Higher Education Institutions in Geneva, Switzerland: Integrity in Higher Education

Ethics and corruption in education

Study visit: Higher education institutions in Geneva, Switzerland: Integrity in higher education

(Geneva, Switzerland: March 13 - 15, 2018)

International Institute for Educational Planning

A Study visit on “Higher education institutions in Geneva, Switzerland: Integrity in higher education” was held from 13 to 15 March 2018 in Geneva, Switzerland. It was organised by the Council of Europe and the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP-UNESCO) within the Horizontal Facility for Western Balkans and Turkey programme.

The major aim of this Study visit was to learn from the Swiss experience in addressing the challenge of ensuring integrity in higher education. It included presentations from the Department of Public Instruction of the Canton of Geneva, the University of Geneva, and the Swiss Agency of Accreditation and Quality (AAQ).

This report includes some of the materials that were prepared and used for the Study visit. The appendix contains the list of participants.

STRENGHTEN INTEGRITY AND COMBAT CORRUPTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN MONTENEGRO

PROGRAMME OF THE STUDY VISIT ON:

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND – INTEGRITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Organized in cooperation with the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) of UNESCO

PROGRAMME

Geneva, 13 – 15 March 2018

Monday 12 March 2018

Installation of delegates at the hotel

21.00 Briefing meeting: Presentation of the programme and the practical aspects of the visit, by Mr. Jacques Hallak and Ms. Muriel Poisson

22.00 Dinner and free evening

Tuesday 13 March 2018

Morning: Department of Public Instruction (DPI) of the Canton of Geneva

09.15-09.30 Welcome from the representatives of DPI and IIEP (Welcoming and coffee)

09.30-10.15 Main characteristics of higher education in the Canton of Geneva and role of DPI

10.15-11.00 Presentation of measures taken to promote ethics and integrity in higher education

Speakers: Ms Ivana Vrbica, Director of DPI higher education unit; Ms Laure Dupraz, Deputy director of the higher education unit

11.00-11.15 Coffee break

11.15-12.00 Challenges of academic integrity: Lessons from international experience

Speakers: Mr Jacques Hallak and Ms Muriel Poisson

Transfer to the University of Geneva (UNIGE) by Tram (Line 15, get off at ‘Uni-Mail’)

12.30-13.45 Lunch

Afternoon International Institute for Research and Action on Academic Fraud and Plagiarism (IRFPA)

14.00-14.45 Welcome by Mme Michelle Bergadaà, Chair of the International Institute for Research and Action on Academic Fraud and Plagiarism (IRAFPA)

 European ethics and research integrity culture: Certifications for ethics and research integrity

14.45-15.30 Accountable institutions: The certification of “institutional referents” of IRAFPA and the development of institutional action plans

Speaker: Mr Jean-Pierre Méan, Esq, Expert in SGS anti-plagiarism accreditation, Former President of Transparency International Switzerland

15.30-15.45 Coffee break

15.45-16.00 How are cheaters made? The different profiles of “fraudsters of knowledge”

Speaker: Ms Michelle Bergadaà, Chair of the IRAFPA

16.00-17.00 Case analysis and discussion. Conclusions from the day

Wednesday 14 March 2018

All day University of Geneva and IRFPA

09.00-9.45 Welcome by Mr Stéphane Berthet, General Secretary of the University of Geneva (UNIGE)

 How UNIGE is facing the challenges of the 21st Century

9.45-10.00 The Charter of Ethics and Deontology of the University of Geneva

Speaker: Mr Dominique Biedermann, Chairman of the committee of Ethics and Deontology of the University of Geneva

10.00-10.15 Coffee break

10.15-11.00 The challenges of ethics and integrity in research

Speaker: Ms Laure Ognois, Research Services Director of the University of Geneva

11.00-11.45 Teaching ethics in medicine: Virtuous ethics or continuous education?

