Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Virtue Ethics Principles in Academic Integrity Breach Decision-Making

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper contends that principles of virtue ethics have the potential to both supplement and complement academic integrity policy in the adjudication of undergraduate student academic integrity breaches. The paper uses elements of grounded theory to explore responses from 15 Academic Integrity Breach Decision Makers (AIBDMs) at an Australian university, and in particular, the process they use to determine outcomes for student breaches of academic integrity. The findings indicate that AIBDMs often use principles of virtue ethics to help provide nuanced judgement on sometimes complicated breaches of ethical behaviour. The findings demonstrate that many AIBDMs supplemented their knowledge of institutional academic integrity policy with a deep commitment to their own virtuous behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We refer to the institution from which this data is drawn as The University for reasons of confidentiality, and also because we do not wish to infer that the issues of academic integrity mentioned here are unique to this particular institution.

  2. Pseudonyms are used for all interviewees.

References

  • Annas, J. (2006) Virtue ethics, The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, http://www.arizona.edu. Accessed 15 Mar 2010.

  • Bretag, T. (2011) 'You have to really harden your heart': The emotional work of academic integrity decision-makers in Australian higher education, Poster presented to the 6th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Emotions in Worklife, University of South Australia, 18 November.

  • Bretag, T. & Green, M. (2009). Determining outcomes for academic misconduct: Is it more important to be consistent or fair?, refereed paper presented at the 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity: Creating an inclusive approach, University of Wollongong, 28–30 September

  • Bretag, T., & Green, M. (2010). Factors integral to the case’: Categorising qualitative factors used to determine academic integrity outcomes, refereed paper presented at the 4th International Plagiarism Conference. Northumbria University: Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. & Appleton, J. (2005). Towards consistent penalty decisions for breaches of academic regulations in one UK university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1 (1). (Retrieved 28/5/2008) http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/viewFile/15/5

  • Carroll, J., & Seymour, D. (2006). The effect of a penalty tariff on consistent decision-making in cases of student plagiarism. Paper presented at the JISC International Plagiarism Conference. U.K.: Gateshead (Retrieved 28/5/2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, B. (2002). Deep insider research. Qualitative Research Journal, 2(1), 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foot, P. (1978). Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. London: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Centre for Academic Integrity (ICAI). (2013). Fundamental values project (revised). http://www.academicintegrity.org/icai/resources-2.php. Accessed 3 Apr 2014.

  • Jordan, A. E., & Meara, N. M. (1990). Ethics and professional practice of psychologists: The role of virtues and principles, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Vol, 21(2), 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue (3 rd Ed). Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennant, P. & Rowell G. (2010) Benchmark Plagiarism Tariff: A benchmark tariff for the application of penalties for student plagiarism in higher education, plagiarismadvice.org, http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/BTariff.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2010.

  • Tennant, P., Rowell, G. & Duggan, F. (2007) Misconduct Bench-marking Research Project: Part I The Range and Spread of Penalties Available for Student Plagiarism among UK Higher Education Institutions. http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/advice-and-training. Accessed 26 Oct 2010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    Tracey Bretag

  2. University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    Margaret Green

Authors
  1. Tracey Bretag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margaret Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracey Bretag.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Semi-Structured Interview Questions

How long have you been working as an Academic Integrity Breach Decision Maker (AIBDM)?

Why did you become an AIBDM?

Could you describe, in your own words, your role as AIBDM?

In your position as AIBDM, which role do you most strongly identify with: judge, gatekeeper, counsellor, educator (or other)? Please explain.

In your opinion, are there times when these multiple roles conflict with one another?Please provide details.

Does your role as AIBDM conflict in any way with your other university roles (eg. Lecturer, researcher)?

Could you describe, in your own words, any stresses associated with your role as AIBDM?

How do you manage the emotional labour involved in the process of determining penalties/outcomes of academic integrity investigations?

Detail personal strategies

Detail institutional strategies (eg consulting with other Academic Integrity Breach Decision Makers via the Discussion List).

Do you feel adequately supported in your role as AIBDM?

How much of your time would you estimate that you spend on the AIBDM role?

How much of your workload is officially allocated to the AIBDM role?

Do you have any suggestions for how to improve institutional support for the AIBDM role?

Appendix 2

University academic integrity policy

The University recognises that academic misconduct can occur through unfamiliarity with academic conventions and all issues of academic misconduct will be considered in light of:

  1. a)

    the extent of the misconduct

  2. b)

    the student’s intention and/or motivation

  3. c)

    contextual factors such as:

    1. i.

      stage/level of program

    2. ii.

      number of previous offences

    3. iii.

      student’s learning background

  4. d)

    convention of discipline

  5. e)

    the impact of a particular outcome on a student’s progression

  6. f)

    information provided to the student about academic integrity as part of their course

  7. g)

    where applicable, information about the student held on the academic misconduct database

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bretag, T., Green, M. The Role of Virtue Ethics Principles in Academic Integrity Breach Decision-Making. J Acad Ethics 12, 165–177 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9209-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9209-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation