Institutionalizing Academic Integrity: Administrator Perceptions and Institutional Actions

Abstract

Issues surrounding student cheating and plagiarism are ubiquitous in higher education. Research has consistently found gaps between policies and practices on our campuses, a struggle for those student affairs professionals charged with institutionalizing the value of academic integrity. While the motivations and roles of students have been explored in some depth, there has been less research on the roles of faculty and administrators in managing academic integrity issues institutionally. Using a survey developed from institutional theory and academic integrity research, the authors collected academic affairs administrators' perceptions of academic integrity institutionalization. The results suggest the utility of a sharper focus on cultivating faculty as key change agents and reduced attention to students. The implications for student affairs and academic administrators are several including increased strategic attention to reducing obstacles to sucBrought to you by | HEC Bibliotheque Maryriam ET J. Authenticated Download Date | 6/7/15 10:47 AM

Table of Contents

“…Contemporary organizational approaches to student academic misconduct include the implementation of academic integrity policies, honor codes, or modified honor codes, and they are being implemented en masse. Bertram Gallant and Drinan (2006) found that 91 percent of surveyed institutions have some sort of integrity or dishonesty policy in place to address student academic misconduct. Aaron (1992) found a similar consistency across colleges and universities.…”

“…Several survey studies provide an initial picture of organizational activities and approaches (Aaron, 1992;Bertram Gallant and Drinan, 2006;Bush, 2000), and a few other studies have more deeply explored individual organizational efforts . We need more qualitative studies that can study and characterize organizational strategies for enhancing academic integrity.…”

Engaging Students and Faculty: Examining and Overcoming the Barriers

“…Alschuler and Blimling suggest that any approach would be a "long-term, multilevel undertaking" (p. 124). The challenge and scope of this task are further echoed by Bertram Gallant and Drinan (2006): "Institutionalization [of academic integrity] requires significant and intentional change in the beliefs, values, attitudes, and underlying assumptions of students and faculty, an extremely difficult task in the complex and diverse higher education setting" (p. 75).…”

“…While a punitive element in academic integrity policy can serve as a deterrent, this approach fails to address the variety of reasons why students engage in academic integrity breaches in the first place. In their study, Bertram Gallant and Drinan (2006) assert that the dominant management approach to academic integrity practiced by institutions seemingly involves reactive procedures that emphasize policing and punishment, as opposed to proactive measures that promote academic integrity as an ingrained community value. In this sense, it is perhaps not surprising that students respond more readily to the threat of sanctions, rather than the positive aspects of academic integrity, given that these aspects are poorly articulated by institutions.…”

“…In their survey of academic affairs administrators' perceptions of academic integrity, Bertram Gallant and Drinan (2006) found that over half of the respondents perceived faculty as potential catalysts for academic integrity change. These findings are suggestive of a certain administrative and instrumental responsibility that faculty members perceive for themselves.…”