ACADEMIC DISHONESTY IN NORTH AMERICA: WHAT DO WE
KNOW AND WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

by
Rupe Sunner
Bachelor of Arts in Criminology, SFU 2004
A MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

In the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Rupe Sunner 2011
UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
Spring 2011
All rights reserved. This work may not be
Reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
Or other means, without permission of the author

Approval
Name:
Degree:
Title of Thesis:

Examining Committee:
Chair:

Rupe Sunner
Master of Arts (Criminal Justice)
Academic Dishonesty in North America: What do we
know and what can we do about it?

______________________________
Zina Lee, Ph.D

______________________________
Darryl Plecas, Ed. D.
Senior Supervisor

______________________________
Irwin Cohen, Ph. D.
Supervisor

______________________________
Bill MacGregor, Ed. D.
External Examiner

Date Defended/Approved:

______________________________

ii

Declaration of Partial Copyright Licence.

The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to the
University of the Fraser Valley the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of
the University of the Fraser Valley Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users
or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational
institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
The author has further granted permission to the University of the Fraser Valley to keep or make a
digital copy for use in its circulating collection, and, without changing the content, to translate the
thesis/project or extended essay, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose
or preservation of the digital work.
The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly
purposes may be granted by either the author or the Associate Vice‐President, Research and
Graduate Studies.
It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed
without the author’s written permission.
Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any
multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by the author. This
information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the signed
Partial Copyright Licence.
The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be
found in the original bound copy of this work, retained by the University of the Fraser Valley
Heritage Collection.

University of the Fraser Valley
Abbotsford, B.C.

iii

Abstract
This paper presents an extensive examination of the past findings and contributions made
by scholars in the area of academic dishonesty in North American post secondary institutions.
The purpose of this major paper is to provide an understanding of what scholars have come to
know about the nature and quantity of academic dishonesty and how to best respond to this
behaviour. The paper begins by outlining the challenges with defining academic dishonesty and
what is understood about its prevalence. The paper then explores the common characteristics of
those who engage in academic dishonesty, why students choose to engage in this type of deviant
behavior, and what factors contribute to academic dishonesty. The role of technology is also
considered to understand its role in the evolution of academic dishonesty. Based on these
findings, the major paper concludes by offering policy recommendations that could provide a
framework for addressing this form of deviance in academia.

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank a few wonderful people who I have been
fortunate to have in my life, and to help me complete this major paper.

Dr. Darryl Plecas served as the senior supervisor for this paper and I am appreciative to
have had such an inspirational mentor who is constantly helping others achieve their dreams. I
could not have completed this paper without his guidance, encouragement and loyalty to
achieving my vision. Dr. Plecas is an extraordinary human being and an intellectual genius, who
I thank very much for being a part of this paper.

I would also like to thank Dr. Irwin Cohen who helped ensure this major paper was
completed to the best of my abilities. Dr. Cohen is an incredible instructor with an eye for detail,
who encourages his students to put forth their best efforts. I also thank Dr. Cohen for his
remarkable editing skills which helped me refine this paper into a well developed and polished
piece of literature.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my friends and family for their neverending love and support. It has been great to have the reassurance of my friends. My brother, Jag
and sister, Parveen are such positive influences in my life and they have insisted that I strive for
greatness, even in times of adversity. My parents and siblings have supported me through so
many of my life’s endeavors, and during this paper they were once again there to give me
confidence and support. With the love and assistance of my family, I have been able to achieve
countless dreams, including this major paper; I love you and thank you from the bottom of my
heart

v

Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...iv
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..v
Introduction……………………………….…………………..…………………..1
Chapter 1: The Definitions and Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty….…...…3
The Challenge of Defining Academic Dishonesty…………………………..4
The Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty……………………………………7
Chapter 2: Factors that Effect Academic Dishonesty……………………...…11
Why do students commit academic dishonesty………………………….…15
Chapter 3: The Role of Technology in Academic Dishonesty……………...…20
Chapter 4: Why Should Academic Dishonesty be of Concern to Academic
Institutions………………………………………………………………………..25
Chapter 5: How Universities Address Academic Dishonesty……………...….29
Chapter 6: Policy Recommendations for Proactively Addressing Academic
Dishonesty………………………………………………………………………...32
Honour Codes………………………………………………………………37
Valuing Integrity…………………………………………………………...38
Culture Change……………………………………………………………..39
Student Responsibility……………………………………………………...40
Knowledge Appreciation…………………………………………………...41
Instruction to Prevent Plagiarism…………………………………………..42
Faculty and Administration Responsibility………………………………...44
Organizational Change……………………………………………………..45
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusion………………………………………....48
Reference List……………………………………………………………………50

vi

Introduction
The majority of college students are involved in some form of academic dishonesty
during their post secondary education (Wowra, 2007). As a result, academic dishonesty is
considered an epidemic in universities around the world (Burke, Polimeni, & Slavin, 2007;
Desruisseaux, 1999; Embleton and Helfer, 2007; Polimeni and Slavin, 2007; Whitley and KeithSpiegel, 2002). Students are finding it easier, more convenient, and increasingly tempting to
jeopardize their academic integrity because of new and emerging technologies that contribute to
academic dishonesty (Stephens, Young, & Calabrese, 2007). Unfortunately, this has further
complicated the study of academic dishonesty. Most North American universities focus on
detection and punishment in order to deter students from engaging in academic dishonesty
(Gulli, Kohler, & Patriquin, 2007). Many researchers have indicated that academic dishonesty is
an issue that should be of great concern to universities, and society in general, because
universities have a responsibility to produce ethical and responsible students who respect not
only the work of others, but the reputation of academia (Burke, Polimeni, & Slavin, 2007;
Desruisseaux, 1999; Embleton and Helfer, 2007; Polimeni and Slavin, 2007; Whitley and KeithSpiegel, 2002; McCabe and Makowski, 2001). Moreover, society does not want to see immoral
students become unethical professionals who could potentially affect their lives as, for example,
a doctor or an engineer.
This major paper will provide an analysis of the research literature on academic
dishonesty in order to provide a nuanced understanding of what scholars have come to know
about academic dishonesty, who commits this form of deviance, its relationship to other forms of
deviance, and how to most effectively prevent and respond to this form of deviance. The paper

1

will be divided into eight chapters. The first chapter will highlight the difficulty in defining
academic dishonesty. While examining how often this type of deviance occurs within post
secondary institutions, it will become clear that the level of academic dishonesty varies
substantially depending on the definitions used. The paper will also include a discussion of the
different factors considered by experts to affect levels of academic dishonesty and who is likely
to engage in this form of deviance. Technological advances, such as the internet and the World
Wide Web, will also be considered as they have been identified as potentially fostering academic
dishonesty.
In order to further understand this phenomenon, the next chapter will explore the various
reasons why students engage in academic misconduct. It is also important to recognize why
academic dishonesty should be of concern to academic institutions and criminologists, more
specifically. Given this, Chapter Four is devoted to discussing the importance of ethics, morals,
and responsibility within academia and beyond. Chapter Five explores how North American
universities currently address academic dishonesty and whether these policies and approaches
are optimal. This will be followed by a chapter outlining the main policy recommendations for
post secondary institutions so that they can implement a proactive style of addressing academic
dishonesty. The final chapter of this major paper will contain concluding thoughts about
academic dishonesty and how academia and society might frame and rethink its views of
academic misconduct.

2

Chapter 1: The Definitions and Prevalence of Academic
Dishonesty
It is extremely important to properly define academic dishonesty. However, this has
proven to be quite challenging as there is no consensus about what specific behaviours should be
included in such a definition (Gilbert, Spencer, Pincus, & Silva, 2008). The challenge is that one
person may define a specific behaviour as academic dishonesty while another considers that
same behaviour acceptable (Brates, Davies, Murphy, & Bone, 2005). For example, behaviours
such as plagiarism, copying from someone else during an exam, stealing an exam, or buying a
paper would generally be agreed upon as academically dishonest behaviour (Gilbert et al., 2008).
However, actions such as copying a few homework questions from a classmate or submitting the
same paper for two classes are more ambiguous behaviours that may not necessarily be described
as academic dishonesty by everyone (Gilbert et al., 2008). There are also substantial differences
between what students view as cheating and plagiarism compared to what professors and
university administration define as such (Brates et al., 2005).
Within each institution, professors and administrative staff may also have different views
on the seriousness of various forms of academic dishonesty (Brates et al., 2005). Since there is
no definite objective list of what specific acts constitute academic misconduct, there is much
room for interpretation or the application of subjective definitions. For example, one instructor
may view a student who failed to properly cite within their assignment as an act of plagiarism,
while another instructor may choose not to report the same student because their interpretation of
the seriousness of the act is that it is a minor infraction or an oversight (Schmelkin et al., 2008).
Thus, there is much ambiguity in not only how academic dishonesty is operationally defined, but

3

how it is understood by students, faculty members, administrators, and researchers (Schmelkin et
al., 2008).