Speaker: Prof. Pierre Hoffmeyer. President of the Swiss Foundation for Innovation and training in Surgery

11.45-13.30 Lunch

Afternoon dedicated to practical implementation

13.45-14.30 Presentation of the certification “Chairpersons of investigative committees”: Experiments conducted by the Institute

Speaker: Mr Pierre-Jean Benghozi, Polytechnic School, Paris

14.30-15.15 Investigative protocol: Evidence files and use of plagiarism detection software

Speaker: Ms Nadine Eck, IRFPA expert

15.15-16.00 Coffee break

16.00-17h30 Certification “Champions of Integrity”: Training in mediation, conflict resolution, and fact checking for PhD students and young researchers

Speakers: Ms Nada Sayarh, Post-doctorate student, Geneva School of Economics and Management (GSEM) Thursday15 March 2018

10.00-11.00 Guided Visit of the Palace of Nations

Day Department of Public Instruction (DPI) Canton of Geneva

11.30-12.30 Group work:

 What are the main measures/tools observed during the visit that are relevant and applicable to the case of Montenegro?

 What follow-up of the visit could be envisaged as a result?

12.30-13.45 Lunch

14.00-14.30 Introduction to quality assurance and accreditation systems in Europe

Speakers: Mr Jacques Hallak and Ms Muriel Poisson

14.30-16.00 Role of the Swiss Agency for Accreditation and Quality Assurance (AAQ) and the Swiss Accreditation Council

Speakers: Ms Anja Schuler, Vice-President of the Swiss Accreditation Council, Mr Christoph Grolimund, Director, Swiss Agency of Accreditation and Quality (AAQ)

16.00-16.15 Coffee break 16.15-17.00 Summary session: Group reports, synthesis and final conclusions

Supervised by: Mr Jacques Hallak and Ms Muriel Poisson Friday 16 March 2018

Departure of delegates in the morning

L'enseignement supérieur dans le canton de Genève

Présentation de Mme Ivana Vrbica Directrice de l'Unité des Hautes écoles (DIP) Visite d'une délégation du Monténégro – 13 mars 2018

DIP - UHE

23.03.2018 - Page 1

DIP - UHE

23.03.2018 - Page 2

1 Confédération Cantons

Conférence suisse des hautes écoles

Elle connaît deux formes d’assemblées

Conseil suisse Conférences des recteurs d’accréditation Conférence plénière des hautes écoles suisses

Conseil des hautes écoles

DIP - UHE

23.03.2018 - Page 3

Université de Genève HES-SO Genève IHEID

Unité des Hautes écoles DIP Genève

Conseil d'Etat Grand Conseil

DIP - UHE

23.03.2018 - Page 4

2 L'enseignement supérieur à Genève en chiffres (2016):

Université de Genève HES-SO GE IHEID 17'065 étudiants 5'100 étudiants 897 étudiants 9 facultés 6 écoles

Subvention cantonale F 343'686'829 F 116'996'454* F 15'324'228 TOTAL budget F 729'000'000 F 147'940'000** F 90'144'744 Fonds tiers compétitifs F 116'040'297 F 6'676'345 F 15'839'823

*dont subvention GE à la HES-SO **correspond à la subvention de la HES-SO à la HES-SO GE

DIP - UHE

23.03.2018 - Page 5

3 Study visit: ‘Higher Education Institutions in Geneva, Switzerland – Integrity in higher education’ Geneva, 13-15 March 2018

Challenges of academic integrity: Lessons from international experience

Jacques Hallak and Muriel Poisson

A UNESCO Institute

• Founded by UNESCO in 1963 • One of the UNESCO’s seven Institutes • HQ in Paris, an office in Buenos Aires and in Dakar • To strengthen the capacities of UNESCO Member States to plan and manage their education systems • A global network of educational stakeholders

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

1 Programme on Ethics and corruption in education

• Research, training, technical assistance • Education decision-makers, educational planners and managers, civil society representatives • Formula funding of schools, teacher codes of conduct, academic fraud, public access to information http://etico.iiep.unesco.org

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

Higher education landscape

High competition among Growing need for the students recognition diplomas Growing pressure on Strengthening of control university professors and audit mechanisms Increased autonomy/low Obligation made to HEIs management capacity to be accredited Mushrooming of HE Better access of the providers public to information New ICT fraud Use of ITC to detect opportunities fraud Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

2 Major risks identified

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

Why paying attention to integrity?

