. This is why Fontys Academy for Creative Industries exists. We train people to create beautiful concepts, exciting concepts, touching concepts, concepts to improve our quality of life. We train them for an industry in which creativity is of the highest value to a product or service. We educate young people who feel at home in the (digital) world of entertainment and lifestyle, and understand that creativity can also mean business. Creativity can be marketed, it’s as simple as that.
We’re sure Prof. Stapel would agree.
Hat tips: Vincent Bontrop and Sean van Drogen
In the Netherlands, people are generally welcomed back into society after they have completed their sentence. Stapel has done so. I think it is good that he has been given a second chance to contribute to society. He is a man that knows, or at the very least proclaims to know, that what he did was wrong, so to have him teach such a lesson to students seems like a much better way to spend public resources than to pay him to sit on the couch all day.
Someone please enlighten me because maybe I’m missing something fundamental here. I see some serious problems with the rationale of several individuals in this story. Here we have an individual who has committed, and acknowledged committing, serious academic fraud (i.e., multiple data fabrication). Those admissions have been accompanied by equal punishment, i.e., 54 retractions. This individual has stained the name of psychology, sociology and science publishing a very dark colour and he has removed hope from the hearts of many researchers, novice and seasoned. He must, in no way, ever be rewarded for this, ever again. This is not some social experiment about social reintegration, simply because this individual believes that he is going to benefit from his fraud. This rationale by Stapel is so fundamentally wrong. So, when we have Mr. Brabant coming forward claiming that he speaks on behalf of the students, claiming that “The students wanted something different.” and that “They wanted to also focus on careers that have failed. On people who have fallen into a black hole, acquainted with the dark side of fame and success.”, then either the students have really become demoralized to wanting to look at the wrong role models for inspiration, the school’s education system has become derailed by thinking that paying known science fraudsters is actually a good thing for educating our youth, and that they have some sort of a new and revolutionary course to offer (while undoubtedly charging their students for this skewed course). And through all of this, Stapel continues to smile. The story is astonishing.
There are hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of HONEST scientists, psychologists and researchers who would be happy to get an honest job, proving their positive side. Let them get Stapel’s job, and then those scientists can invite Stapel as a guest to explain, in a case study of what went so horribly wrong, to come deliver a special lecture, FREE of charge. Let Stapel inflate his ego all he wants with his fraud, but for goodness sake, don’t inflate his bank account while you’re at it! In that sense, Maartje, your call for social reform to get Stapel off the couch is admirable, but so wrong and misguided in this case, I believe. Let Stapel sell ice-creams, or serve as janitor, because those would be more fitting jobs for someone of his persona, but would still serve the ultimate objective of getting him off the couch. He can, and should, be active, I agree, but please don’t reward him for his fraud! In my opinion, no-one who has committed this level of serious academic fraud should be anywhere near an academic institution EVER again. There is simply nothing to reform here. It is better to invest social and public resources on a fresh individual who has the correct mind-set and is on the correct ethical tracks. The fact that Maartje received an overwhelming number of thumbs up in support of Stapel is of concern to me.
In some ways, there is a concerning (and disconcerting) parallel between this Stapel story and the fact that known Japanese fraudsters (Takahashi and Suzuki) are able to get excellent positions in academia and public hospitals after having committed serious fraud in the USA [1].
I say, enough of this farce already!
[1] http://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/18/former-ut-southwestern-cancer-researchers-faked-data-in-10-papers-ori/
I couldn’t agree more with JATdS on this one. Give a non-psycopath the job, and have that honest teacher review the Stapel case with the students. Then the students would actually learn something. What they will learn from someone with a proven record of so much lying will be of little value.
The administrators of this institution should do a better job of looking out for their students, and the other faculty at the institution. Just because the students ask for it is no reason for a competent group of administrators to give it to them.
This is what we can do something here. Stapel, Diederik; Ontsporing (“Derailment”); Prometheus Books, November 2012; ISBN 9-04462-312-5 – I am sure academics are buying the book for teaching purposes. So he may not need more income.
