4.3 Article

Good friend or good student? An interview study of perceived conflicts between personal and academic integrity among students in three European countries

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1826319

关键词

Research integrity; academic integrity; teaching; whistle-blowing; loyalty

资金

  1. European Union [824586]
  2. Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Premium Postdoctoral Research Program)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loyalty to friends and classmates can lead students to handle academic dishonesty among peers in a more personal way rather than reporting it. Students often feel tension between the norms of being a good researcher and student, and their own norms of being a good friend and person when deciding on the right course of action.
Students are often reluctant to report the academic dishonesty of their peers. Loyalty to friends and classmates has previously been identified as an important reason for this. This paper explores loyalty conflicts among students from upper secondary school, through bachelor's, to Ph.D. level. Drawing on semi-structured qualitative interviews (N = 72) conducted in Denmark, Ireland and Hungary, we show that loyalty considerations among students can be complex and draw on a range of norms including responsibility. The study demonstrates how students are often willing to assume substantial personal responsibility for dealing with the academic dishonesty of a peer, often preferring this to reporting. However, when deciding on the right course of action, they also perceive tensions between the norms of the good researcher and student and their own norms of being a good friend and person. The loyalty considerations and tension were identified in all three countries and across the educational levels, which suggests that this is a cross-cultural challenge. We argue that institutions should formally decide whether they want students to take some degree of responsibility themselves for addressing less serious cases of academic dishonesty and communicate their decision to their students.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据