Journal of Academic Ethics最新文献

This research aimed to identify patterns, intellectual structure, contributions, social interactions, gaps, and future research directions in the field of academic integrity (AI). A bibliometric analysis was conducted with 1406 publications covering the period 1966–2023. The results indicate that there has been significant growth in AI literature over the last decade. The most influential publications focused on academic integrity violations such as cheating, plagiarism, and academic misconduct. The largest contribution to the field has come from journals that publish specifically on ethics and academic integrity. Studies in the historical origins of the field have focused on students’ cheating behavior. The thematic structure of the field has focused on academic integrity and its violations, cheating, academic dishonesty, academic integrity in the context of online education, research ethics, and research on the detection of academic violations. The trending topics in the field are academic dishonesty, especially plagiarism and cheating, and online education. The UK, USA, Canada, and Australia have been the most collaborative and productive. More research is needed to address the AI field in the context of new developments.

New technologies could facilitate new ways of cheating. This emerging scenario places academic integrity policy in higher education institutions as critical. Academic integrity scholars have designed conceptual frameworks to analyze academic integrity policy. The body of the literature on academic integrity policy analysis includes studies developed in North America, Europe, and Australia. However, insight into several regions of the world is lacking. This pioneering study in the Chilean context analyzes documents addressing academic integrity at forty-three accredited universities. Using a qualitative research design, we framed this policy analysis in the five core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy: access, approach, responsibility, detail, and support. The findings revealed challenges with accessing documents online, a strong presence of legal language that might not be understandable to all students, and a scarcity of information about review cycles. The punitive approach was prevalent, with a significant focus on students’ conduct. Signs of collaboration and mechanisms for promoting academic integrity cultures were nearly absent. The documents primarily targeted students and the roles of other stakeholders concentrated on the enforcement of sanctions and misconduct investigations. The analysis also showed the use of general definitions to describe academic integrity breaches, inconsistency across the system in defining plagiarism and a lack of guidance to address contract cheating and unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence. The findings also highlighted the unavailability of institutional support to teach, learn, and research with integrity or references to research-based practices. We propose twelve practical recommendations for policymakers and academic integrity advocates.

“Quality” refers nominatively to a standard of performance. Quality is the central idea that differentiates speech protected by academic freedom (the right to worthwhile utterances) from constitutionally protected speech (the right to say anything at all). Extant documents and discussions state that professional peers determine quality based on norms of a field. But professional peers deem utterances and activities as consonant with quality only in reference to criteria that establish meaning of the term. In the absence of articulation, these criteria are ambiguous. Consequently, there exists recurrent confusion about what faculty members have a defensible right to say and do. This article develops an ontology of quality in reference to higher education teaching, a component of academic careers generally not subject to extensive peer review and where instructors thereby exercise considerable autonomy. The ontology identifies three criteria that bound quality: constraint, context, and amplitude. Boundedness exists only insofar as boundaries are controlled. The article examines two types of problems in professional control that affect quality: slippage and overreach. Both are instances of organizational deviance and abrogation of professional ethics. It is argued that the patterns threaten the structural integrity and public confidence of faculty, fields, and higher education institutions.

This paper evaluates and critiques a recent restructuring initiative for a college at a Midwestern university in the United States in which three academic departments were reduced down to two departments. The case study presents the experiences and perspectives of three faculty members– one from each of those departments–who participated in the restructuring process. The paper first introduces the current challenges and complexities in Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) which initiate and influence restructuring efforts After laying out the context of our case study, we examine faculty perceptions of the purpose, the plan, and the process of restructuring through an interpretive phenomenological case study analysis using Putnam and Nicotera’s (2009) Communicative Constitution of Organization (CCO) as a theoretical framework. The findings are presented as three integrated themes including the importance of a clear and purposeful rationale, maintenance of consistent communication and organization, and an ethical commitment to faculty voice and choice. The ethical implications for each theme are discussed and recommendations for restructuring initiatives are offered. The results of this study will help inform restructuring initiatives in colleges and universities with a particular emphasis on characteristics of effective, ethical leadership and the value of strong communicative elements when engaging in restructuring.

Abstract

Personal data protection is an ethical issue. In this study we analyzed how research ethics committees (RECs) and data protection officers (DPOs) handle personal data protection issues in research protocols. We conducted a mixed-methods study. We included heads (or delegated representatives) of RECs and DPOs from universities and public research institutes in Croatia. The participants provided information about data protection issues in research and their mutual collaboration on those issues through structured interviews that contained closed and open-ended questions. Qualitative description was used to analyze open-ended questions. The results showed that 55% of the REC representatives were not aware who was DPO in their institution. Among RECs, 65% never contacted the DPO. There were 61% of RECs who reported that they received no training from the organization on personal data protection. When asked about barriers to personal data protection in their institutions, 26% of REC members highlighted the lack of a clear protocol for assessing personal data protection issues, while 30% of DPOs mentioned lack of knowledge among researchers about personal data. In conclusion, we found that when it came to protecting personal data in research protocols, RECs and DPOs hardly ever worked together. When developing future personal data protection policies for academic and scientific research institutions, it is essential that RECs and DPOs should collaborate and both continue to expand/update their knowledge on personal data protection procedures.

