Response\u2014Corruption, Trust, and Professional Regulation

Kathleen Montgomery

doi:10.1007/s11673-021-10149-5

Abstract

In their 2018 article in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Little, Lipworth, and Kerridge unpack the concept of corruption and clarify the mechanisms that foster corruption and allow it to persist, noting that organizations are “corruptogenic.” To address the “so-what” question, I draw on research about trust and trustworthiness, emphasizing that a person’s well-being and sense of security require trust to be present at both the individual and organizational levels—which is not possible in an environment where corruption and misconduct prevail. I highlight similarities in Little et al.’s framing of corruption to the persistent problem of scientific misconduct in research and publishing. I acknowledge the challenges in stemming corruption in science and medicine and conclude with a discussion about the need to reinvigorate a web of stakeholders to actively engage in professional regulation.

Highlights

“An archeology of corruption in medicine,” Little et al (2018) do a superb job unpacking the concept of corruption and clarifying the individual and institutional mechanisms that foster corruption and allow it to persist
The authors highlight the centrality of trust to explain why such individuals would make this risky choice anyway
They begin with a generic definition of trust: The willingness of an individual (The Truster) to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (The Trusted) on a matter of importance to the Truster, based on the expectation that the Trusted party will behave in a way that doesn’t take advantage of the Truster, even when the Trusted’s behavior can’t be monitored or controlled. (625)

Summary

Defining Corruption

“An archeology of corruption in medicine,” Little et al (2018) do a superb job unpacking the concept of corruption and clarifying the individual and institutional mechanisms that foster corruption and allow it to persist. The authors highlight the centrality of trust to explain why such individuals would make this risky choice anyway They begin with a generic definition of trust: The willingness of an individual (The Truster) to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (The Trusted) on a matter of importance to the Truster, based on the expectation that the Trusted party will behave in a way that doesn’t take advantage of the Truster, even when the Trusted’s behavior can’t be monitored or controlled. Montgomery and colleagues clarify that trust is only possible when professional surrogates act in a trustworthy way (i.e., with competence, benevolence, and integrity that includes honesty, fairness, and transparency), as well as when they represent organizations and agencies that are deemed to be trustworthy This illustrates the essential link between professionals and organizations, another key element in Little et al.’s concept of corruption that emphasizes the role of institutional credibility. The pandemic (see the recent study reported by Johns Hopkins University 2021)

Corruption in Academic Research and Publishing

Findings

Takes a Village