Higher education institutions have a social role to play to promote integrity in our societies: • By imparting knowledge: Information about rights and duties, laws, and complaint mechanisms • By forging attitudes: To value integrity, take interest in public affairs, and assume responsibility for the public good • By producing quality research: To ensure the objectivity and solidity of research results

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

3 What are the costs involved by lack of integrity?

• Waste of resources Corruption and fraud in • Impact on access, quality education has direct and equity implications on the functioning of the labor • Distorted selection processes market. It increases the cost • Overall devaluation of of human resource degrees management and undermines the contribution • Underqualified staff of education to economic growth (Hallak Poisson, 2014) • Underqualified professionals

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

Promoting the social role of HEI

Promoting an Fighting integrity culture corruption in higher education

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

4 What policies and tools to develop a culture of integrity?

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

Encourage the teaching of ethics

• To build knowledge and Law intolerance regarding unethical faculties practices • Not to teach people to be good, but to follow standards of conduct Business schools • To instil a sense of concepts and values: Public good, Fairness and impartiality, Citizenship Sociology • To help young people identify ethical dilemmas

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

5 Document integrity issues

• Apply diagnostic tools to asses corruption: o Perception surveys and focus groups o Integrity assessments • Participate in local workshops or online courses to build capacities and a common understanding of values and norms • Exchange with senior experts to promote knowledge exchange between generations

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

Make norms integrity sensitive

• Clearly define improper Quality Assurance conducts, e.g. conflict of Departments within Romanian interest in research: HEIs

• Situations in which • Rigorous, objective and financial or other personal flexible assessment considerations may • Scoring transparent compromise a • Clear definition of improper researcher's professional conduct in an assessment procedure judgment • Information of students • Include integrity concerns about the consequences of in QA & accreditation improper conduct Hallak & Poisson (plagiarism, fraud, etc.)© IIEP-UNESCO

6 Adopt chart of ethics

Good research practices

We describe good research practices in the following contexts: • Research Environment • Training, Supervision and Mentoring • Research Procedures • Safeguards • Data Practices and Management http://www.allea.org/ • Collaborative Working • Publication and Dissemination • Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

Share innovative use of ICTs

• Signature track (biometric data, etc.) to verify student identity (MOOCs) • Anti-plagiarism software • Statistical detection of “improbable results” • Qualification and credentials checks

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

7 Strengthen capacities

• Build capacities in accounting, staff and exam • Strengthen internal and external control and audit • Conduct awareness campaigns on negative effects of fraud • Establish ethics committees

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

Promote university report cards

• Promote public access to information (admission requirements, budget, new posts, exam results, accredited institutions, PhDs) • Carry out participatory surveys providing quantitative feedback on user perceptions

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

8 Engage students

• Participate in the development of ethical Networks charts • Design integrity indexes

• Organize perception Cafés surveys and focus groups • Get involved in youth anti- corruption networks Clubs

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

Conclusion

Promoting the social role of HEIs: • Map major integrity risks in higher education • Assess the capacity of traditional monitoring and control mechanisms to detect/address integrity risks • Build capacities and make use of public access to information • Encourage dialogue among regulatory bodies, HEIs, student movements, and CSOs

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

9 Contact us!

Muriel Poisson, m.poisson@iiep.unesco.org Jacques Hallak, [email protected] VISIT OUR RESOURCE PLATFORM, « ETICO »: http:/etico.iiep.unesco.org

Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

10 The University of Geneva March 13 2018

Academic Plagiarism and Fraud: The Position of the IRAFPA Institute

Michelle Bergadaà

Introduction

Academic organizational dynamics and processes

Fraudsters and Editors and publishers plagiarists

Fraud and Non-ethical plagiarism publications

Society

Agenda

Introduction

1 - The Institute IRAFPA

2 – The costs of delinquent behavior

3 – The logic of consequence

4 – How to root a virtuous Ethic

5 – The Institute Actions

3 © IIRAFPA - Bergadaà, 2018

1. The Institute IRAFPA

The Co-creation of knowledge

Our research question in 2004

What attitudes, behaviours, rules to adopt in order to survive the break-up and the emerging academic crisis?

A Collaborative Website "Responsible.unige.ch"

Today: Professor-researchers from more than 19 disciplines and from 17 countries, i. e. 19,800 subscribers to our newsletter, participate to our collaborative site, which was launched 14 years ago.

Institute Website “IRAFPA”

1. The Institute IRAFPA

The International Institute for Research and Action on Academic Fraud and Plagiarism was founded on June 18th, 2016 in Geneva.

• Status: an association

•Distinctive character: transdisciplinary and at all levels of intervention.

