No abstract

Academic integrity and misconduct have been the subject of increased interest in universities and for the public at large. Many studies have examined cheating behaviours to determine which forms of misconduct are most prevalent, which students perceive to be most serious, which academic disciplines have higher cheating rates, and what factors influence a student's propensity to cheat. Such research has taken place in traditional colleges and universities where students study on campus and have regular contact with other students and educators. However, the increasing popularity of distance education has raised new concerns over academic integrity among students not on campus. This paper reports on a study that explored academic misconduct amongst the student cohort at an Australian university with an extensive distance education program. Using a survey instrument previously developed in the USA, students were asked about a number of types of academic misconduct, their prevalence, and their seriousness. The study found that distance students are far less likely to engage in academic misconduct. Reasons for this finding are explored within the paper.Distance education, academic integrity, cheating, Australian education,

No abstract

Purpose-Accounting standards are issued only after a comprehensive due process, which includes opportunities for external constituents to participate via public hearings and comment letters. The purpose of this paper is to identify stakeholders unique to government and evaluate the extent to which they respond to 13 due process documents issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The results provide insight into the comment letter element of due processwho participates, in what way do they participate, and why do they participate? Design/methodology/approach-Comment letters received by the GASB in response to eleven exposure drafts and three preliminary views (PV) documents from 2010-2013 were examined, and respondents were categorized according to Cheng's (1994) model as modified by Kidwell and Lowensohn (2011), resulting in the following 16 participant types: academics, budget officers, bureaucratic managers, state auditors/controllers, citizens, financial markets, elected officials, external auditors/CPA firms, finance officers, government accountants, government auditors, interest groups, media, professional associations, standard setters, and other governments. The authors next examined responses in favor of and opposed to for each document by group and responses by stakeholder group over time. Findings-The authors find that participants came from various stakeholder groups. Consistent with findings in different standard-setting environments, the primary financial statement preparersfinance officerswere the most frequent individual respondents; however, there was participation from a wide variety of stakeholders. Responses are generally constructive and relatively consistent in their balance of favorable and unfavorable feedback over time, with a few exceptions. Closer examination of comment letters in response to the financial projections PV document reveals both conceptual and practical considerations underlying respondent participation. Research limitations/implications-Motivations for participation were discerned from the letter content, but direct data on motivation was not measured, limiting the conclusions to apparent motivation. Future research might examine the extent to which comment letter content is incorporated into the basis of conclusions section of issued standards to assess the direct impact of comment letters on the governmental accounting standard-setting process. It would also be relevant to trace specific projects that advanced from a PV stage to the exposure draft stage to assess whether the proportional participation of these stakeholder groups is different throughout due process. Practical implications-The GASB has long been receptive to constituent feedback (Lowensohn, 2000) and can glean useful input from comment letters. By closely examining arguments impounded within comment letters, including conceptual and practical considerations, and by utilizing a more delineated understanding of the stakeholders in governmental accounting standard setting, the Board can be...