“There is simply nothing to reform here.” “The fact that” JATdS writes this “is of concern to me.” Help! Let’s not change anything. Science is a flawless institution. Yes. And only the past two days I read about medical scientists who tampered with data to please the firm that sponsored their work and about the start of a new investigation into the work of a psychologist who produced data “too good to be true.” Mistakes abound. On a daily basis. Sure, there is nothing to reform here. Science works just fine. I think it is time for the “Men in Black” to move in to start an outside-invesigation of science and academia. The Stapel case and other, similar cases teach us that scientists themselves are able to clean-up their act. (e.g., Whatever happened to Hauser? To repligate? What does that all mean? That there is nothing to reform?)
Note from Retraction Watch: We’ve had reason to believe that this and several other messages being left by “Paul” were actually posted by Diederik Stapel. Because “Paul” refers to Stapel in the third person, the comments may include a misrepresentation, violating our comment guidelines. We’ve emailed the person who left those messages, and he or she refused to say whether Stapel is leaving the messages. We therefore wanted to post a notice alerting readers to our concerns.
Let’s be honest with ourselves, Paul. If you were an employer of repute, would you actually hire someone who had lied seriously 54 times to the public, the scientific community, or to his peer pool? Whether in medicine, or in hard-core science, or in psychology or the social sciences, an inveterated liar is always a bad sign. I simply cannot see how such individuals can be considered as role models, or as a positive sign. If anyone wants to reform Stapel, or if he wants reform himself, then by all means do so, but please do not reward hm financially for his unethical deeds. That sends out the absolute incorrect message to the entire world. In that sense, you are right, my wording could have been more accurate: “There is something to reform here, but only provided that the mistakes are not financially rewarded.” And all signs indicate that Stapel is making a good living off seeling the story of his fraud. I personally believe that this is so wrong, at so many levels. That’s all. You are entitled to your opinion, I am just simply indicating mine, that I am really displeased to see this individual making profit from lack of ethics. If anyone wants to learn about the case, they can read it on free blogs like RW. No need to pay the man a salary. After all, how sure are we that he has really changed, that he is being genuine, or that he has in fact reformed? I am sure that many a psychologist would indicate that someone who has lied quite seriously 54 times is liely to lie again.
If he was teaching a course on questionable research practices, on valid statistical inference and experimental design, on fraud busting techniques, then it could conceivably be of value. But there is no evidence at all that is what he’s doing here. Far from adding a critical eye toward science, it appears this will be pondering the value of fiction and feel-good marketing, and even questioning if data ought to be required to test scientific claims. I am prepared to change my mind if there is evidence to the contrary.
Somebody, please, tell me that this is a joke!
If I was told that a heavily addicted long-term alcoholic with 54 drink-driving offences is teaching students on safe and responsible driving, I would take it more seriously than this new appointment of Stapel.
Yes, I do agree that everyone deserves a new start and it’s better for such person to work rather than getting tax-payers’ money to stay at home, however, wouldn’t it be much more appropriate for Fontys Academy for Creative Industries to hire Stapel as cleaner? This way the students, watching him everyday sweeping the corridors, will learn much more for consequences of wrongdoing.
Adam & Ivan,
These types of follow-ups on the lives of people who have previously committed (and been punished) for fraud do not sit well with me. He was caught and he was punished (you may disagree with the severity of punishment, but that is not the focus of this post). What purpose do such posts accomplish to chronicle his life as he seeks to move forward? It’s not even as if the current posting involves research. The little biting joke/remark at the end really seems like a low-blow and the entire piece reads like something out of the tabloids.
Thanks for the feedback. We feel it’s important to understand the downstream effects of fraud, and the effects on people’s careers. As you can see from comments on the piece, not everyone feels that giving Stapel a teaching position was a good call.
Exactly. The only thing that is unique about Stapel is that he paid dearly for his wrongdoings. Take a quick look at PubPeer and you will find a lot of high-profile researchers who unlike him got away with allegations of serial data fabrication and manipulation, and are still serving as PIs in well funded labs, apparently poisoning the literature, disillusioning colleagues, just because their institution is not so keen on initiating an investigation.
