Disclaimer mannerisms of students: How to avoid being labelled as cheaters

Abstract

Là où l'on trouve une règle, on trouve aussi des gens qui seront tentés de l'enfreindre. Or, on court toujours le risque de se faire qualifier de «déviant,» qu'on enfreint les règles ou non. Les examens d'université sont des événements hyper-réglementés où règne une atmosphère chargée de soupçons dans laquelle des moniteurs sont à l'affût du moindre geste, tels des sentinelles prêtes à surprendre le tricheur à l'oeuvre. Conscients des enjeux, les étudiants doivent éviter tout signe suspect et se protéger contre les conséquences extrêmement graves d'une accusation de tricherie. Les stratégies d'évitement consistent à «gérer» les impressions en opposant des dénégations aux regards soupçonneux. Les auteurs décrivent les comportements bizarres et apparemment paranoïaques adoptés par les étudiants lorsqu'ils passent leurs examens pour qu'on ne les prennent pas pour des tricheurs: le détournement du regard, le déploiement des livres et des notes, le choix de l'emplacement dans la salle ... Tout en s'intéressant plus particulièrement aux non-tricheurs innocents, la communication commente brièvement le cas des personnes effectivement coupables.Wherever there are rules there will be temptations for people to break them. Consequently, there is always the possibility of people being labelled deviant whether or not they do break the rules. University examinations are rule-riddled events shrouded in a 'suspicion awareness context' where suspecting invigilators are on guard against possible cheaters. Students, aware of this, must avoid all taint of suspicion and the dire consequences of being labelled a cheater. These avoidance strategies consist of impression management in the form of disclaimers. It is the purpose of this article to describe the bizarre and seemingly paranoid length students writing exams go to in: the control of their eyes, deployment of books and notes, and choice of space to avoid the stigma of being labelled a cheater. The emphasis is primarily on the innocent noncheaters but there is brief treatment also of the guilty.We thank D. Rennie, the editor and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This manuscript was

Little Dramas of Discomposure: On Doing Face‐Work with Disaligning Actions

“…retrospectively or prospectively (Hunter :157), either verbally or nonverbally. The great majority of aligning action scholarship focuses on repair work that is both retrospective and verbal, though a significant minority concerns prospective alignments, such as disclaimers (Albas and Albas ; Hewitt and Stokes ) or pretexts (Goffman ). This line of analysis has strongly emphasized acquiescence, how persons try to get in the “right light” with people after problems arise (or stay in the right light by preventing problems from arising), using strategies that “short‐circuit conflicts by providing situationally and culturally acceptable antidotes to problematic behavior.” (Young :292)…”

A Comprehensive Literature Review on Cheating

“…The expert cheaters for instance have an entire arsenal of countermeasures at their disposal. Albas and Albas (1993) detail an entire list of such countermeasures, many of which were used by cheating students to suppress the suspicion of faculty or proctors. For instance, students might utilize any of the following methods to manage their conveyed impressions:…”

Understanding Everyday Life: Generic Social Processes and the Pursuit of Transcontextuality

“…After considering three central foundational concepts (duration, intersubjectivity, and the processual self) for the study of GSPs, and framing symbolic interaction's extended interest in GSPs and transcontextuality, I now turn my attention to something of a research agenda for the study of GSPs. Analysts within the GSP tradition have given us a substantial body of literature relative to central processes such as: (1) constructing worldviews and acquiring perspectives (Haas and Shaffir 1987), (2) aligning actions and disclaimer mannerisms (Albas and Albas 1993), (3) stigma processes and social control (Goffman 1963), (4) achieving authenticity (Erickson 1995), (5) doing identity (Fine 1993), (6) managing impressions (Goffman 1959), (7) career contingencies and processes of becoming (Prus and Irini 1988), and (8) status passages (Glaser and Strauss 1971).…”