Essay Mills and Other Contract Cheating Services: to Buy Or Not To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Draper et al. International Journal for Educational Integrity (2021) 17:13 International Journal for https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00081-x Educational Integrity ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access Essay mills and other contract cheating services: to buy or not to buy and the consequences of students changing their minds Michael Draper1* , Thomas Lancaster2, Sandie Dann3, Robin Crockett3,4 and Irene Glendinning5 * Correspondence: m.j.draper@ swansea.ac.uk Abstract 1Swansea University, Swansea, UK Full list of author information is Very few parts of the world have legislation that prohibits the operation or the available at the end of the article promotion of contract cheating services. This means that commercial companies providing such services can formally register and operate in most countries. If a student enters into an agreement with a contract cheating provider, what rights do they have to change their mind and what are the risks if they choose to do so? This paper examines the question through legal, institutional and societal lenses, showing that although a student has the consumer rights to withdraw from a contract with an essay mill, they may also be putting their future at risk by doing so. Contract cheating providers are now embedded within many institutions, using sharp practices to connect with vulnerable customers, but are also perfectly placed to blackmail students or threaten to report them to their institution if they ask to cancel their order. The paper argues that, while not condoning the practice of contract cheating, supportive processes need to be in place to help students at risk as part of standard institutional duty of care. This must be backed up by institutional policy that considers academic integrity as a core value for all. Keywords: Contract cheating, Contract formation, Consumer rights, Student behaviour, Educational institutional policies Introduction The contract cheating industry, those services that (offer to) supply essays and other work for students to (mis) use during the assessment process, is proactive in encour- aging students to cheat. Despite the unethical nature of this industry, at the time of writing this paper, legislation prohibiting commercial contract cheating only applies in New Zealand, Australia, Republic of Ireland and in several states within the USA (Draper et al. 2017). Even where legislation exists, companies supplying work to stu- dents can be based anywhere in the world (Draper and Newton 2017). © The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Draper et al. International Journal for Educational Integrity (2021) 17:13 Page 2 of 13 Given that essay mills operate with apparent impunity in most jurisdictions, what are the legal rights of students who initially choose to commission a bespoke assignment, but then subsequently have second thoughts and change their mind? The right for stu- dents to withdraw has not been previously discussed in the literature, but it is necessary for student protection. The contract cheating industry is such that it preys on vulner- able students, leaving them positioned to becoming victims of unfair or illegal actions. Immediately someone makes an enquiry about using a third party to complete their as- sessments, they become open to threats of exposure. Extortion threats that some of the authors have encountered involve students who have not actually purchased anything or not submitted the work provided. A student may be unaware of consequences such as these when they are seduced by contract cheating provider marketing or may later realise the benefits that come from operating with academic integrity. Can such students withdraw from the contract they have made with a contract cheating provider and what are the risks if they decide to do so? Essay mills are defined by the UK Quality Assurance Agency as organisations or indi- viduals, usually with an online presence, that contract with students to complete assign- ments for a fee (QAA 2020). The original definition of contract cheating, put forward by Clarke and Lancaster (2006) refers to “the submission of work by students for aca- demic credit which the students have paid contractors to write for them”. Despite the original paper describing contract cheating examples of varied assessment types, most notably computer programming, some subsequent researchers have equated the term solely with written assessments. Commentators, such as Bretag et al. (2018) have sup- ported Clarke and Lancaster’s(2006) original discussion by suggesting that contract cheating needs to be considered as a nuanced problem that extends beyond essay mills. One such nuance asks when contract cheating begins. If a student puts forward a re- quest to outsource their assessments, is this cheating? If they commission and receive work but do not submit it, have they contract cheated? Other terms are sometimes used synonymously with contract cheating, including assignment outsourcing, commis- sioning, also essay mills and ghost-writing, all depending if the discussion relates to the student or the contract cheating provider. There are also wider concerns such as facili- tation, where students act as agents for contract cheating providers, helping to funnel more business their way in exchange for a financial reward or a discount on future as- signment orders. Contract cheating is arguably more serious than other forms of academic misconduct because there is no honest engagement or endeavour on the part of students who en- gage in such activities. Students who plagiarise or collude with other students also pre- paring assignments need to know enough about the subject in question in order to plagiarise or compile relevant material. By contrast, all contract cheating students need to know is how to share their assignment briefs and arrange any payments. All agents and facilitators need to know is how to put people in contact with each other or to sim- ply forward contact details (Draper et al. 2017). Students can have original essays and assignments produced for them without pay- ment, for instance by relying on friends or family. They can also make arrangements with individual writers. Underground networks of writers operate in many university courses where students can ask another classmate or recent graduate to write an extra Draper et al. International Journal for Educational Integrity (2021) 17:13 Page 3 of 13 version of an assignment for them (Lancaster et al. 2019). Students also directly ap- proach individual writers operating online through their own websites, social media and third-party sites (Lancaster 2019a, 2019b). The focus of this paper is on services arranged through commercial providers which allow students to have assignments completed for them. The paper reviews how essay mills operate, discusses how students form contracts with essay mills, students’ legal rights to withdraw from contracts and how institutions should respond whilst still re- specting their duty of care to students. Sharp practices operated by contract cheating providers are explained throughout. The intention of the paper is to not only provide examples to share with students, discouraging them from engaging with the contract cheating industry, but also to ensure that institutions update their academic regula- tions, policies and procedures to respond to the growing complexity of contract cheat- ing and the possible responses of academic institutions if a student wishes to terminate an agreement with an essay mill. Background The contract cheating industry To understand the legal discussion presented in this paper, an understanding of how the contract cheating industry operates is important. Although research into the oper- ation of the industry is still in its infancy, all indications are that this industry is massive, complex and deceptive (Crockett and Maxwell 2021; Rigby et al. 2015). This section discusses the operation of the essay mill industry, from the range of types of essay mills available, addressing how they recruit and develop new customers, through the production and submission of finished original essays. This section provides only a high-level overview and the actual operation of essay mills can be much more complex. For example, a new contract cheating provider can buy off-the-shelf software to run their essay mill and, for a price, tap into existing net- works of writers and quality assurance services without needing to set up this complex business operation for themselves. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that the raison d’etre of essay mills is to make as much money as possible. It is not about the welfare of the customers, despite what the web sites and marketing materials may claim. This is an industry where providers will exploit any angle to persuade their customers to pay them more money. For example, essay mill employees may join a student suspected of academic misconduct at their University panel or write a letter of reply to an allegation of misconduct – for a sub- stantial fee. All this often takes place beyond the reach of any national legislation.