Stapel has been punished, consequences were drawn. Its time to move on.
There is a German TV program that was broadcast on Sept. 18 (“Lügen & Betrügen” http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/?mode=play&obj=45341, lying & betraying) that includes much interview material with Stapel.
An honest liar is an oxymoron.
We have in academia a certain way of bringing out the successful to speak with and inspire our students. This may contribute to things like the bazillion kids who decide go to grad school and end up competing for 2 professorships and mostly languishing as post docs for infinity or dropping out. I like the idea of bringing in the unsuccessful to inform about the other side; however, couldn’t they just find a few folks who had worked honestly and after 14 years as post docs still didn’t have jobs that they were happy with? I fear that this will only inspire kids to not get caught, and not help that to realize that often times, even those who otherwise seem like they should be successful can fail and that certain job markets can saturate.
Stapel possesses an interesting (to say the least) combination of expertise, experience, and demise. The fact that he did not work honestly for a long time (but confessed, was punished and came clean: see e.g. book) makes him extra interesting person to teach a course on social philosophy (I do not think that he will only teach about his fraud, — for forty college weeks?). So far, he is the only fraud who confessed and is willing to talk and think about the why and how. Why not listen what he has to say? It is not that he is unintelligent (he was a tenured professor and dean). Perhaps he has interesting insights. Why not try to have an open mind, like Popper taught us? Why close our ears without even knowing what he has to say? Since when is it okay for scientists to be prejudiced and have a closed mind? Since we are afraid to learn that the type of science we love died a long, long time ago? Since when have we become enemies of the open society?
Note from Retraction Watch: We’ve had reason to believe that this and several other messages being left by “Paul” were actually posted by Diederik Stapel. Because “Paul” refers to Stapel in the third person, the comments may include a misrepresentation, violating our comment guidelines. We’ve emailed the person who left those messages, and he or she refused to say whether Stapel is leaving the messages. We therefore wanted to post a notice alerting readers to our concerns.
Without having personally evaluated him, it’s impossible to conclude if anyone knows the actual extent of his fraud. It is entirely possible that he has successfully manipulated many into believing his remorse, etc. for the secondary gain of obtaining positions like this. He realized that he was caught red handed and his only chance of profiting from doing as he wants is to play this game, AND he is specifically benefiting from his prior transgressions. He has clear primary gain for his apologies.
Perhaps he has insight? I’d love to listen to what he has to say, as long as it is entirely voluntary and free of gain. Otherwise we are rewarding him for his transgressions. Do we pay anti-social PD folks to talk to college classes about crime? His accomplishments are also questionable. Would he have been a tenured professor/dean without cheating? Lance was nothing more than a pretty average pro cyclist without doping. Maybe Stapel wouldn’t have gotten past being a post doc.
I’m not advocating not letting him speak or listening. I’m advocating not giving him a platform and money and playing into his manipulation just like I wouldn’t order another CT scan for a likely malingerer.
That “the type of science we love died a long, long time ago” is a position held by a radical postmodernist, social constructivist: science is just ‘one way of knowing’, we should be free to choose witchcraft and the like. We’ve heard it all before from those dreadfully boring knowledge anarchists. The position has been such a bust for the humanities that “the type of postmodernist that you still love died a long, long time ago.” I’m afraid you’ve got Popper entirely backwards, but doubtless would teach him as a postmodernist. “Normal Science and its Dangers” indeed.
Last time when I commentend on Stapel’s new activitiesI got a negative comment and thums down because I should be happy that he was not ‘radicalizing’ even though these previous activities were also meant to gain money on the basis of his crimes… I don’t see a difference in quality here. But it is true that the opportunity he now gets is much, much worse. And, of, course, he has not been punished so ‘welcoming him back in society after having served his penalty’ is not relevant here. It is true that he lost his job, but this amounts like a thief losing his bait – it is not a punishment. He never had to repay any research money and it is unclear whether he has truly ever done the brief community service he was comdemned to.