The Challenge of Defining Academic Dishonesty
In order to better define what should and should not be considered academic dishonesty,
some researchers have focused on studying the degree to which an act is considered dishonest
(Carter and Elliott, 2007; Schmelkin et al., 2008). After reviewing these types of studies, Carter
and Elliott (2007) stated that students considered exam-related dishonesty and plagiarism as the
most serious of all dishonest acts. Conversely, acts such as collaborating outside of the classroom
on homework assignments and failing to contribute during group projects were considered less
serious (Carter and Elliott, 2007). Examining studies that have addressed the degree to which an
act is dishonest also indicated that these acts of ―less serious nature‖ were the behaviors that
students engaged in more often (Kidwell et al., 2003 as cited in Carter and Elliott, 2007). In
effect, students were more likely to help someone cheat when the act was seen as passive and
less serious than actually engaging in the cheating themselves. It would appear that students
rated exam-related dishonesty and plagiarism as more of an active form of dishonesty and also
more serious in nature (Carter and Elliott, 2007).
Schmelkin et al. (2008) also concluded that there was much discrepancy when examining
and comparing faculty and student perceptions of academic dishonesty. For example, although
students found behaviours, such as getting exam questions and answers from another source
before writing an exam as a form of academic misconduct, faculty viewed these kinds of acts
much more seriously than students (Schmelkin et al., 2008). Faculty also believed that delaying
to take an exam or submitting an assignment by providing a false excuse was a serious and
obvious form of academic misconduct, whereas a majority of students did not consider these
4

actions are particularly serious or troublesome (Schmelkin et al., 2008). According to Schmelkin
et al., the definitional problems associated with academic dishonesty were combined with these
perceptual issues that served to further complicate the problem of academic misconduct
(Schmelkin et al., 2008).
In general, researchers have defined academic dishonesty as engaging in one or more of
the following acts: cheating; fabrication; plagiarism; and facilitating acts of a dishonest nature
(Pavela, 1978 as cited in Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2002). For example, Bruin and Rudncik
defined academic dishonesty as ―the act of cheating during tests, by copying from another person
or using pre-prepared notes, deliberate plagiarizing, or buying assignment papers‖ (2007: 153).
Within the definition of academic dishonesty, there are subcategories, such as plagiarism, which
can also be difficult to define and describe in its entirety. Yeo and Chien offered a relatively
simple definition stating that plagiarism is ―presenting the words or work of another person as
one’s own‖ (2007: 188). However, the authors noted that there was little consensus about which
individual examples should and should not be considered a form of plagiarism because of the
conflicting opinions among academics.
Again, the seriousness of individual examples has been examined by researchers in order
to offer a more reliable definition. Walker (as cited in Yeo and Chien, 2007) suggested the
following hierarchy of seriousness, ―sham paraphrasing, illicit paraphrasing, other paraphrasing,
and verbatim copying, recycling, ghost-writing, and purloining‖ (1998: 188). This definition is
very broad in scope and could include the most minor to the most significant infractions. In order
to provide clarity to this definition, sham paraphrasing occurs when material is copied verbatim
and the source is acknowledged and represented as being paraphrased, whereas illicit
paraphrasing is essentially the same act without acknowledging and divulging the source from

5

which the material was taken. Ghost-writing is another form of plagiarism in which a paper is
written by a third party and the student puts it forth as their own original work. Other
paraphrasing includes situations in which a student has copied material from another student’s
paper and that student is aware that their material will be copied, whereas purloining occurs
when a student copies another student’s paper without the student’s consent or knowledge. Selfplagiarism or recycling papers occurs when a student copies from another paper of their own,
perhaps from a different class. Many definitions have been put forth by various researchers;
however, academics have not yet adopted an exact definition and explanation of plagiarism that
is universally accepted.
Even a cursory review of the literature on academic dishonesty demonstrates that this is
an area that has been explored by many academics from the fields of criminology, psychology,
and sociology, and has been noted as a problem for institutions around the world (Gibson, Khey,
& Schreck, 2008; Yeo and Chien, 2007). However, it is extremely difficult to compare studies
because, as demonstrated by the above examples, each study defined and measured academic
dishonesty differently (Vandehey, 2007). Given this, one study may report exceedingly high
levels of cheating in comparison to another study simply because the researchers used a broader
definition than other researchers.
In effect, various self-report survey studies have found a high rate, but a wide range, for
academic dishonesty levels among students; the rate has ranged from a low of 52% to a high of
approximately 90% of the student population (Vandehey, 2007; Stephens, Young, & Calabrese,
2007; Lanier, 2006). It is important to note that this wide range may be due to various
methodologies used in the research or, more likely, different or inconsistent definitions of
academic dishonesty. Still, it would seem that at least half of students sampled in various

6

research studies reported engaging in some form of academic dishonesty. Most research studies
also indicated that a large majority of students engaged in at least one form of academic
dishonesty at least once during their post-secondary academic career (Vandehey, 2007). It is also
evident that there is a general consensus among researchers that cheating in post-secondary
institutions is rampant and on the rise (Carter and Elliott, 2007; Emleton and Helfer, 2007;
Stephens et al., 2007).

The Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty
Prevalence is the most widely studied area of academic dishonesty (Schmelkin et al.,
2008). The majority of the most comprehensive research on academic dishonesty among
undergraduate students has been conducted by Donald McCabe and his various colleagues
(McCabe and Trevino, 1996; McCabe et al., 2001; McCabe and Makowski, 2001; McCabe et al.,
2002; McCabe and Trevino, 2002; McCabe, 2005; McCabe et al., 2006; Stephens et al., 2007).
Important for research validity, the literature consistently demonstrates that the proportion of
students who cheat is much higher in self-report studies than in formal hearings conducted by an
institution’s administration (Coston and Jenks, 1998). Given this, greater attention should be
placed on self-report studies as this likely more closely represents the actual rate of academic
dishonesty.
The first large-scale study on academic dishonesty in post-secondary institutions was
conducted by Bill Bowers in 1964 (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001). This study had over
5,000 participants from post-secondary institutions throughout the United States and concluded
that 75% of students had engaged in at least one form of academic misconduct (McCabe et al.,
2001). The prevalence of academic dishonesty occurring in North American universities was
later studied by researchers at the University of Guelph who concluded that over half of
7

Canadian students engaged in such behaviour (Gulli, Kohler, and Patriquinet, 2007). Gulli et al.
(2007) stated that there was a severe lack of urgency around the problem of academic dishonesty,
even though a majority of students (53 per cent) reported engaging in serious forms of cheating
on written assignments. Moreover, in the same time period, nearly three-quarters (70 per cent) of
students self-reported that they participated in some form of academic dishonesty in the USA
(Gulli et al., 2007).
In general, Gulli et al. (2007) concluded that this type of unethical behaviour in North
American universities had been steadily increasing for years. For example, McCabe and Trevino
(1996) compared self-report surveys completed by students in 1963 to that of students in 1993
and found that the proportions of those who reported engaging in at least one form of academic
dishonesty increased significantly. For example, the proportion of students who admitted to
copying from a fellow classmate increased from 26% to 52%; those who self-reported helping
another student cheat increased from 23% to 37%; and the proportion of students who admitted
to using of some type of prohibited material during an exam increased from 16% to over 25%
(Gilli et al., 2007). Gulli asserted that the historical research on academic dishonesty
demonstrated that the number of students engaged in several forms of academic dishonesty has
been steadily rising over the last few decades. A key contributor to this increase has been the
availability of the internet. For example, McCabe’s research showed that 40% of US students
surveyed in 2003-2004 confessed to copying whole paragraphs from the web compared to only
10% of US students when the survey was conducted in 1993-1994 (Gilli, 2007). It is clear that
academic dishonesty has always existed, but it seems that the Internet and World Wide Web has
made it easier to commit such offences and, therefore, increased the number of students who
engage in academic dishonesty. The advent of such technology may also make academic

8

dishonesty more acceptable amongst students and, therefore, contribute to students being more
willing to self-report their participation in these types of behaviours, thus artificially inflating
comparisons with studies conducted decades earlier.
A study conducted in 1998 considered the prevalence of academic dishonesty among
undergraduate criminal justice majors at a medium-sized university in the United States (Coston
and Jenks, 1998). In total, 51% of the 102 students who took part in the study self-reported
participating in activities that violated their university’s academic integrity rules. Specifically,
the overwhelming majority of students (85 per cent) reported that they were aware of fellow
students having access to exams from previous years for studying and review purposes (Coston
and Jenks, 1998). It was also found that nearly all students (97 per cent) were aware of others
who had discussed exam questions and answers with fellow students who wrote the same exam
earlier that day. The study concluded that criminal justice students were very aware of acts of
academic dishonesty, that they had participated in a variety of different forms of academic
dishonesty, and that they planned to continue participating in acts considered academically
dishonest (Coston and Jenks, 1998). The researchers also concluded that enhancing ethical
decision-making was definitely required and recommended for students (Coston and Jenks,
1998). Furthermore, they asserted that ―fairness, honesty, and credibility‖ must be of vital
importance since ―justice‖ is an ideological principle of the criminal justice discipline (Coston
and Jenks, 1998: 247).
Academic dishonesty among business students has also received a great deal of attention,
primarily because of several well-published scandals committed by business elites (McCabe,
Butterfield, & Trevino, 2006). After collecting data from over 5,000 business and non-business
graduate students from various colleges in the United States and Canada, McCabe et al. (2006)

9

concluded that cheating was significantly higher among the business graduates. Although
students’ self-reported cheating was high in both groups, 56% of graduate business students
admitted to participating in some form of academic dishonesty compared to 47% of non-business
graduates (McCabe et al., 2006). Given these results, it would appear that academic misconduct
is a serious issue among graduate students generally.
The academic dishonesty literature is filled with prevalence studies that conclude that
academic dishonesty is an issue for all disciplines of study within all universities. It is also
evident that academic dishonesty requires an academically accepted definition because it is
currently a phenomenon that has various subjective definitions. Researchers are reporting
alarming findings in terms of how much of this deviant behaviour occurs and how often it
occurs. This chapter has provided the framework required to understand what constitutes
academic dishonesty and how often it occurs. The next chapter will further examine what factors
are linked to academic dishonesty and why it continues to plague universities.

10

Chapter 2: Factors that Effect Academic Dishonesty
There is a growing body of research that links participating in academic dishonesty to
several variables, such as gender, the major one is registered in, grade point average (GPA), the
probability of being caught and punished, peer cheating, a student’s perception of their
institution’s academic integrity policy and the social acceptance of it, perceived pressure or the
complete absence of an academic honour code, and situational characteristics (McCabe et al.,
2002; Carter and Elliott, 2007). It is important to identify and understand the nature and extent of
these relationships because many of them can be altered by the institution’s commitment to
academic integrity (McCabe et al., 2002).
McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (2002) found that academic misconduct was the most
prevalent at universities that did not have honour codes. While the notion of honour codes will
be discussed in greater detail below, university honour codes establish and clearly outline in
writing what the institution defines as academic dishonesty and what the institutional response
will be for such deviance (Vandehey, 2007). McCabe and associates’ (2002) study also found
that academic dishonesty was negatively correlated with perceived certainty of being caught, an
understanding of the university’s policies, and the perceived severity of punishment (McCabe et
al., 2002). In effect, it was concluded that specific deterrence functioned to reduce academic
dishonesty.1 The study also concluded that there was a positive association between academic
dishonesty and perceptions of dishonest peer behaviour. In fact, this was noted as the strongest

1

Specific deterrence suggests that deviant acts are avoided by rational thinking individuals when they conclude that
the costs of engaging in an act of deviance are outweighed by the costs of engaging in that act. According to this
perspective, the elements that are considered in this calculation are the chances of being caught, the severity of the
punishment, and the swiftness of the punishment in relation to when the act was committed. Simply put, the more
convinced an individual is that they will be caught, dealt with quickly, and punished severely, the less likely they are
to engage in a deviant act.

