Academics have called for an independent investigation into the Jason Arday affair that incorporates all universities implicated in the case amid doubts over how effective the University of Cambridge’s own probe will be.

�䲹���������岵�����󲹲� announced it will launch a new investigation into its former star sociology professor after weeks of allegations of plagiarism and fabrication. Arday, who has denied the claims, resigned from his post on 5 August following the announcement, saying the public scrutiny had become unbearable.

It is far from clear what Cambridge will be investigating, however. The initial plagiarism allegations against Arday surround his PhD thesis, which was awarded by Liverpool John Moores University. This institution has already investigated and found the academic had no case to answer.

On 2 August, Cambridge stated that standard practices mean “investigations are carried out by the institution at which the research was undertaken”. Some three days later, it confirmed it would go ahead with an inquiry following “new information about Professor Arday’s academic qualifications and honorary appointments”. 

�鶹

“It’s not easy to see what Cambridge can properly investigate now,” said Robert Dingwall, emeritus professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University. “Once [a] university has awarded a PhD, it’s not really up to another university to come in and say, ‘we want to dig behind that’.” 

Julian Sladdin, partner at Pinsent Masons law firm, said the university may be limited to looking at the wider allegations surrounding Arday’s personal life.

�鶹

“The problem for Cambridge is technically they can’t investigate whether those qualifications were appropriately awarded or whether there was any academic misconduct in terms of his production of his thesis in those cases,” he said. 

Wider claims made by Arday, including having run 30 marathons in 35 days and raising £5 million for charity, have received significant scrutiny in recent weeks, with many accusing the academic of fabrication. He has admitted some of the feats were embellished but has insisted he is not a “liar”.

If the claims are found to be false, they could be seen as professional misconduct because of “the reputational impact on the university”, said Sladdin. However, Cambridge would only be able “to assess those within the bounds of his employment relationship with the university”.  

Some also believe that others at Cambridge – and the university sector more widely – should be investigated over their role in Arday’s appointment.

“Investigating Arday alone was never going to be enough,” said Paul Sagar, reader in political theory at King’s College London. “He was given the job by senior people in the university. A real investigation would not just be investigating Arday, they would be investigating the process.”

�鶹

Arday “can only be held responsible for so much if he’s in an entire environment where he’s being…reinforced”, added Steve Fuller, professor of sociology at University of Warwick. “I think he’s kind of a victim of his enablers.”

Given the limitations on Cambridge’s ability to investigate Arday’s qualifications thoroughly and questions about whether others at the university should be looked at, some have called for an independent inquiry. 

It has been suggested that the sector regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), may be best placed to run this. 

�鶹

“We can’t see who else actually has the ability to go to multiple institutions and say, ‘we want to have a look at your practice’,” said Dingwall.

Sladdin said the OfS “could probably make a case for looking at it”, particularly given the public interest in the case, but it is unclear who it would initiate an investigation against. 

“There are a number of different institutions involved in this because of the fact that Arday’s awards were not from Cambridge, they were from other universities,” Sladdin said.  

The OfS declined to comment on whether it plans to investigate the case. Cambridge was contacted for comment.

�鶹

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com