Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities

Abstract

Academic dishonesty is a fundamental issue for the academic integrity of higher education institutions, and one that has lately been gaining increasing media attention. This study reports on a survey of 1206 students and 190 academic staff across four major Queensland universities in relation to student academic misconduct. The aim of the survey was to determine the prevalence of academic misconduct, and to investigate the extent to which perceptions of dishonesty are shared between students and staff, as preliminary steps toward developing effective strategies to deal with the academic dishonesty/misconduct problem. Results indicate a higher tolerance for academic misconduct by students in comparison to staff, particularly with respect to falsification of research results and plagiarism, as well as considerable underestimation by staff of the prevalence of virtually all forms of student academic misconduct. Overall, the study's findings confirm the significance of the issue of academic dishonesty within the Australian tertiary sector, indicating considerable divergence between students and staff in terms of perceptions of the seriousness and prevalence of student academic misconduct. We suggest that university administrators need to examine this issue closely in order to develop mechanisms for managing and curtailing the level of academic misconduct, since a failure to do so may lead to a further undermining of the academic integrity of the Australian tertiary sector.

Measuring attitudes toward plagiarism: issues and psychometric solutions

“…Without a thorough investigation of these questionnaires' psychometric properties, however, it remains unclear what construct(s) are being measured and whether the questions are measuring these construct(s) in a consistent way across respondents. Despite this, the majority of recently published Australian plagiarism studies omit any discussion of the psychometric properties of the measures adopted (Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke, 2005;Egan, 2008;Ryan et al, 2009;Sheard et al, 2002;Song-Turner, 2008;Yeo, 2008). Thus, despite the often-extensive sample sizes and potentially important results of these studies, the lack of reliability checks cast doubt on any interpretation of the findings.…”

“…For instance, Gururajan and Roberts (2005) found that no reliability checks were undertaken on the questionnaire instruments used in plagiarism studies in Australia. Further studies (e.g., Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke, 2005;Egan, 2008;Marshall and Garry, 2005;Ryan et al, 2009;Sheard et al, 2002;Song-Turner, 2008;Yeo, 2008) support this assertion. Each of these studies utilised survey instruments to quantify perceptions and attitudes toward plagiarism, yet the basic psychometric properties of the instruments used were not reported.…”

Academic dishonesty amongst Australian criminal justice and policing university students: individual and contextual factors

“…Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke 2005;Marsden et al 2005;Ogilvie and Stewart 2010). While research has been conducted on academic dishonesty amongst criminology students in the United States (Coston and Jenks 1998;Eskridge and Ames 1993;Lambert and Hogan 2004;Tibbetts 1998), to date no research has been conducted on academic dishonesty within the specific context of Australian university students within criminal justice and policing disciplines.…”

“…While research has been conducted on academic dishonesty amongst criminology students in the United States (Coston and Jenks 1998;Eskridge and Ames 1993;Lambert and Hogan 2004;Tibbetts 1998), to date no research has been conducted on academic dishonesty within the specific context of Australian university students within criminal justice and policing disciplines. This is unfortunate, as data from other countries with different socio-historical contexts may not be directly generalizable to the Australian context (Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke 2005). In addition, given the significant focus on misconduct and corruption within policing and criminal justice agencies in Australia as a result of government enquiries (see Lewis et al 2010), the lack of research into unethical conduct among policing and criminal justice students in Australia is surprising.…”

“…Academic dishonesty has a range of negative effects both at the institutional and individual level (Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke 2005;Clement 2001;Marsden et al 2005;McCabe and Trevino 1993). At the institutional level, student involvement in academic dishonesty has clear potential to diminish the reputation and integrity of universities and can also threaten the economic viability of universities situated within competitive educational markets (Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke 2005;Marsden et al 2005).…”