Stapel was punished, he did his community service (as he writes in his latest book), he is not on welfare, he is trying to make money with being a writer, a cab driver, a motivational speaker, but not very successfully, and .. it is totally unclear whether he gets paid for his teaching (no research) an extra-curricular hobby course (2 hours a week, not more, not less) and if he gets paid, how much.
Moreover and more importantly, we do not know WHAT he teaches exactly, we have not seen his syllabus. How can people write things like “this will only inspire kids to not get caught”, without knowing what the guy is teaching his students? Will he reach his students how to become fraudsters? Really? When you have read the two books he wrote after his demise, you cannot be conclude that this is very unlikely? Will he teach his students about all the other fakes and frauds and terrible things that happen in science? Perhaps. Is that bad? Perhaps. I think it is better to postpone our judgment about the CONTENT of all this as long as we do not know WHAT he is actually teaching. That would be a Popper-like, open-minded, rationalistic, democratic, scientific attitude. Suppose a terrible criminal comes up with a great insight, an interesting analysis, a new perspective, an amazing discovery, suppose (think Genet, think Gramsci, think Feyerabend).
Is it smart to look away from potentially interesting information, because the messenger of that information stinks?
Perhaps, God forbid, Stapel is able to teach his students valuable lessons and insights no one else is willing to teach them for a 2-hour-a-week temporary, adjunct position that probably doesn’t pay much and perhaps doesn’t pay at all. The man is a failure, yes, but he is one of the few people out there who admitted to his fraud, who helped the investigation into his fraud (no computer crashes…., no questionnaires that suddenly disappeared, no data files that were “lost while moving office”, see Sanna, Smeesters, and …. Foerster). Nowhere it is written that failures cannot be great teachers. Perhaps he points his students to other frauds, failures, and ridiculous mistakes in psychological science we do not know of yet. That would be cool (and not unlikely).
Is it possible? Is it possible that Stapel has something interesting to say, to teach, to comment on?
… No, we are scientists, we do not listen to failures. We do not like to falsify our beliefs. We do not like to update our analyses with uncomfortable hypotheses. We like to move on. No self-reflection please. Imagine.
Note from Retraction Watch: We’ve had reason to believe that this and several other messages being left by “Paul” were actually posted by Diederik Stapel. Because “Paul” refers to Stapel in the third person, the comments may include a misrepresentation, violating our comment guidelines. We’ve emailed the person who left those messages, and he or she refused to say whether Stapel is leaving the messages. We therefore wanted to post a notice alerting readers to our concerns.
Paul, if he is so remarkably ethical, and reformed, then then let him preach for free. There is nothing more powerful that a free message from the heart, rather than one that is being motivated by profit. You invoke God, so allow me extend it: Jesus never preached about values for a profit. So, I ask Stapel, would you be so “ethically” motivated to tell your story of fraud if you were not given financial remuneration for telling your tale?
Paul, thanks for your excellent comment. Omroep Brabant was welcome at Fontys to record parts of the first teaching session of Diederik Stapel.
.
I assume you are also the one who wrote on RW: “The KNAW overruled the young scientist organizers of the festival by threatening to pull back their money of the festival when Stapel would be part of it. (..). Now there is no in-depth discussion, no dialogue, no performance.” I assume you also wrote a comment on Ad Valvas (Paul, 17 september 2014, 16:09): “Waar is de KNAW bang voor?” Translated: ‘Why is KNAW afraid to be involved in an open debate / dialogue with Diederik Stapel?’.
.
Karima Kourtit, Peter Nijkamp and Jens Förster are good examples of scientists who refuse to talk in public about their scientific activities. Peter Nijkamp is fellow of KNAW. Peter Nijkamp and Karima Kourtit both refuse to provide other researchers with raw research data. Such a refusal is a violation of Principle III.3 of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice. Peter Nijkamp and Karima Kourtit don’t want to discuss about these topics with anyone. No way anyone is able to invite Peter Nijkamp and Karima Kourtit for a public debate about their scientific activities. So no open debate / dialogue with any of these three scientists about their scientific activities.
