The first Lab seminar of the second semester met on February 2, 2011. Instead of a formal presentation, participants reviewed material from the previous semester which they attempted to synthesize into a coherent conception of institutional corruption. Seminar participants debated various ways of framing the concept of institutional corruption, with particular emphasis given to the nature of the term "institution". The importance of defining the notion of "harm" and its relevance to the problem of institutional corruption was also discussed. Finally, participants considered methods for identifying the specific structures and patterns within an institution that facilitate the establishment and proliferation of corrupt practices.
The seminar opened with broad questions about the purpose of settling on a particular definition of institutional corruption. Is it intended to provide a means of communication, a vehicle for change, or simply something by which we organize our research? Participants went on to question the value of invoking the concept of institutional corruption in all spheres, wondering whether certain situations would benefit more from a different frame (for example, conflicts of interest in medicine). Others pointed out the importance of defining what it is that sets the concept of institutional corruption apart from other possible frames, and whether the distinguishing factor is independent of the definition, or embedded in it. The notion of "harm" was alluded to, and the importance (and difficulty) of quantifying and defining what is meant by harm within the context of institutional corruption.
Some participants pressed for further reflection on our understanding of the term "institution", noting that many of the comments assumed an institution to be a collection of individuals. However, it was suggested that the term institution may also apply to the abstract body of knowledge that is produced by individual researchers. If a portion of those researchers have been influenced by industry, it is the body of research that has been corrupted, but not necessarily the collection of individuals. This complicates our understanding of institutional corruption, as the corruption does not occur within an formal institutional structure.
There was some discussion about the differences between institutional corruption and individual corruption. Participants noted that in cases of institutional corruption, it is the incentive structures within the institution that are targeted, and the power of those incentive structures is such that it would be difficult to imagine an individual acting against them. Participants then tried to brainstorm specific examples of institutional corruption, in an attempt to identify common patterns that might serve to signify the existence of corruption within an institution.
The seminar closed with suggestions from the participants for future areas of inquiry. Opinions varied, and included suggestions for more theoretical, descriptive research, as well as calls for objective tool sets that could be used map the influences that are at work on individuals within institutions.