11

influence on whether a student engaged in academic dishonesty. This finding suggests that
universities should focus their attention toward creating student role models of good behaviour
and a campus culture that encourages students to keep their honour and ethics intact (McCabe et
al., 2002).
With respect to gender differences, a number of studies have concluded that male
students were more likely to commit academic dishonesty than female students (Brown and
Emmett 2001; McCabe and Trevino, 1997; Michaels and Miethe 1989; Whitley, Nelson, & Jones
1999 as cited in Lanier, 2006). Many studies have concentrated on the ratio differences of
cheating between males and females and discovered that males were more likely to engage in
this type of delinquent behaviour; however, these studies did not offer any information about
possible causes for this disparity (Gibson et al., 2008). Although the individual factor of gender
has received much attention, there is scepticism about whether it plays a role in decisions to
engage in academic dishonesty because other studies have reported no significant differences by
gender (Baird, 1980; Haines et al., 1986 as cited in McCabe et al., 2001). McCabe and his
colleagues performed extensive studies on academic dishonesty and concluded that, although
there was conflicting evidence, when students were examined within similar majors of education,
there were very small gender differences (McCabe et al., 2001).
It is no surprise that procrastinating and poor time management increased the likelihood
of a student committing some form of academic dishonesty (Pino and Smith, 2005). In these
situations, students must make up for the time wasted and, therefore, may feel compelled to
engage in academic dishonesty as means to complete assignments. Given that students who have
higher academic abilities are also less likely to procrastinate on assignments, they are less likely
to engage in academic dishonesty (Pino and Smith, 2005). Mixon’s (1996, as cited in Bisping et

12

al., 2008) research found that the propensity to engage in academic dishonesty decreased with
the student’s GPA and increased if the student perceived that academic dishonesty was prevalent
among their peer groups. McCabe et al. (2001) supported the conclusion that students with lower
GPAs were more likely to self-report cheating than those with higher GPAs. They determined
that students who participated in university athletic programs or various extracurricular activities
tended to self-report more cheating because these types of commitments involved large demands
on their time and, therefore, put additional pressure on the student to not only time-manage, but
to also remain competitive with their peers (McCabe et al., 2001).
A 2003 study stated that there were three main categories of factors that influenced
students’ decisions to engage in dishonest academic acts (NG et al., 2003). One category was
internal factors that consisted of learning inertia, poor study habits, individual nature, ethnicity,
fear of failure, poor confidence, and personal stress (NG et al., 2003). Secondly, there were
social pressures that included the need for a student to acquire social acceptance, to find a place
within a peer group, and to maintain not only their competitiveness, but also their self-esteem
(NG et al., 2003). Lastly, there were external factors created by the university and its
environment. For example, the university’s system of addressing academic dishonesty, the
unclear definition of what academic dishonesty constituted, unclear punishments, and the severe
lack of support for students to gain an understanding of how to study and properly cite so that
they could successfully maintain their academic integrity were contributors to academic
dishonesty (NG et al., 2003).
Unfortunately, the media attention that well televised scandals receive may potentially
have a negative effect on what students perceive is required to succeed outside of academia. The
information provided by the media contributes to a general attitude that provides values

13

conducive to engaging in academic dishonesty as the media reports on stories about ethical
transgressions made by our leaders in government, business, sports, and academia (McCabe and
Trevino, 2002). Well-televised and sensationalized scandals within companies, such as Enron,
WorldCom, Adelphia, and Toyota, have drawn a substantial amount of public attention to the
issue of how some powerful leaders conducted their business in unethical ways (Carter and
Elliott, 2007). One possible outcome from these types of media stories is that some students may
believe that unethical behaviour is simply the way the world works.
Perhaps this general worldview may help explain why a factor such as which field of
study a student undertakes can play a role in the likelihood of engaging in academic dishonesty.
For example, as mentioned above, several studies have demonstrated that business students
engaged in academic dishonesty more often than students from other academic disciplines
(Harris, 1989; Eastman et al., 2008). Other researchers have stated that this should be a critical
issue for business schools since what students learn is acceptable within their institution is what
they deem acceptable in the business community (Eastman et al., 2008).
The blatant display of unethical behaviour by some world elites has also brought
attention to the institutions that educated these individuals. Although academic dishonesty is an
issue within all disciplines of study, business schools have received the most media attention and
scrutiny. Researchers are asking what role educational institutions play or should play in
developing the influential elite of tomorrow (Carter and Elliot, 2007). Carter and Elliott
concluded their study of academic dishonesty of business students by stating that ―faculty and
academic institutions have a responsibility to nurture the ethical development of students who
will soon be entering the world of work‖ (2007: 471). The expectation is that post secondary

14

institutions should do a better job of governing academic dishonesty so that students learn and
understand the importance of ethical integrity before entering the work force.

Why do Students Commit Academic Dishonesty?
Academic dishonesty is a growing problem because students choose, for one reason or
another, to engage in this behaviour. Given this, academic dishonesty cannot be fully understood
or addressed unless researchers explore and identify the reasons why students engage in it. In
past years, several studies have examined what factors led students to cheat (Leonard and
LeBrasseur, 2008; McCabe, 2005; Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2002; Wowra, 2007; Stephen et
al., 2007; Desruisseaux, 1999; Lovette-Hooper et al., 2007). Leonard and LeBrasseur (2008)
concluded that since little was done against those who engaged in academic dishonesty, students
felt more pressure to cheat in order to remain competitive and maintain a level playing field
(Leonard and LeBrasseur, 2008; McCabe, 2005). Accordingly, students who may have honestly
completed their work chose to engage in academically dishonest behaviour because they
observed how easily so many students cheated and never got caught, and because they felt it was
the only way to remain competitive (McCabe et al., 2001). Thus, as students recognized the
consequences of being disadvantaged by their cheating counterparts, they were more likely to
engage in some form of cheating.
Other reasons students provided for engaging in academic dishonesty included external
pressures, unfair professors, and a general lack of time to complete assignments (Whitley and
Keith-Spiegel, 2002). University students have also justified their unethical actions through
sound reasoning. In other words, students essentially set aside their own personal sense of
responsibility and shifted the blame to other circumstances and/or people (Whitley and Keith15

Spiegel, 2002). Some students justified their actions by simply denying the unethical nature of
their actions. For example, students rationalized that plagiarizing an assignment could not be
defined as unethical because the instructor did not allow adequate time for students to complete
the assignment. In another example, learners may decide that the assignment was not going to
provide any useful skills for the future and, therefore, sought dishonest methods of completing it,
rather than expending the energy required because the assignment itself was viewed as a waste of
time and effort (Wowra, 2007).
As can be expected, for some students, simply attaining the desired degree becomes the
highest priority. This attitude can lead some students to forget what they are compromising in the
process of engaging in academically dishonest behaviour. It is critical for universities to
emphasize the importance of students maintaining the highest standards and adhering to
academic integrity policies (Stephen et al., 2007). However, this can be extremely difficult
because it is also evident that students will neutralize this obligation through an assortment of
―mechanisms or techniques, such as minimizing consequences, euphemistic labeling, displacing
responsibility, and diffusing responsibility‖ (Stephen et al., 2007: 163). These are only a few of
the tactics that individuals may use to completely avoid or reduce the self-recrimination
associated with committing criminal or immoral acts (Bandura, 1986 as cited in Stephen et al.,
2007).
In other situations, students do not feel the need to reduce these feelings because they do
not believe that they have committed any type of wrongdoing. Universities are an extremely
competitive environment and researchers who have studied the attitude of university students
have found that there is a belief that integrity compromising behaviour is a necessary and
appropriate component of the school environment (Wowra, 2007). Students will not consider

16

cheating on an exam as being unethical if they believe all students cheat and that they must do so
to remain academically competitive (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Wowra concluded that
university students viewed academic dishonesty as a ―functional way to operate in the world‖
(2007: 213). The motivation to complete school for a desired degree can often be more important
in a student’s mind than completing the work and being a legitimately educated and ethical
citizen (Lovette-Hooper et al., 2007). Many students are desperate to qualify for graduate
programs or attain the required credentials for the workplace (Desruisseaux, 1999). With leading
law, business, and medical schools admitting only a select few high achieving applicants, there is
a growing amount of pressure on students to perform consistently at the highest level (McCabe,
Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001). Brown (2002) also found that it was the norm for university
students to consider cheating as the ―American way‖. It seems that many students believed that
academic dishonesty was not a form of delinquency, but rather an ―academic skill almost as
important as being able to read and write‖ (Brown, 2002: 9).
It is important to note that there is also a portion of academic dishonesty that is truly
unintentional. In some cases, students are unaware that their behaviours constitute academic
misconduct (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2002; Stephen, 1994). For example, a student may seek
the assistance of a fellow classmate on an assignment intended to be completed individually.
Since many programs actually encourage students to work together and brainstorm ideas for
various projects, it can be confusing for students to differentiate between suitable and unsuitable
collaboration (Stephen, 1994). In other cases, students may be aware that certain behaviours are
prohibited, but they lack the skills or knowledge to avoid the behaviour. This can occur when
students do not fully understand how to properly cite a paper, thus unknowingly commit
plagiarism (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2002). This mistake is even more common among

17

international students who may not be accustomed to another university’s standards of
referencing.
Research has also focused on the reporting of academic dishonesty to explain why
students cheat. As mentioned above, many students have reported that professors and
administrators did not address academic dishonesty, thus creating a situation where students felt
that they had to cheat in order to compete (Leonard and LeBrasseur, 2008; McCabe, 2005).
Alschuler and Gregory (1995) argued that there were disincentives for faculty members to report
offences because of the exhaustive effort required to attain proof of the offense and formally
report students. The matter of collecting evidence, gathering witness reports, and having to
attend meetings related to the incident result in a lot of work for professors who may have other
teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities (Leonard and LeBrasseur, 2008). There are
also emotional consequences to professors and administrators, such as fear and stress, which can
contribute to why some fail to report academic misconduct (Vandehey, 2007). Professors and
administrators may also believe that there is a general lack of administrative support, or that they
will become involved in a long bureaucratic reporting/appeal process, and possibly even
litigation (Vandehey, 2007; Burke, Polimeni, & Slavin, 2007; McCabe et al., 2001).
Given this, many faculty members will ignore cheating in order to avoid the potentially
stressful and exhaustive institution reporting procedures (Leonard and LeBrasseur, 2008). When
addressing an incident of academic misconduct, Carter and Elliott (2007) noted a study (Nuss,
1984, as cited in Carter and Elliott, 2007) that found that 39% of faculty members would report
an offence, 34% would simply lower the assignment grade, and 26% would provide the student
with a reprimanding warning. It is evident that faculty members often avoid formally charging

18

students which can contribute to students feeling that either they should engage in academic
dishonesty or that this is not a serious have no choice but to engage in academic misconduct.
It is clear that students provide a variety of reasons for their engagement in academic
dishonesty. Many of these reasons, such as lack of reporting by faculty, lack of consequences
from the institution, and the lack of knowledge on the part of students, are all causes that can be
addressed by universities. Factors, such as peer cheating, students’ perception of academic
integrity policy, the social acceptance of academic dishonesty, perceived pressure of an academic
honour code, and situational characteristics, are also factors that universities have a large degree
of control over. Therefore, these factors should not only be further researched, but also directly
and specifically addressed by post secondary institutions. Some recommendations for doing this
will be provided below. However, one of the most significant, and difficult to control, factors
effecting academic dishonesty is technology. This issue is the focus of the next chapter.