•First circle: scientists and scholarly associations.

•Second circle: universities, publishers, a detection software...

•Other stakeholders: media…

6 © IIRAFPA - Bergadaà, 2018 1. The Institute IRAFPA

The Board President: Pr. Michelle Bergadaà (Switzerland) Secretary General: Pr. Pierre Hoffmeyer (Switzerland) Legal Adviser: Me Jean-Baptiste Soufron (France) Finances: Asaël Rouby (Luxembourg) Certifications: Jean-Pierre Méan, Certifications Advisor ERI, Former President of Transparency International Switzerland

The Committee (advisers) Digital : Pierre-Jean Benghozi, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris Students and doctoral schools: Paulo Peixoto, Coimbra, Portugal Governments: Marian Popescu Ministry of Education’s representative in ETINED-Council of Europe, Romanian adviser for IRAFPA-Geneva Website : Dejan Munjin & Nada Sayarh, Switzerland

1. The Institute IRAFPA

The Country Corespondants

Canada: Sonia Morin, University of Sherbrooke

Colombia: Dagoberto Paramo Morales, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia

France: Frédérique Coulée, professor, University of Evry Val d’Essonne, France

Italy : Maria Conforti, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Portugal: Paulo Peixoto, Centre for Social Studies (CES/FEUC), University of Coimbra, Portugal

Romania: Marian Popescu, University of Bucharest, Romania

Switzerland: Laure Ognois, University of Geneva

Tunisia: Mériem Jaïdane, professor, National Engineering School of Tunis (ENIT), University of Tunis El Manar

Plan 1 Communicate through the newsletter

Plan 6 Plan 2 Conceptual Mediation and and pragmatic expertise research

Integrated Institute Plan 5 Plan 3 Five certifications Workshops and (workshops and scientific follow-up) conferences

Plan 4 Public Conferences

1. The Institute IRAFPA

Conceptual and pragmatic research

• Multifunctional research teams to obtain funds to perform research at the conceptual and pragmatic levels

• Involve librarians, web specialists, communication specialists and a legal adviser

The teams define the research processes, establish the action plan to enact them and supervise their execution

Public Conferences • The best way to make researchers take responsibility for the potential consequences of fraud is to ask them to self- control their writings.

• Doctoral programs, as well as establishments, ask us to teach about fraud and plagiarism

They are asking us to intervene in doctoral programs and teach seminars… but we need to be more numerous

1. The Institute IRAFPA

Mediation and expertise (2017): 23

A – In progress – cases where the Institute has contacted the concerned authorities: 2

B – In progress – cases where the protocol has been finalized and a letter of complaint sent to the authorities concerned: 4

C – On hold – cases where the protocol for establishing the facts has been explained to the whistleblower or complainant: 5

D – Cases closed after the Institute made contact with the concerned authorities: 4

E – Cases closed without direct action on the part of the Institute: 8 © IIRAFPA - Bergadaà, 2018 12 2. Costs of delinquent behaviour

The « economy side » of plagiarism and academic fraud

2. Costs of delinquent behaviour

• Fighting fraud and/or plagiarism is expensive…

Discovering fraud and examining its authors involves investigation committees that are time consuming and costly.

That includes lawyers’ and investigators’, wasted time…

This money often comes from research budgets.

• For over 25 years, the research directed by Professor Ragnar Rylander of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva had been paid for by the tobacco industry.

• He wrote that the health risks are not caused by CO (Carbon monoxide) from cigarettes in an closed space.

• Since 1995, several researchers tried to report the imposture and rumors grew.

•On March 29, 2001, the scandal broke. A committee of 3 deans concluded that there was not enough information to decide. Omerta… • But, in 2002, the whistle-blowers gave the proof that the tobacco industry had financed the research. A new investigation was carried out.

Case 1: Rylander and the tobacco industry

• In 2003 Rylander had retired, his administrative responsibility lapsed.

• In December 2003 the Court rejected Professor Rylander’s claims, recognizing that proof of the allegations had been provided.

• In 2006 the University of Geneva has set up Integrity directives

What are the death « costs » over 25 years?

And between 1995 and 2003?

2005-2006: Verbal exchanges between Paul C. and Maria B. concerning his Masters thesis without any collaboration between them.

September 2006: Defense of Paul’s thesis at the University of Paris X, his dissertation is selected for the best research award.