.
KNAW does not want to be involved in a public debate with Diederik Stapel. Even if such a debate is organized by students. Diederik Stapel is very willing to talk about his former scientific activities. Diederik Stapel presents himself as an ex-scientist. I tend to conclude that the Fontys Academy for Creative Industries in Tilburg made a very good decision in appointing Diederik Stapel to discuss with students about some of his ideas about science.
JATdS, why not ask him? He has a website with an email address. What I understand from his latest book is that he is hardly ever asked to give talks (for free or for pay).
Note from Retraction Watch: We’ve had reason to believe that this and several other messages being left by “Paul” were actually posted by Diederik Stapel. Because “Paul” refers to Stapel in the third person, the comments may include a misrepresentation, violating our comment guidelines. We’ve emailed the person who left those messages, and he or she refused to say whether Stapel is leaving the messages. We therefore wanted to post a notice alerting readers to our concerns.
Paul, I would be happy to contact him. As I am sure many others would be, too. Could you please provide the web-site. I will even invite him to join in the discussion about his promotion here at RW.
Google is, as always of help. I googled and found diederikstapel.com. Easy.
Note from Retraction Watch: We’ve had reason to believe that this and several other messages being left by “Paul” were actually posted by Diederik Stapel. Because “Paul” refers to Stapel in the third person, the comments may include a misrepresentation, violating our comment guidelines. We’ve emailed the person who left those messages, and he or she refused to say whether Stapel is leaving the messages. We therefore wanted to post a notice alerting readers to our concerns.
I don’t think being caught in scientific fraud should equal social death – save that for whistleblowers
I take it this will be a course on postmodern “social philosophy”: there’s no such thing as truth, really, science is just one of many ‘ways of knowing’, who is to say that empirical evidence is superior to beliefs that comfort us? Just like his fiction factory peepshow, and the way he handled being a scientist.
http://errorstatistics.com/2014/10/05/diederik-stapel-hired-to-teach-social-philosophy-because-students-got-tired-of-success-stories-or-something-rejected-post/
Where does it say that he will take a postmodern perspective…? I agree very much with Paul’s post of October 4, 2014 at 12:31 pm.
Of course you do, I think they’re called sock puppets?
I prefer to call myself independent. Anyway, in light of the comments posted about Paul not saying whether he is Stapel himself, I retract my support for his message. Still, I believe it does not make sense to fantasize about what Stapel will and will not teach without evidence.
Some extra context for those unfamiliar with the Dutch higher education system and/or unable to read the full ‘Omroep Brabant’ article:
The Fontys academy is an ‘HBO’ intstitution, not a university. This means that they can not give out degrees higher than bachelor level. Although it is of course possible that some of their graduates will end up in science, they are not training future scientists. As far as I can tell from the posted blurbs they are training ‘life-style concept designers’ (whatever that is).
Stapel does not have a fixed position but is employed on a ‘kind of freelance basis’ (quote from the Omroep Brabant article). His course does not count for credits and is being followed by all of 7 students (based on registrations after an introductory guest lecture).
Apart from losing his job Stapel was convicted to 120 hours of community service and forfeited his right to unemployment benefits.
The air on the moral high ground appears to be thin: DS is a free agent (who presumably has extensive teaching experience). If an educational institute, fully aware of who he is, wants to hire him to teach, then good luck to them and good luck to DS. The penalty for his wrongdoings did not include a ban on teaching.
They have a right to hire him, this doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. If I worked there I would be unhappy that they hired him to be my colleague. If I were one of the unsuccesfully applicants for a job at that college I’d be incensed.
Retraction Watch: Anyone who has read Stapel’s remarks before, his description of the fictionfactory peepshow, his interviews, etc. can spot Stapel’s comments and sock puppetry a mile off. I just wonder though, if you allow anonymous remarks, whether you have a rule about whose anonymity you will expose. On my own blog, and I’m really a newbie at blogging, I admit, I tend to feel that if I do permit anonymous comments, which I do, that I ought not to selectively expose. Thus I have never exposed anyone. But your blog is quite different and obviously has specific rules.Perhaps I should follow them.