19

Chapter 3: The Role of Technology in Academic
Dishonesty
Revolutionary changes in technology have served to further the problem of academic
dishonesty (Simon et al., 2004; Carter and Elliot, 2007; Eastman, Eastman, & Iyer, 2008). The
World Wide Web and Internet have allowed students to easily share and obtain information
(Carter and Elliot, 2007). This claim is supported by the positive correlation between academic
dishonesty and the increased use of technology in post secondary institutions (Harper, 2006).
The Center for Academic Integrity concluded that the number of college students who have
utilized ―cutting and pasting‖ to incorporate unattributed pieces of text into their papers
increased from 10% to 40% over the course of five years (Etter, Cramer, & Seth, 2006). Students
can easily use internet search engines, such as Google or Bing, to find hundreds of websites that
provide academic papers for nominal fees (Descuisseaux, 1995). The ability to locate and
retrieve previously written academic papers at the touch of a couple keystrokes makes these
highly lucrative options a very large problem for academic institutions. Students can also
participate in online discussion forums where they may ask proficient learners or experts
particular questions and than simply incorporate these responses into their assignment without
acknowledging the received assistance or source of assistance (Akbulut et al., 2007).
The challenge is that various digital technologies, such as the internet and personal digital
assistants (PDAs), are wonderful innovative tools that have played a major role in advancing
communication and education (Stephens, Young, & Calabrese, 2007). The Internet is an
especially powerful tool as it provides the entire sum of human knowledge in an extremely
accessible form (Storm and Storm, 2207). The sheer volume of information available is unlike
that in any other time in human history. However, it becomes problematic when students do not
20

receive the vital training required to ensure the development of appropriate ethical behaviour
while being online. Detecting and monitoring student behaviour becomes even more difficult
with online courses where there is very little or no personal interaction between the student and
professor (Stephens et al., 2007). Elementary and Secondary schools often go to great lengths to
ensure that all students have access to and the ability to use the internet (Storm and Strom, 2007).
This is certainly important; however, Storm and Storm (2007) asserted that this online
enthusiasm is not always combined with the necessary training to ensure that students also
understand the importance of ethics while being online. Unfortunately, it is routine for young
adults to illegally download material without consideration of the ethical and legal consequences
of this behaviour. In fact, it could be argued that this behaviour is generally accepted as
normative among students. This lack of education, awareness, and training in online searching
and downloading can result in a substantial proportion of students not exercising good ethical
behaviour while online. Storm and Storm (2007) stated that universities must develop policy
initiatives that require them to accept responsibility for educating students about how to be
ethical in an internet society.
Technological advancements have led many scholars to suggest ways to address
technologies effect on academic dishonesty. For example, Michelle Conlin (2007) has suggested
that in a ―wired world‖ it may be necessary to think about changing what we consider ―cheating‖
to ―postmodern learning‖. Conlin stated that the current generation has grown up watching
illegally downloaded movies and listening to downloaded music and, as a result, may have a
very different view of sharing material than students of previous generations. Complicating this
issue, students often receive mixed messages from educational institutions and employment
corporations. For example, universities emphasize teamwork, even though students are graded

21

and ranked individually. When students graduate and enter the interdependent world, they are
again asked to make an adjustment because their success essentially depends on their ability to
creatively collaborate with others, while promotions and professional successes are more
commonly individually based.
To adjust to this reality, the Stanford University Design School has embraced the idea of
an adaptive thinking style by making their programs highly collaborative (Conlin, 2007). In part,
they did this to address the academic dishonesty that occurs due to information sharing between
their students. Professor Sutton stated that ―it would be impossible to cheat‖ and ―if you found
somebody to help you write an exam, in our view, that’s a sign of an inventive person who gets
stuff done‖ (Conlin, 2007: 42). He asks the question: ―one group of students got the police to
help them with a school project to build a roundabout where there were a lot of bicycle accidents.
Is that cheating?‖ (Conlin, 2007: 42). While certainly an extreme example, it exemplifies how
one school has chosen to adapt to a student body that is constantly online and thinks very
differently about the distinction between collaboration and academic dishonesty.
For Conlin, universities need to accept that certain types of technologies have
transformed academic dishonesty into a ―normal social fact‖ of the post secondary environment
(Garland, 1996: 446). Academic dishonesty is not going to completely disappear and, for most
people, it is not an unexpected, abnormal event. Professors, students, and university
administration realize that this type of behaviour occurs in post secondary institutions. The view
of Conlin and others is that instead of attempting to eliminate it altogether, some forms of
academic dishonesty should simply be accepted as a new form of learning. In essence,
universities would ―define deviance down‖ by lessening the degree to which academic
dishonesty offences are condemned and punished (Garland, 1996: 456). For example, in this

22

context, behaviours, such as students working together to complete a take-home exam would not
be viewed as inappropriate collaboration constituting academic dishonesty. Still, this ―defining
deviance down‖ adaptation would have to be carefully performed in order to ensure that it is
balanced with maintaining the integrity of academia (Garland, 1996).
Conlin did not take the position that educational institutions no longer needed to deal
with ethical rule breaking. Instead, she suggested that with so much information sharing going
on, there may be a need for a change in the definition of academic dishonesty (Conlin, 2007).
Perhaps working with other students on take-home exams should not be considered a form of
cheating, but rather a form of ―postmodern learning‖ in a society that thrives on information
sharing (Conlin, 2007). This suggestion demonstrates the influence of technologies, like the
internet and World Wide Web, on students and academia. It further suggests how accepting
certain types of behaviour currently defined as unethical may be a necessary part of addressing
the issue and adapting to the ways in which students and professionals conduct their behaviour.
In effect, normalizing academic dishonesty acts that involve information sharing as the key
unethical component may require a perception change. Considering how much has changed
because of new technologies, universities may decide to and/or need to adopt this type of
adaptive strategy.
In addition to the internet, electronic devices, such as cell phones, iPods, calculators, and
PDAs have also increased the amount of cheating in universities by allowing students to more
easily access and conceal material prohibited during exams (Burke, Polimeni, & Slavin, 2007;
Stephens et al., 2007). For example, a student may save formulas for a math exam, terms for a
biology exam, or dates for a history exam on their calculator or iPod and access this information
clandestinely during the exam. Cell phones are also problematic because they give students the

23

ability to text answers to one another, look for answers on the internet by using their wireless
services, and take pictures of exams for those who are writing at later times (Burke et al., 2007).
These acts of academic dishonesty can be especially difficult for instructors to detect and provide
proof of in order to charge the student with misconduct (Embleton and Helfer, 2007). If students
are allowed calculators during an exam, it is difficult to monitor what extra information is stored
on them. As mentioned above, cell phones can be problematic as they are also readily concealed
and can easily be used for cheating without detection.
It is important to note that universities may obtain the added support of the government,
with respect to internet plagiarism, as cases could involve the criminal justice system. For
example, cyber law proposals that serve to define offenses and the penalties warranted are
beginning to emerge as government agenda items (Strom and Strom, 2007). Therefore, it is
possible that instances of academic misconduct become cases dealt with in the courts, rather than
the academic environment. If such a change is to occur, it would aid universities in further
emphasizing to their students the importance of being responsible and ethical while being online
and the seriousness of committing violations of academic standard codes.
Technology has certainly played a significant role in furthering academic dishonesty, and
academic institutions must design processes to prevent and respond to the emerging role of
technology in academic dishonesty. As discussed, many scholars have studied the contribution of
technology to academic dishonesty and offered solutions to deal with the growing challenges
posed by tools like the internet and the World Wide Web. In effect, addressing technological
advances will aid in counteracting the phenomenon of academic dishonesty. Through research
and understanding, changes can be implemented to better address academic dishonesty so fewer
students feel that this is either an acceptable or required behaviour. Academic dishonesty will

24

persist within academic institutions unless serious and systematic efforts are made to understand
it, explain it to students and faculty, and develop strategies to control it.

