Professor Jason Arday, a former University of Cambridge scholar and the institution’s youngest black professor, faces renewed scrutiny following an analysis that has uncovered multiple inconsistencies and potentially fabricated elements in his academic research. The investigation, which reviewed five years of his work, revealed numerous anomalies, including questionable funding declarations, participant data that do not add up correctly, and suspicious attributions of participant quotes that appear to have been sourced from other researchers’ studies.

Arday, who has previously denied allegations of plagiarism and fabrication, was cleared in a 2025 investigation by Liverpool John Moores University, where he earned his doctorate. However, the recent analysis—supported by assessments from several academics—raises fresh concerns that parts of his research might have been fabricated. Two other scholars have publicly accused him of fabricating data in his work.

The analysis highlighted specific irregularities, such as discrepancies in participant numbers and demographic breakdowns that exceed 100 percent. For example, a 2021 study cited interviews with 17 participants, yet the demographic details sum to 18, and quotes were sometimes attributed to individuals outside the stated sample size. These inconsistencies appear across at least five separate studies.

The research samples Arday used consisted of black and minority ethnic students and university staff discussing race and mental health. Some of the participant quotes in his papers drew suspicion for their similarity to passages from studies by epidemiologist Anjum Memon and his colleagues. While Arday contends these quotes originated from his own interviews, experts suggest that reusing another researcher’s data as if it were original constitutes data fabrication. Columbia University statistician Andrew Gelman commented that no reasonable alternative explanation seemed likely.

Questions also arose around Arday’s funding claims. In one paper, he listed Mind, a mental health charity, as a supporter of his study, but the organization said it had no record of funding or commissioning research from him. Additionally, there is no evidence that Arday sought ethical approval for studies involving sensitive discussions on race and mental health, despite the involvement of human participants. Durham University, where Arday was employed when his 2021 paper was published, confirmed it had no records indicating ethical oversight of the relevant research. The journal Higher Education, which published the paper, investigated and found no breach of publication rules since ethical approval was not mandatory at the time of submission.

Arday reportedly mentioned in a July 2020 webinar that a participant had died by suicide and shared their quote related to “the violence of these racialised cultures” in academia. However, the corresponding published paper described similar quotes attributed to a male, mixed-heritage academic but did not reference the participant’s death. Arday defended this by stating that selective reporting is normal and that he has no reason to fabricate or exaggerate black people’s experiences of suffering in academic settings.

The University of Cambridge has initiated an investigation into Arday’s academic qualifications and honorary appointments following the emergence of new information, emphasizing that any inquiries into the research itself should be conducted by the institutions where the work was performed. Cambridge confirmed it has referred relevant details to those parties and is handling ongoing complaints under its Research Misconduct policy.

Robert Dingwall, a sociology professor at the University of Nottingham, noted that while some discrepancies in participant details might reflect privacy protections, such measures need clear declaration and justification, which appears lacking here.

Arday did not respond to requests for comment on the latest findings.