Anti-corruption strategies often rely on limited and indirect data: national averages, expert perceptions, or general perception surveys. While useful for international comparisons, these tools rarely capture the concrete, everyday ways in which corruption operates. For practitioners and policymakers focused on improving governance in specific sectors – such as healthcare, education, or public procurement – broad indices offer little actionable insight.

To address this, our team at the Czech Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Ministry of Justice, developed and tested a new approach between 2021 and 2023: collecting individual-level, first-hand accounts from insiders across six high-risk sectors. The project received 75,000 euros in funding from the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic. The project provided a sharper, more grounded picture of corruption as it is experienced and perceived on the frontlines – as well as practical tools for diagnosis, comparison, and policy reform.

Beyond perception: A shift in how we measure

The study began in response to a clear gap: there was little understanding of how corruption operates in specific sectors in the Czech Republic. Aside from a few studies – mostly focused on healthcare – there was almost no research mapping corruption in domains such as education, sport, or public procurement. This gap was also felt by the Ministry of Justice, which was developing a new anti-corruption action plan and needed more grounded, sector-specific evidence.

In response, our joint team selected six sectors that were either known or suspected by the ministry to carry high corruption risks but remained largely unexamined:

• Healthcare
• Education and science
• Sport
• Public procurement
• The debt collection system
• Construction and land use

Initially, we considered narrowing the focus to just three or four sectors, concerned about limited access. But after a promising first stage of exploratory interviews, we decided to include all six. Each sector proved to hold distinctive and valuable insights.

What sets this study apart is its focus on insiders – those who are embedded in the everyday operations of each sector. We designed our sampling to reflect the internal diversity of each domain. For example, in the sport sector, we included clubs and associations’ representatives, coaches, referees, amateur and professional athletes, parents, public officials, NGOs, and even law enforcement.

Data were collected through three main channels:

• Over 30 in-depth interviews with sectoral experts
• A large-scale survey of more than 1,000 insiders
• 6 focus-group-style workshops

The hour-long in-depth interviews mapped out red flags and sector-specific corruption dynamics. The survey explored both direct and indirect experiences with concrete forms of corruption, and the workshops served to validate, deepen, and contextualise findings.

Respondents reflected on issues ranging from informal payments and favouritism to procurement rigging, regulatory capture, and the grey zones of decision-making. In the survey, those with direct or indirect experience received a more detailed questionnaire tailored to the forms of corruption they had encountered. As a result, some completed a short set of questions, while others – those exposed to multiple forms of corruption – provided granular, detailed accounts. As the survey was not designed to be statistically representative, we placed strong emphasis on open-ended responses – which, to our surprise and delight, participants completed in great depth.

We triangulated the results from all three methods, and as a result, our findings are grounded more in rich, qualitative narratives from the interviews, surveys, and workshops than in percentages and data points alone.

Gaining access and building trust: Keys to honest insights from insiders

Collecting honest insights into corruption – especially within small professional communities – is a sensitive undertaking. Our team spent considerable time and energy developing networks and building trust, to ensure the quality of their data. The joint leadership of the Ministry of Justice and the Czech Academy of Sciences gave the project institutional credibility, especially among public sector actors. In the private sector, we relied on gatekeepers such as the Czech Compliance Association, which helped disseminate the survey to vetted companies, and other professional associations who endorsed the research.

Methods of recruiting respondents to the survey varied widely across sectors. In some, official registries – such as licensed debt collectors, municipal building offices, or headteachers of public schools – made outreach relatively simple. For other professions, such as doctors, pharmacists, teachers, or professional athletes, there were no comprehensive databases. In those cases, we identified relevant actor groups within each sector and used targeted outreach and ‘snowballing sampling’ to ensure representation across roles.

One of the more surprising findings from the Czech case was how willing respondents were to openly disclose their experiences with corruption. Many were motivated by a desire to help shape more realistic and effective anti-corruption policies, drawing on their practical knowledge to identify blind spots and procedural weaknesses. Others, particularly in the public procurement sector, expressed frustration at being excluded from the informal networks where corruption thrives, which prevented them from competing fairly, and welcomed a chance to voice their concerns. A few others shared their stories with a tone of pride, describing how they had bent rules or exploited loopholes to their own advantage.

This paradox – where corruption is simultaneously condemned and admired – reveals why insider perspectives are indispensable: they not only expose where and how corruption takes place, but also how it is rationalised, justified, or even rewarded in professional environments.

A methodology designed for use – and reuse

While some types of corruption – such as favouritism or informal exchanges – occurred across all sectors, others were highly context-specific. For example, in the sport sector, respondents highlighted opaque allocation of public subsidies. In debt enforcement, the lines between legal procedure and unethical business practices were often blurred. These findings suggest that while some anti-corruption policies should be designed at the national level, others require tailored, sector-specific solutions.

Importantly, this was not just an academic exercise. The tools we developed – survey instruments, interview guides, and sector-specific typologies – have been integrated into Czech national anti-corruption policy. The Ministry of Justice has included the method in its 2023–2026 strategy, with plans to repeat the survey every 5–10 years. It is also referenced in the Czech Republic’s National Recovery Plan, particularly in reforms linked to data and institutional integrity.

Other countries could also adapt this approach to corruption measurement, although replicating it requires caution and contextual sensitivity. To succeed, our methodology requires institutional support, ethical safeguards, and a research team with credibility and – very importantly – access to respondents. The willingness to disclose – sometimes even to boast about – corruption experience that we observed in the Czech Republic may be unthinkable in more repressive or risk-averse environments. In many countries, concerns over retaliation, stigma, or professional codes of silence would limit significantly the kind of openness this project benefited from. Moreover, the forms of corruption themselves are shaped by national laws, administrative systems, and the design of anti-corruption policy to date. What constitutes an informal workaround in one country may be considered a criminal offence in another – or not problematic at all. Any future replication must therefore be locally adapted, not only in terms of language and outreach, but also in recognising distinct institutional realities and social norms.