25

Chapter 4: Why Should Academic Dishonesty be of
Concern to Academic Institutions?
Post secondary institutions are expected to aid in the development of responsible and
ethical students who understand the importance of academic integrity and respecting the work of
fellow scholars (Gulli et al., 2007). The degrees that universities award provide the notice that
the student has completed the number of required credits, and that the student has been tested
and considered suitable by the appropriate authorities for attaining that degree (Gulli et al.,
2007). However, the value of any degree is completely debased if it is achieved by academically
dishonest means. Universities have a responsibility to emphasize the importance of ethics,
morals, and responsibility (Gulli et al., 2007).
As mentioned above, one of the long-term consequences of adopting academically
dishonest values in school is that it may lead to unethical behaviour in the student’s future line of
work (Granitz and Loewy, 2007; Wowra, 2007). It is logical to question if participation in one
form of deviance, such as cheating, has the potential to lead to participation in other forms of
deviance in other areas, such as stealing from the workplace (Harding et al., 2004). Many
scholars have found that there is a correlation between academic dishonesty and other forms of
deviant behaviour, such as cheating on income taxes or shoplifting (Trevor et al., 2004). Such
findings suggest that there may be some common factors that lead individuals to commit a wide
range of deviant behaviours (Trevor et al., 2004).
It is also important to consider that the skills and knowledge that a student develops in
their post-secondary years are part of the foundation that they carry into their professional lives
(Austin, Simpson, & Reynen, 2005). Researchers have argued that the moral values of a
profession are initially shown, practiced, and internalized by a student during their formal
26

schooling (Austin, Simpson, & Reynen, 2005). Many studies have suggested that engaging in
academic dishonesty could predict of future unethical behaviours (Austin et al., 2005). A 2004
exploratory study conducted by Harding et al. examined the relationship between academic
dishonesty in high school and college, and unethical behaviour while employed among a sample
of engineering students. The study found that there appeared to be a strong relationship between
participants who self-reported engaging in academic dishonesty while a student and participating
in dishonest behaviour in the workplace (Trevor et al., 2004). In effect, cheating during post
secondary education predicted future unethical behaviour in the workplace.
Unfortunately, universities function in an environment in which custom-ordered graduate
dissertations can be purchased online (Embleton and Helfer, 2007). One of the consequences of
this is that future professionals, administrators, and professors may hold undergraduate and
graduate degrees that were obtained through academically dishonest means (Embleton and
Helfer, 2007). In addition to the challenges associated with people obtaining tenure or important
jobs without the required skills or knowledge, these people may also be teaching and/or training
the next generation of leaders or scholars. Of concern, there may be a transfer of values that does
not include the importance of achieving academic success through responsible and ethical
means.
Educational institutions produce ―the doctors who will heal us, the engineers who will
build our bridges and the CEO’s who will generate our wealth‖ (Gulli et al., 2007: 32). The
persistence of dishonest behaviour is problematic when considering the importance of many
occupations and the likelihood that some of these positions will be filled by students who
engaged in unethical practices while obtaining their degrees or credentials (Carter and Elliott,
2007). For example, taking shortcuts and rule breaking as an engineer or a medical surgeon

27

could have life threatening outcomes (Wowra, 2007). A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine
article suggested that doctors who were disciplined by their state medical boards were three
times more likely to have engaged in some form of unprofessional conduct while attending
medical school (Gulli et al., 2007). A 2001 study published by the Journal of Education for
Business studied the attitudes of business students and concluded that those who participated in
academically dishonest behaviour in their post secondary careers were more likely to continue
committing dishonest behaviour in their professional lives (Gulli et al., 2007).
In the fields of criminology and criminal justice, principles of fairness and justice are key
principles and, given the issues and consequences for people when dealing with agents of
criminal justice, fairness, truthfulness, and trustworthiness are of critical importance (Coston and
Jenks, 1998). Thus, it is imperative that students receive moral and ethical decision making skills
while in the post secondary setting. Coston and Jenks (1998) emphasized that criminal justice
students hold the highest standard of ethical behaviour because they will become our future
agents of criminal justice, policy makers, practitioners, researchers, and academics. The
underlying thought is that understanding and enhancing the honesty and fairness of these
students will aid researchers to better understand and enhance ethical decision making within the
field of criminal justice.
Researchers have also found that deceitful and dishonest attitudes associated with
academic dishonesty often find their way into other areas life (Blankenship and Whitley, 2000 as
cited in Lovett-Hooper et al., 2007). Students who engaged in academically dishonest acts selfreported that they could see themselves participating in ―illegal, risky, and rule-violating
behaviours, such as getting a speeding ticket, cheating on a spouse/romantic partner, being
arrested for drinking and driving, or calling in sick to work (Blankenship and Whitley, 2000 as

28

cited in Lovett-Hooper et al., 2007: 332). Although the study did not conclude that academic
dishonesty was causally related to such acts, there was a connection between academic
misconduct and future misconduct. The study’s correlational analysis indicated that there was a
significant positive relationship between students who committed academic dishonesty and those
who saw themselves engaging in norm/rule violating behaviour in the future (Lovett-Hooper et
al., 2007). The regression analyses also indicated that it was possible to expect those who
violated ethical rules in college to do so in other areas of their lives in the future (Lovett-Hooper
et al., 2007).
Academic dishonesty is a growing epidemic in North American universities (Alschuler
and Blimiling, 1995; Desruisseaux, 1999; Embleton and Helfer, 2007; Etter, Cramer, & Seth,
2007). Institutions cannot simply ignore this problem because it will have a detrimental effect on
the reputation and nature of academia (Simon et al., 2004). Ethics and a high level of respect for
a fellow scholar’s work are essential components of the academia. Given this, its credibility and
value are jeopardized if unethical or dishonest behaviour persists (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel,
2002). It is also disturbing to consider what the possibilities could be if unethical students
produce unethical society member and/or professionals. As mentioned above, some scholars
have suggested that there is a link between those who behave unethically in school and those
who behave unethically in the work place (Granitz and Loewy, 2007; Wowra, 2007). The
ramifications of ignoring or not adequately addressing academic dishonesty in universities and
colleges could be serious for society. Post secondary institutions help educate and mould the
future elites and, therefore, it is very important for researchers to examine if and how these
institutions address academic dishonesty. This issue will be the focus of the next chapter.

29

Chapter 5: How Universities Address Academic
Dishonesty
Universities must ensure that their campus community members behave appropriately;
therefore, they establish policies and guidelines. Within these rules, universities stipulate that
academic dishonesty is a prohibited and punishable behaviour. Most Canadian universities have
the expectation that students are not only to know their university’s policy regarding various
forms of misconduct, but that they also know that they will be held accountable for any
violations. Students are to act responsibly and equip themselves with the information and tools
required to maintain their academic integrity.
A majority of North American universities currently address academic dishonesty
through policies that focus on detection and punishment to deter students from engaging in such
behaviour (Gulli, Kohler, & Patriquin, 2007). However, faculty members do not always follow
the procedures for reporting which result in a large proportion of incidents not being addressed at
all. While detection and punishment is important, some researchers have argued that this
approach does not address the root causes of the problem with the intention that fewer offences
occur (Granitz and Loewy, 2006). In effect, institutions are reacting to the problem, rather than
attempting to prevent the problem (Granitz and Loewy, 2006).
Considering the quantity of incidents and the rising general trend, it seems that the
current approach is inadequate and substandard in counteracting academic dishonesty. Some post
secondary institutions have attempted to combat unethical behaviour by increasing the severity
of punishment (Granitz and Loewy, 2006). These initiatives are focused on sending a clear
message to students who may contemplate engaging in academic dishonesty. The intention of
this approach is that fewer students will choose to violate the rules if they are aware of and fear
30

the severe ramifications. This is coupled with the notion that imposing harsh punishments on one
student will also deter other students from personally engaging in dishonest acts (Granitz and
Loewy, 2006). The underlying perception is that students who see their fellow students facing
harsh penalties will be deterred. Although this approach may seem promising, researchers have
found that the severity of punishment is not related to a student’s decision to engage in cheating,
and that it does not affect academic dishonesty recidivism rates (Gulli, Kohler, & Patriquin,
2007).
Some authors have talked about a ―war against academic dishonesty‖ approach similar to
the ―war on drugs‖ approach in which there are no limitations (Garland, 1996: 448). In this
approach, success is achieved when universities no longer have students who commit academic
dishonesty. However, it seems unlikely that there will be a time in the foreseeable future in
which no students engage in academic dishonesty. Still, declining statistics could be used as a
benchmark for how universities are doing in preventing and responding to instances of academic
misconduct. For example, it may be beneficial to look at how many students re-offend after
having to complete a university’s academic integrity workshop. Another approach might be to
devise a classification system that would categorize the various types of academic dishonesty by
severity and concentrate on decreasing the most serious types. Perhaps it is overzealous and
unrealistic to strive for the complete eradication of all forms of academic dishonesty and strive,
for example, for an environment that has virtually no students purchasing papers. It may also be
appropriate to discuss and evaluate how many students have formed a strong bond to their
university and their own ethics in order to see if there has been progress.
Academic dishonesty is certainly an issue that North American universities are aware of
and attempting to address. It is apparent that a majority of institutions have adopted a reactive

31

style of dealing with these types of infractions. There will always be a need for evaluation and
improvement to ensure that the best approach is implemented. There is no guarantee that
academic dishonesty will be eradicated, but there is vast potential for better controlling it and
addressing it. The next chapter will discuss alternative policy recommendations that are worth
consideration as they may be advantageous in trying to prevent academic dishonesty.

32

Chapter 6: Policy Recommendations for Proactively
Addressing Academic Dishonesty
Instructors will always have a proportion of students who engage in academic misconduct
and educational institutions will always require means to detect those who engage in these
behaviours. Given this, it is important to discuss various strategies that staff and faculty members
can use to detect various forms of academic dishonesty. While the continuous advancements in
technology have done great things for learning and assessment, it is vital that these technologies
be applied and utilized in a responsible and ethical manner (Storm and Strom, 2007). Moreover,
technology can also often be used to address various forms of technology assisted academic
dishonesty. For example, there are some very useful plagiarism recognition software products
(Chiesl, 2007). To use these products, faculty members simply ask their students to submit
electronic versions of their assignment so that they can be submitted to databases, such as
turnitin.com. The software compares the student’s work with ―web pages, past student papers,
newsworthy articles, and academic publications‖ (Chiesl, 2007: 206). This allows the professor
to quickly determine if any portion of a student’s paper has been cut and pasted from another
source without proper references. Informing students that this type of software will be used to
check all assignments can also serve to deter students from plagiarism.
Another technique is for an instructor to insert a few particularly unique or suspicious
sounding sentences or phrases from a student’s assignment directly into a search engine, such as
Google or Bing (McLafferty and Foust, 2004 as cited in Eastman et al., 2008). Universities may
also choose to purchase software that allows professors to check their students’ assignment
against others that have been submitted within the institution. The software compares and looks
for identical wording within the database of assignments submitted by all professors within the
33

institution to determine if any portion of the assignment has been submitted in a prior assignment
for a different course (McLafferty and Foust, 2004 as cited in Eastman et al., 2008).
Unfortunately, even these tools are inadequate for exposing all forms of plagiarism,
particularly those websites that offer custom papers that are original work (Embleton and
Kimberly, 2007). In other words, a paper may be original work, but still constitute plagiarism if
the student is not the author. In order to respond to this form of plagiarism, instructors may
choose to ask that students submit any physical references they printed from online sources and
any draft work they completed prior to the final copy. Requesting these types of documents
ensures that the student can produce the work that resulted in the final construction of their paper
(Stephens, Young, & Calabrese, 2007; Embleton and Kimberly, 2007).
In situations where the student submits an assignment that is not accompanied by such
documents or if the documentation is attached, but the instructor remains sceptical about the
authenticity of the work, a discussion with the student may reveal an incident of academic
misconduct. A student who has plagiarized a paper may have difficulty discussing the paper at
length or in depth. Comparing the written style of a paper with the style that the student uses
during exam settings may also be helpful when trying to confirm a suspicion of plagiarism.
In terms of exams, small changes during exams can be very helpful in deterring students
from cheating and detecting those who do. For example, asking students to remove their caps,
assigning a random seating arrangement, and having a number of proctors can be extremely
helpful in deterring cheating (Alschuler and Blimling, 1995). Proctors can also accompany
students to the washroom in order to prevent them from reviewing materials or engaging in
inappropriate conversations about the exam or using technology, such as cell phones, to share
exam information.