The global surge in academic misconduct during the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by remote teaching and online assessment, necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the multidimensional aspects and stakeholders' perspectives associated with this issue. This paper addresses the prevalent use of answer-providing sites and other types of academic misconduct, underscoring the challenge of detecting all or most of the student misconduct. Exploring factors such as faculty inexperience in remote teaching and assessment, the paper advocates for proactive measures to preserve integrity in education. Emphasizing the need for a culture of integrity beyond traditional classrooms, the paper reviews existing models, then details steps to create a framework using the International Labour Organization (ILO)’s TREE training method. It presents the IEPAR framework (Inspiration, Education, Pedagogical considerations, Assessment design, Response and Restorative practice), and assesses its effectiveness. Incorporating faculty feedback, the paper concludes with evidence-based findings, positioning the IEPAR framework as a robust approach for addressing academic misconduct and fostering a culture of academic integrity in higher education through responsible training of all stakeholders.

The evaluation of students in online education poses a notable challenge, primarily due to the potential violation of academic integrity caused by various forms of cheating during online examinations. This study aims to explore the perspectives of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners on the reasons for online exam cheating. The study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach and included 27 participants from three different educational contexts: universities, institutes, and schools. The qualitative phase of the study involved conducting comprehensive discussions using the Google Meet app, allowing participants to explore the factors contributing to online exam cheating. The results of qualitative analysis revealed three broad categories of reasons for online exam cheating: student-related factors, teaching-related factors, and assessment-related factors, each with sub-themes. Followed by this, a ranking scale was administered to the participants to determine the perceived significance of these categories. The implications of this study can guide the development of interventions and strategies targeting these different categories of reasons, ultimately fostering a culture of academic honesty among EFL learners in online exam settings. Also, this study contributes to understanding the reasons for online exam cheating among EFL learners and provides insights for promoting integrity in online assessments.

Abstract

The current study aimed to explore effective strategies for preventing cheating in online examinations by surveying students to determine their cheating strategies. A total of 406 Iranian students at BA, MA, and PhD levels in four programs, including English language teaching, English literature, Linguistics, and English language translation, participated in this study using a convenient sampling technique. The sample was drawn from 83 universities across all 31 provinces of Iran. The researchers developed a 30-item questionnaire and a 4-item interview to collect data. The results revealed that searching in PDFs and using social media groups were the most commonly used cheating strategies. To prevent this form of academic dishonesty, teachers used various strategies, the most effective being the use of conceptual questions and one-by-one oral exams with turned-on webcams. The main reason for students to cheat was their desire to perform better. The implications of this study are relevant for educational stakeholders, particularly teachers, and students, in promoting academic integrity.

This paper reports the key findings from two student surveys undertaken at our institution in the academic years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The research was based on the Bretag et al. (2018) student survey undertaken in various Australian universities. After discussions with both Bretag and Harper, we adapted the questions to our context – a Russell Group university in the UK – but included similar questions to enable a comparison, and to find out if there were common themes. The main aim of the surveys was to understand our students’ awareness of what is meant by the term ‘academic integrity’, defined as ‘being honest in your work, acknowledging the work of others and giving credit where you have used other people’s ideas/data’ https://secretariat.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/109/2022/12/academic_integrity.pdf. The responses provided an important insight into student attitudes to academic integrity, their understanding of academic malpractice, and their awareness of the penalties if found to have plagiarised, and if found guilty of contract cheating (Medway et al., 2018; Morris, 2018; Harper et al., 2019). The surveys also identified what students would find useful in developing their understanding of academic integrity, and this underlines the importance of consulting our students. Key findings include gaps in the information provided to students, the need for regular and timely reminders of the principles of academic integrity, and the need for guidance to be written using student-friendly language. The findings informed our recommendations in terms of teaching and learning at School/Faculty level and to policy at University level, to further support student success. In the context of the key issues raised by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Academic Integrity Charter (2020), we discuss examples of best practice currently undertaken at the University of Leeds, on-going discussions regarding developments, and our recommendations for further embedding a culture of academic integrity. We argue that all students should have the same baseline experience and therefore promoting this ethos is the responsibility of all staff who teach and support students.

Given the prevalence of misconduct in research and among students in higher education, there is a need to create solutions for how best to prevent such behaviour in academia. This paper proceeds on the assumption that one way forward is to prepare students in higher education at an early stage and to encourage a smoother transition from academic integrity to research integrity by incorporating academic integrity training as an ongoing part of the curriculum. To this end, this paper presents three checklists developed as part of the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership project Bridging Integrity in Higher Education, Business and Society (BRIDGE, 2020-1-SE01-KA203-077973). The aim of the checklists is to help students and their supervisors to bridge academic integrity and research integrity in research training. The checklists target master students, doctoral students, and their supervisors. This paper presents the theoretical background of the checklists, how they were developed, their content, and how they may be used in supervising thesis/dissertation work to promote a transition from academic integrity to research integrity.