Thanks for the query. Here’s what we’ve sent others who’ve asked about this issue:
Because, as journalists, we are committed to protecting the anonymity of our commenters, we cannot provide more details about our reasons to suspect why those comments were actually from Diederik Stapel. However, when we have reasons to believe that a commenter is violating our comments policy against unverified claims — as pretending not to be Stapel when you are actually Stapel would be doing — we will try to determine whether the comment is accurate as submitted. It would of course be reasonable to ask Stapel himself whether he has left comments on Retraction Watch as “Paul” and “nothingifnotcritical.” Perhaps you will learn more than we were able to.
See http://nos.nl/video/705292-diederik-stapel-weer-voor-de-klas.html for a short video of the first lecture of DS at Fontys.
Please note that Omroep Brabant states that students have initiated this serie of lectures by DS. Omroep Brabant states that these students wanted to get more insight in ideas, opinions and experiences of people who had a (very) unsuccessfull career, in particular because they get much training from people who had a very successfull career. See http://tinyurl.com/kgnfcu6
CVDolan, DS will have alot of experience in teaching students.
Contrary to many other scientists convicted of scientific misconduct who continue to deny what is often blatantly obvious misconduct, Stapel admitted to what he did. He lost his scientific career. He relinquished his PhD title, instead of, say legally trying to cling onto it for 10 years as Jan Hendrik Schön did. As far as I know, he did not threaten to sue anyone. He did 120 hours of community service. As long as he doesn’t do unsupervised research again, I see no problems with him teaching a course at Fontys.
He did not completely. He admitted to recent misconduct. He still denies committing fraud in his dissertation and also claims the outright fabrication of data only started in Tilburg (and p-hacking in Groningen) while there are patterns strongly suggesting fabrication already in his dissertation written in Amsterdam.
Stapel claims in the public media that, unlike all those other bad fraudsters, he has been completely open about his misconduct but that claim is not consistent with his own data.
Just clearing some things up, I agree with you that that should not prevent him from teaching.
Plus, in sock-puppeting here (allegedly), Stapel has undermined any claim to be an open, non-deceptive person now…
And he just resigned.
http://www.bd.nl/regio/tilburg-en-omgeving/tilburg/dautzenberg-te-controversieel-voor-fontys-stapel-neemt-uit-solidariteit-ontslag-1.4570388#.VDUsjmFlBL8.twitter
(Dutch)
His friend / co-author (of the book) got fired at Fontys for being too controversial and out of solidarity Stapel also quit.
Diederik,
Your cyber alterego Paul writes the following about you in third person:
“he is trying to make money with being a writer, a cab driver, a motivational speaker, but not very successfully, and .. it is totally unclear whether he gets paid for his teaching (no research) an extra-curricular hobby course (2 hours a week, not more, not less) and if he gets paid, how much..”
It scares me that you can write about yourself in such a way, trying to pity on yourself and create sympathy.
Apparently your alterego can distance himself from Diederik Stapel, evaluating his current status.
That makes me wonder who Diederik Stapel really is.
I thus doubt that you are really sorry for ruining the careers of bright young PhD’s under your supervision.
For that fact alone, I’d wished you would remain in total obscurity.
Regards,
A non academic
Another issue that scares me: Stapel’s other cyber alterego (nothingifnotcritical) remarked:
“So far, he is the only fraud who confessed and is willing to talk and think about the why and how. Why not listen what he has to say? It is not that he is unintelligent (he was a tenured professor and dean). Perhaps he has interesting insights.”
In addition to my earlier comment, I really doubt whether Stapel has any remorse about his actions with respect to the consequences for others.
So why not listen what he has to say, about the why and how ?
Well, because it’s already clear why he did it: Diederik Stapel is only concerned about Diederik Stapel.
His reactions, such as the above, under different alterego’s here only further strenghten my impressions.
Scary and sad at the same time.