34

Another suggestion is to ask students to show their student ID when submitting their
exam (Alschuler and Blimling, 1995). In classes with large numbers of students, this small
change can greatly aid in identifying individuals who are writing exams for other people. When
possible, an exam with essay questions, rather than multiple choices, is a great preventative
measure. However, if the exam must be multiple-choice it is helpful to have several versions of
the exam (Alschuler and Blimling, 1995). Having different coloured copies of an exam can
immediately send out the message that there are several different versions and, therefore, deter
students from cheating.
Stephens, Young, and Calabrese (2007) stated the importance of assigning original and
interesting coursework in order to decrease the probability of students engaging in plagiarism.
Even more helpful is the inclusion of several steps within the assignment so that students must
submit various mini-assignments eventually leading to the completion of the entire assignment
(Stephens et al., 2007). For example, a written assignment could include submitting a written
brainstorming session the first week, an outline the next week, a draft the following week, and so
on in order to prevent procrastination, which may lead to plagiarizing, or to reduce the ability to
either buy a paper or have someone else write the paper for the student.
Researchers commonly suggest that instructors should attempt to avoid standardized
general class assignments that could be recycled from term to term (Brown, 2002). If this is not
possible, inform the students that past assignments are kept on file and all assignments will be
run through a plagiarism detection database.
The majority of North American universities currently have a reactive style of addressing
academic dishonesty through policies that focus on detection and punishment (Gulli, Kohler, &
Patriquin, 2007). Many post secondary institutions have concentrated on increasing techniques of

35

detection and punishment measures with the hope that faculty members will be able to deter
students in the first instance (Granitz and Loewy, 2006). However, as discussed above, generally,
faculty members do not follow the procedures for reporting academic dishonesty. Therefore,
increasing the levels of detection and punishment will not have a significant effect.
While detection and punishment is important, it does not recognize or attempt to address
the root causes of the problem (Granitz and Loewy, 2006). Institutions tend to focus on reacting
to the problem in the best way possible, rather than attempting to eliminate the problem so that
there are fewer incidents that must be dealt with (Granitz and Loewy, 2006). Stephens, Young,
and Calabrese (2007) asserted that catching students after they have made a preventable misstep
is not the optimal solution. Instead, the need is to help students act ethically, rather than
punishing them after they have wilfully engaged in academic dishonesty (Stephens et al., 2007).
Those who promote the idea of a positive approach in which institutions take on the
responsibility to better teach students about plagiarism and cheating agree that increasing the
cost of delinquency will not deter most students (Simon et al., 2004). Instead, it is much more
conducive to better educate students so that they understand that cheating and plagiarism are
threats to effective learning and personal development (Simon et al., 2004).
It is also important to recognize that in a high-tech world, students are constantly being
offered better solutions to combat the strategies used to detect cheating and plagiarism. Also,
many institutions have out-dated policies that do not even mention technology-aided offences
(Gulli et al., 2007). Simply addressing offences if and when they are reported is not sufficient
because it does not foster an environment in which students understand the importance of
academic integrity and respecting the work of others (Gulli et al., 2007). Universities have a
critical role to play in creating an environment that emphasizes the importance of ethics, morals,

36

and responsibility, and should not continue to combat academic dishonesty with out-dated or
reactive style policies that do not address the larger, underlying root causes of the behaviour.
Educational institutions must make every effort to maintain the ―commitment, even in the
face of adversity, to five fundamental values: honesty, respect, trust, fairness and responsibility‖
(Coalter, Lim, & Wanorie, 2007: 3). In order to do so, a policy shift from the reactive to a
proactive and preventative focus, where all university staff, faculty, and administrators are on
board, must be made so that they can successfully focus their attention toward educating and
informing students (McCabe, 2005; McCabe et al., 2002; Alschuler and Blimling, 1995).
Universities must create a ―campus culture that truly values academic integrity‖ and emphasizes
the importance of moral development (Alschuler and Blimling, 1995: 3). This necessary shift in
focus requires an enormous amount of skill and knowledge building about academic dishonesty
with staff, faculty, and students.
Universities must do more to foster students’ understanding and appreciation of the major
academic and moral values that are so important in academia and life (Stephen et al., 2007). As
emphasized by Stephens, Young, and Calabrese (2007), students who are honed to act fairly,
honestly, and responsibly would greatly aid in the prevention of moral judgment errors. It is a
challenging, but worthwhile undertaking, and there are several recommendations to aid
institutions in their quest to produce ethically aware and rule abiding graduates (Whitley and
Keith-Spiegel, 2002). The ultimate objective is to develop a campus culture that not only
considers academic dishonesty socially unacceptable, but also takes pride in maintaining their
academic integrity.

37

Honour Codes
An honour code is usually an understanding or contract between the student and the
institution indicating that the student understands and will adhere to the academic integrity rules
and regulations set out by the institution. It is essential for all universities to develop and
establish an honour code because those who have not done so typically experience significantly
more breaches of academic misconduct on their campus (Granitz and Loewy, 2007; McCabe and
Makowski, 2001; McCabe and Trevino, 2002). For example, McCabe and Trevino (2001) found
that on campuses without honour codes, one in five students self-reported cheating more than
three times during their post secondary career. This number significantly decreased to one in 16
students on campuses that had established honour codes. McCabe and Trevino (2001) also
suggested that establishing an honour code emphasized that dishonesty was socially undesirable
on campus that may be helpful in creating a bond between the school’s ethical standards and the
students’ responsibility to uphold those standards.
Generally, when learners enter post secondary institutions that have established honour
codes, they witness less academic dishonesty than on campuses without honour codes (McCabe
et al., 2001; McCabe and Makowski, 2001). Thus, on campuses with honour codes, students
internalize this ethic and are more likely to abide by the rules of their new community. The hope
is that, although students may eventually decide to commit a form of cheating, for the majority,
after they have been exposed to the community ethic and realize how cheating is in violation of
the trust placed in them, they are more likely to choose to behave ethically (McCabe et al.,
2001). The great influence of honour codes likely comes from the students’ desire to belong to
the community. McCabe et al. (2001) placed great emphasis on establishing an honour code
because they viewed it as fundamental to any university addressing the problem of academic

38

misconduct. The researchers affirmed that universities who chose not to discuss and create a
dialogue between students and the institution about academic dishonesty continued to experience
persistent levels of academic dishonesty.

Valuing Integrity
Another key element that should be created is an academic integrity policy that affirms
that all members of the university are part of an institution that ―values academic integrity and
condemns academic dishonesty‖ (Whitely and Keith-Spiegel, 2002: 130). Whitely and KeithSpiegel (2002) asserted that this may seem like a declaration that does not need to be stated;
however, it is important to explicitly affirm since people are more likely to abide by rules if they
understand the reasons for those rules. The policy should also include all prohibited behaviours
because the more defined the behaviours are, the easier it is for individuals to avoid them
(Whitely and Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Specific procedures for informal and formal resolution of
suspected incidents of academic dishonesty should also be described. For example, the exact
procedures to follow when an instructor suspects an instance of plagiarism should be clearly
outlined. Other detailed information should include what type of notification the student will
receive and what action will be taken if the student admits or denies an allegation (Whitley and
Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Clearly defined penalties for the types of misconduct should also be
communicated within the document (Vandehey, 2007). The policy document should also include
all of the information that students, faculty, and administrative staff require to understand the
university’s attitude, procedures, and penalties in regards to academic dishonesty. It is also vital
that this information be easily accessible, relatively simple to understand and apply, and, most
importantly, disseminated to the student body (McCabe and Trevino, 2002).

39

Culture Change
Another helpful initiative would be to design and incorporate programs that aid in
changing the campus culture of the university. A survey by the Association of American
Colleges and Universities (2008) found that colleges and universities were not doing enough to
educate faculty and students about personal and social responsibility (Wasley, 2008). The study
surveyed 23,000 undergraduate students and 9,000 faculty members at 23 institutions about how
well they felt their campus taught specific qualities, such as moral reasoning and academic
integrity. The study concluded that, although students felt that the development of such traits
should be of great importance to their institution, many did not feel it was a priority on their
campus (Wasley, 2008). This research demonstrated that the campus culture lacked an emphasis
towards high morals and ethics that could be cultivated by the institution taking certain
initiatives. It is important for students to feel their campus values and emphasizes such qualities
so that they are proud to uphold those standards and be a part of such an institution.
In order to achieve a successful culture change, McCabe and Trevino (2002) suggested
using rituals or ceremonies to introduce honour codes to incoming students so that they
immediately perceived an institutional commitment to academic honesty. Another suggestion
was for the institution to put on faculty developmental workshops in which professors learned
about anti-cheating strategies and the university’s policy and procedures concerning academic
integrity (Vandehey, 2002). Vandehey (2002) stated that such workshops helped to establish the
administration’s strong commitment to support faculty in maintaining academic integrity. These
types of workshops also emphasized that the university would not tolerate academic misconduct
and that there were proper procedures and penalties in place to address these offences
(Vandehey, 2002). Various student clubs could also be created to allow students to take a more

40

active role in establishing and promoting the importance of academic integrity (Vandehey,
2002). For example, students could teach small workshops to inform first year students about
academic integrity valuing campus culture, administer and advertise time management and study
skill workshops that help students avoid dishonest behaviour, and/or participate in helping
faculty members proctor exams.

Student Responsibility
Another underlying component is that students must accept their responsibility and
obligation to abide by ethical standards and should also take pride in doing so (Alschuler and
Blimling, 1995). It is the student’s responsibility to not only police their own personal behaviour,
but also that of their fellow classmates. In this framework, students are expected to report any
unethical behaviour they observe because that is their duty as a citizen of the campus
community. A 2008 study found that four-fifths of students thought that ―others cheating was
none of their business‖ and that it was ―the professor’s job to monitor, detect, and dispatch any
cheating‖ (Petress, 2008: 686). A student submitting the work of another, plagiarizing from past
scholars, fabricating research experiments, and a wide range of other unethical acts are very
difficult for professors to detect on their own (Petress, 2008). Thus, there must be a collective
responsibility to uncover these types of behaviour.
However, Petress argued, ―students should not be expected to be snitches‖ (Petress, 2008:
686). Instead, students should understand that they, in partnership with their instructors and
administrators, have a duty to uphold the value of an education. Therefore, students who
passively accept forms of cheating or keep it to themselves act as an accomplice to that
behaviour. For Petress, ―if we knowingly, intentionally, and without guilt allow cheating to occur
without stopping, without reporting it, and without condemning it, are we not condoning it and
41

even promoting it in the eyes of the cheater?‖ (Petress, 2008: 687). Students must embrace their
ethical responsibility to themselves, their fellow classmates, and academia as a whole, and
participate in the process of weeding out those who serve to devalue their hard work (Petress,
2008).
In order to create such a community, McCabe and Trevino stressed the importance of all
members of the university campus being involved so that a university culture is developed in
which academic dishonesty is socially unacceptable (McCabe and Trevino, 1996; McCabe and
Makowski, 2001). In this environment, students would take on the responsibility of not only
ensuring that they avoided academic dishonesty, but also detecting and reporting observed
offences. This policy approach requires an enormous amount of skill and knowledge building
about academic dishonesty and this requires that all components of the university community,
including staff, faculty, and students, become highly involved (McCabe, 2005).

Knowledge Appreciation
It is apparent that student perception and appreciation of the educational consequences of
academic misconduct affects their reasoning process when contemplating committing an act of
academic dishonesty. As discussed above, students will often justify cheating or plagiarizing an
assignment if they perceive it as an end to a means (Wowra, 2007). However, students who
perceive their education as a reward in and of itself, rather than as a means of attaining a wellpaying job are less likely to engage in such behaviour (Wowra, 2007). Thus, it is fundamental for
universities to promote a knowledge appreciating attitude so that students value their education
and do not want to cheat themselves of the experiences and opportunities to learn. A change in
university culture would certainly help in creating such a perception. When a student’s intention
and perception of enrolling in a post-secondary institution is to gain an education, they may feel
42

that they would be robbing themselves of that opportunity if they chose to engage in academic
dishonesty (Wowra, 2007). Given this, it is important to convince new students of this belief so
that the remainder of their careers can be without incident.
The intent is that with the above components established, an institution will have an
optimal chance of successfully creating the ideal campus culture; a campus culture that has a
well-developed academic integrity ethos that emphasizes the university’s value system (Whitley
and Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Such an institution could be confident that it ―conveys that academic
integrity is something to revere, honour, and uphold‖ (Kibler, 1993: 12 as cited in Whitley and
Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Successfully establishing a university whose students, faculty, and
administration believes and conveys this message, and displays mutual respect for the policies
implemented, would have a very beneficial effect on academic dishonesty (McCabe et al., 2001).

Instruction to Prevent Plagiarism
This policy recommendation emphasizes a change in attitude and campus culture in order
to create an ethical community that has clearly communicated rules and standards (McCabe et.
al., 2001). However, it is important to recognize and address the difficulties of implementing
such a recommendation. For example, a portion of academic dishonesty occurs unintentionally;
this is especially prevalent in plagiarism cases (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2002). In these
instances, the student is not lacking in responsibility and ethics, but rather the skills to
appropriately cite the material they used for the assignment. In other words, a student may not
have taken the time to learn how to properly provide sources according to a specific formula. Or,
the student may believe that they are sourcing correctly when they are not following the rules of
citation. To the degree that this is the issue, instructors need information and tools to teach about
academic dishonesty and students need the knowledge and skill to produce ethically sound
43

material (Alschuler and Blimling, 1995; Burke et al., 2007). It is imperative that institutions
recognize that this culture change will only be successful if it is accompanied with education and
training on the subject.
It is often assumed that students have received training in how to avoid plagiarism in high
school and, therefore, are not taught these skills in universities (Coalter et al., 2007). However,
―learning to avoid plagiarism is a process of learning conventions and customs, not an
instantaneous event‖ (Price, 2002 as cited in Chanock, 2008: 9). University professors must take
an active role in not only continuing to teach students the art of attribution, but also understand
that ―it is an act of building community, collaboratively constructing shared knowledge‖ (Rose,
1996 as cited in Chanock, 2008: 9). Students need to be informed about the rules of scholarship
and the purpose of acknowledging past scholarly works (Chanock, 2007). The goal is not merely
to reduce cheating, but to educate and develop responsible students who will go on to be
responsible citizens (McCabe, 2005). Therefore, McCabe (2005) suggested that as educators,
faculty members should make every effort to consider the majority of cheating incidents as
educational opportunities. Although sanctions can and should be used for more serious types of
academic offences, the majority of academic dishonesty incidents are not very serious and,
therefore, alternative strategies are required, such as academic dishonesty worksheets and/or
workshops that are educational and teach students the importance of academic integrity.

Faculty and Administration Responsibility
It is critical for instructors to take on the responsibility of incorporating the teaching of
these skills into their curriculum (Alschuler and Blimling, 1995). It is also vital that institutions
do more to better educate students about using the work of past scholars, and to educate faculty
about the difficulty of learning this practice, as well as their function in further teaching it
44

(Chanock, 2008). As the definition of academic dishonesty further develops and changes, it is
important for faculty members to not only fully understand what it encompasses, but also to
inform students by providing examples of what is and is not acceptable in their classroom
(Schmelkin, 2008). As the electronic world becomes even more sophisticated, current trends will
change which require professors to keep up with reviewing and updating their knowledge about
various forms of academic deviance (Schmelkin, 2008).
Educational institutions should also do their part to ensure that faculty members have the
appropriate administrative staff and tools to take on such a responsibility. Although faculty
members have the ability to play a major role in addressing academic dishonesty, they cannot be
expected to do this alone (McCabe, 2005). It is absolutely fundamental that the people who are
supposed to be implementing a policy have the confidence and belief in the proper functioning
and purpose of that policy (Gulli et al., 2007), and that administrators take the initiative of
reviewing dated policies and making appropriate changes (McCabe, 2005).
Simon et al. (2003) conducted a study to examine faculty responses to suspected acts of
academic dishonesty and found that faculty members who had trust and faith in their university
processes were much more likely to utilize the complete range of options outlined in their
university’s policies when addressing these types of acts. However, faculty members who were
sceptical about their institution’s processes tended to abstain from using administrative strategies
and dealt with the suspected students in a private manner which often involved bargaining.
Lovett-Hooper et al. (2007) also recommended that institutions highlight certain items for their
faculty members, such as the fact that many studies demonstrate the increased likelihood of
unethical behaviour continuing in the student’s future line of work and personal life. This is
likely to further encourage professors who may still be reluctant to address cheating.

45

Organizational Change
In general, any successful organizational change requires ―a multifaceted, collaborative
effort‖ (Alschuler and Blimling, 1995: 122). Therefore, all parties should be involved in the
development of key components, such as an honour code and academic integrity policy. Student
learning and academic integrity will continue to be comprised unless students, faculty, and
institution administrators make a concerted effort to combat and prevent it (Leonard and
LeBrasseur, 2008). All parties need to fully support the initiative and be involved in the process
so that they continue to believe in it. A general principle of organizational psychology is that
people are more likely to abide by a policy that they have taken part in developing than one
simply imposed upon them by superiors (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2002). Representatives
from all interest groups who will be affected by the policies and/or key elements should be
involved in the process of creating and updating policies. It is especially important to have
students involved in the policy development process because they are the party that must abide
by the rules and will be penalized for outlined offences (Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2002).
Whitley and Keith Spiegel (2002) stated that students being involved in this process increased
student perceptions that the penalties and procedures were fair. Ultimately, the entire community
on the campus must work cohesively in order to establish this desired ethical community
(McCabe, 2005: 29).
Toronto’s Ryerson University (2010) is a great example of a Canadian university that
seems to be taking this proactive approach. The university developed an elaborate academic
integrity website that provides faculty, current students, former graduates, and family members
information about academic dishonesty. The website is separated into various sections with each
section devoted to a particular group of individuals and provides information and resources

46

exclusively designed for that group. For example, the student section features information on
topics, such as what constitutes cheating or plagiarism, how to avoid inappropriate collaboration,
and why not to use paper mills (http://www.ryerson.ca/academicintegrity/, 2010). This section
also includes information about why it is in the student’s best interest to avoid participating in
acts of dishonesty and what resources are available to aid them in doing so.
Another section of the website is devoted entirely to the faculty members at Ryerson
University and it discusses their responsibilities, why students cheat, and prevention, detection,
reporting resources and support (Ryerson University, 2010). The University has essentially
incorporated all the information faculty require if they had any questions and/or concerns about
understanding or dealing with an academic dishonesty issue. This website is a great tool for
professors and teacher’s assistants because it not only provides an abundance of information on
the topic, but it is also well organized and easy to navigate.
When further examining the website, it is clear that the university prides itself in
providing students and faculty with information to understand why academic dishonesty is
unacceptable at their university (Ryerson University, 2010). It takes a values and morals oriented
approach in which students are encouraged to be responsible and ethical. For example, on each
section of their academic integrity website, it reads, ―Don’t compromise yourself, you’re all
you’ve got – Janis Joplin‖ (2008). This is a powerful message directed toward their student
population to further emphasize the importance of taking pride in maintaining their academic
integrity. Seeing as this is a recent undertaking by Ryerson University, researchers have not yet
evaluated the successes and/or failures encountered since implementation. It is important for
universities to make these types of changes, and, as discussed, any institutional change will
require a collective effort from all university members, including faculty and students. The

47

institution must establish an honour code and commit to promoting the value of integrity so that
a total campus culture change can be achieved. Instructors must be supported and educated about
how to deal with academic integrity incidents and students must also be provided with the
knowledge, education, and skills that will allow them to appreciate and maintain their academic
integrity. There are no guaranteed solutions for addressing academic dishonesty, but the
discussed policy recommendations are a starting point that could prove to be beneficial to
academic institutions. After introduction, these types of plans must be researched and evaluated
to determine what works best for each institution.

48

Chapter 7: Conclusion
There is definitely a need to continue research in the area of academic dishonesty to
further understand how best to address it. The current literature indicates that academic
dishonesty is a growing problem within universities across Canada and the United States (Gilli et
al., 2007). Many universities have out-dated or inadequate policies that are not successful in
deterring or adequately addressing acts of academic misconduct. The increasing and constantly
developing world of technology has served to further perpetuate the epidemic of cheating. Given
this, policy makers must take technological innovations, such as the internet and World Wide
Web, into account when designing their institutional policies. The proactive policy
recommendation made in this major paper is a potential solution, although it is an extremely
challenging objective that will require the support, efforts, and will of the entire university
community. A change in policy is desperately required considering the ramifications academic
dishonesty could have on the reputation of academia and society as a whole. Perhaps through
further research and policy implementation, North American universities will be able to control
this epidemic and develop responsible scholars who truly value their academic integrity. Taking
pride in maintaining their high level of morals and ethics not only throughout their academic
careers, but for the rest of their lives is a critical objective and value that must be re-enforced in
universities. The ultimate objective is to create a culture in which the students perceive academic
dishonesty as socially unacceptable behaviour.
In order to successfully accomplish this, students must be aware of what exactly
constitutes academic dishonesty. The problems with defining academic dishonesty must also be
researched and addressed (Schmelkin et al., 2008). The definition of academic dishonesty has
changed over the years, and it will continue to change with the times in terms of exactly which
49

behaviours should be included. For example, with the addition of the internet came a number of
new academic dishonesty infractions associated with this new technology. Perhaps a more
workable definition will be broader in scope and objective so that any behaviour that puts the
reputation of academia into disrepute is considered academic dishonesty. What constitutes
academic dishonesty will likely always require review and education for both instructors and
students; however, addressing academic dishonesty requires creating a feasible definition
(Schmelkin et al., 2008).
The majority of studies and research examining the causes of academic dishonesty have
focused on describing the relationships between various causal variables; however, the work has
paid little attention to theoretical integration or a cohesive explanation of this epidemic (Bolin,
2004). Therefore, contributing further research to this field that examines academic dishonesty
within the theoretically abundant context of deviant behaviour could prove to be beneficial.
Deviant behaviour is thoroughly examined within the context of empirically supported theories
and perhaps academic dishonesty should also be examined within this context in order to
determine an explanation for this type of delinquency (Bolin, 2004). Exploring it within this
context will provide a new perspective that may produce new information that can assist in
addressing academic dishonesty.
Academic dishonesty certainly has the attention of scholars, administrators, and society at
large. Thus, great efforts have been made to understand, respond, and prevent this form of
deviance. It is a phenomenon that is not likely to be ever completely eradicated; however, there
is hope that through further research and development, it is possible to better define, identify, and
appropriately respond to acts of academic dishonesty and misconduct.

50

Reference List
Akbulut, Y., Sendag, S., Birinci, G., Kilicer, K., Sahin, M., & Odabasi, H. (2007). Exploring the
types and reasons of Internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate
students: Development of Internet-Triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS). Science
Direct, 51(1), 463-473. Retrieved November 16, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Alschuler, A. & Blimling, G. (1995). Curbing epidemic cheating through systemic change.
College Teaching, 43(4), 123-126. Retrieved October 16, 2008 from Academic Search Premier
database.
Bisping, T., Patron, H., & Roskelley, K. (2008). Modeling academic dishonesty: the role of
student perceptions and misconduct type. Journal of Economic Education, 39(1), 4-21. Retrieved
October 5, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Brown, D. (2002). Cheating must be okay—everybody does it! Nurse Educator, 27(1), 6-8.
Retrieved October 16, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Bruin, G. & Fudnick, H. (2007). Examining the cheats: the role of conscientiousness and
excitement seeking in academic dishonesty. Psychological Society of South Africa, 37(1), 153164. Retrieved October 5, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Burke, J., Polimeni, R., & Slavin, N. (2007). Academic dishonesty: a crisis on campus. CPA
Journal, 77(7), 58-65. Retrieved October 6, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Carter, R. & Elliott, L. (2007). Academic dishonesty: Perceptions of business students. College
Student Journal. 41(2), 466-481. Retrieved October 18, 2008 from Academic Search Premier
database.
Chanock, K., (2008). When students reference plagiarized material-what can we learn (and what
can we do) about their understanding of attribution? The International Journal for Educational
Integrity, 4(1), 3-16. Retrieved December 10, 2008
Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web-based courses. The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 203-211. Retrieved October 5, 2008 from Academic Search
Premier database.
Coalter, T., Lim, C., & Wanorie, T. (2007). Factors that influence faculty actions: a study on
faculty responses to academic dishonesty. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 1(1), 2-19. Retrieved October 5, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Desruisseaux, P. (1999). Cheating is reaching epidemic proportions worldwide, researchers say.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(34), 45-46. Retrieved October 16, 2008 from Academic
Search Premier database.
51

Eastman, K., Eastman, J., and Iyer, R. (2008). Academic dishonesty: An exploratory study
examining whether insurance students are different from other college students. Risk
Management and Insurance Review, 11(1), 209-226. Retrieved December 14, 2009 from
Academic Search Premier database.
Embleton, K., & Helfer, D. (2007). The Plague of Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty.
Searcher, 15(6), 23-26. Retrieved October 4, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Etter, S., Cramer, J., & Finn, S. (2006). Origins of academic dishonesty: Ethical orientations and
personality factors associated with attitudes about cheating with information technology. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 133-155. Retrieved October 5, 2008 from
Academic Search Premier database.
Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state. The British Journal of Criminology. 36(4),
445-471.
Gibson, C., Khey, D., and Schreck, C. (2008). Gender, internal controls and academic
dishonesty: investigating mediating and differential effects. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 19(1), 2-18).
Granitz, N., & Loewy, D. (2007). Applying Ethical Theories: Interpreting and Responding to
Student Plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 293-306. Retrieved October 2, 2008 from
Academic Search Premier database.
Gulli, C., Kohler, N., & Patriquin, M. (2007). The great university cheating scandal. Maclean’s,
120(5), 32-36. Retrieved November 17, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Harding, T., Carpenter, D., Finelli, and Passow, H. (2004). Does academic dishonesty relate to
unethical behavior in professional practice? An exploratory study. Science and Engineering
Ethics, 10(2), 311-324. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from Academic Search Premier database.
Harper, M. (2006). High tech cheating. Nursing Education Today, 26, 672-679. Retrieved
October 5, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Homepage of Ryerson University Academic Integrity. (2008). Retrieved October 16, from 2008
from http://www.ryerson.ca/academicintegrity/
Lanier, M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 17(2), 244-260. Retrieved November 18, 2008 from Academic Search Premier
database.
Leonard, V., & LeBrasseur, R. (2008). Individual assignments and academic dishonestyexploring the learning conundrum. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35, 37-56. Retrieved
November 17, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.

52

Lovett-Hooper, G., Komarraju, M., Weston, R., & Dollinger, S. (2007). Is plagiarism a
forerunner of other deviance? Imagined futures of academically dishonest students. Ethics and
Behavior, 17(3), 323-336. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from Academic Search Premier database.
McCabe, D. (2005). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty. Liberal Education, 91(3), 26-31.
Retrieved March 5, 2010 from Academic Search Premier database.
McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business
programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 5(3), 294-305. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from Academic Search Premier database.
McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade
of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219-232. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from Academic
Search Premier database.
McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2002). Honour codes and other contextual
influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honour code settings.
Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357-378. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from Academic Search
Premier database.
McCabe, D. & Makowski, A. (2001). Resolving allegations of academic dishonesty: Is there a
role for students to play. About Campus, 6(1), 17-21. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from Academic
Search Premier database.
McCabe, D. & Trevino, L. (2002). Honesty and honour codes. Academe, 81(1), 37-41.
Retrieved March 16, 2010 from Academic Search Premier database.
McCabe, D. & Trevino, L. (1996). What we know about cheating in college. Change, 28(1), 2834. Retrieved October 16, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
NG, H., Davies, G., Bates, I., and Avellone, M. (2003). Academic dishonesty among pharmacy
students. Pharmacy Education, 3(4), 261-269. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from Academic Search
Premier database.
Schmelkin, L., Gilbert, K., Spencer, K., Pincus, H., & Silva, R. (2008). A multidimensional
scaling of college students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Higher
Education, 79(5), 587-607. Retrieved October 5, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Simon, C., Carr., R., McCullough, S., Morgan., S., Oleson, T., and Ressel, M. (2004). Gender,
student perceptions, institutional commitments and academic dishonesty: who reports in
academic dishonesty cases? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 75-90.
Retrieved January 16, 2010 from Academic Search Premier database.
Stephen, W. (1994). Helping students avoid plagiarism. College Teaching, 42(4), 161-165.
Retrieved November 17, 2009 from Academic Search Premier database.

53

Stephens, M., Young, M., & Calabrese, T. (2007). Does moral judgment go offline when
students are online? A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs and behaviors related to
conventional and digital cheating. Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 233-254. Retrieved November 17,
2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Strom, P. & Strom, R. (2007). Curbing Cheating, Raising Integrity. Education Digest, 72(8), 4250. Retrieved October 6, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Vandehey, M. (2007). College Cheating: A Twenty-Year Follow-Up and the Addition of an
Honour Code. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 468-480. Retrieved October 16,
2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Wasley, P. (2008). Survey: Colleges fall short in teaching moral, ethics. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 54(32), 21-21). Retrieved March 01, 2010 from Academic Search Premier database.
Whitley, B., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic Dishonesty an Educator’s Guide. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Wowra, S. (2007). Academic Dishonesty. Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 211-214. Retrieved
October 6, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.
Yeo, S., and Chien, R. (2007). Evaluation of a process and proforma for making consistent
decisions about the seriousness of plagiarism incidents. Quality in Higher Education, 13(2), 187204. Retrieved March 01, 2010 from Academic Search Premier database.

54