2007: Paul says: « I got married and stopped my studies for 2 years. Maria B. presents an article in a lecture which reiterates the plagiarism: an error made in English by citing an example was copied as is. »

2008: Publication by Maria B. of a first article plagiarizing his work in a Belgian university magazine of linguistics.

May 2010: The International symposium at the university of xxx (Belgium) with an intervention by Maria B. on the same topic.

December 2012: Publication in an International Journal of an article from Maria B.

December 2013: Paul C. sent an e-mail to the editorial secretary of the magazine Y. « I ask you to read the article of Maria B. I received the magazine by post: I discovered of the plagiarism of my 2006 thesis in 2 articles. » © IIRAFPA - Bergadaà, 2018 17

Paul write to the Institute asking for help

« I warn my Director of Master who speaks of Time lost for other publications: it to the management of the University of Paris 2 weeks for the researcher N who asks me to highlight the plagiarized Time lost for the legal services: passages and constitute a file that she hands 2 days over to the legal services of the University of Paris N, which took the matter very seriously. » December 2013: « Maria B. having heard of From this moment Paul C. becomes the case offers me by private message on stressed and overwhelmed by this facebook to quote me in the magazine xxx "as problem. He can no longer progress co-author". Informed by the newspaper that I in his thesis. would have worked with Maria B. on these Cost: 1 year of Paul’s salary articles, I formally denied to the review having 40’000 EUR collaborated with C.D. » January 2014: « I file a complaint with the Cost 3 hours salary of a Rector and rector and vice-rector of the university of xxx Vice-rectors in meetings and 3 days (Belgium), who acknowledge receipt. End of of legal services. January 2014: I receive a call from the Rector Cost: 4’000 EUR of the University of xxx (Belgium) "very concerned ». He asks me to come to xxx in February for an interview and I give him the complete file so that the university can conduct an investigation. »

End of January 2014: « I take the opinion of a lawyer in Paris on the case, Maître xxx, Cost of lawyers: 5'000 EUR specialist in copyright and of Maître yyy, a lawyer in Brussels, in order to also have an idea of the laws governing copyright in Belgium. » May 2014: « I renounce any trial, I do not have the financial means and I count on the university commission to restore the truth. » May 2014: « I am summoned to xxx Costs: travel, hotel, meals (Belgium) before the university committee of 4'500 EUR 10 persons responsible for deciding on this case and I summarize the facts. I have already 10 persons at (average) 500 EUR/ provided them with the complete file that I day x10 days (preparation, have put together in details. » meetings, files, conclusion) 50'000 EUR February 2015: « The editorial board of a Retractation process (salary of the journal in which a plagiarized article appeared lawyers and several meetings) decided to withdraw the article. » estimated cost: 8’000 EUR

Total: more than 111’500 EUR

2. journey into the future

• For the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) ?

• What responsibilities (academic and legal) for the Rector or President of the university at fault?

The logic of consequence

3. The logic of consequence

10 consequences

1 - Plagiarism Affects Authors. Plagiarizing amounts to far more than simply stealing a piece of work. For the author, the feeling of having been symbolically eliminated can be devastating. Theft of a work of the mind is unique in its kind: it is a serious breach of the rights of personality.

2 – Plagiarists Swindle… Readers. Plagiarism threatens the foundations of knowledge. Plagiarism destroys the links to past knowledge by refusing readers access to sources.

3 – Plagiarism Infringes Authors’ Future Rights. When original ideas are stolen from an author, not only is he/she robbed of the result of his/her research, but also, if he/she continues to publish on his research topic he/she will be obliged to systematically cite his/her plagiarist who after all, can claim prior publication.

10 consequences

4 - Plagiarism Induces Pointless Research. Their disruption of citation conventions could even be understood as an extension of this “creativity”. But what is the point in making a patchwork of texts or ideas from different contexts and levels of analysis with incoherent epistemological perspectives?

5 – Unethical behavior encourages poor research. It is associated with the laziness behind an author’s occasional – and then more frequent – sloppy research. It jeopardizes the rules of conduct for research, with diluted references, ghost authors…

6 – Fraud inhibits competent researchers. It brings shame to the profession. It is always associated with scandal. It gives rise to rumors concerning innocent people.

3. The logic of consequence

10 consequences

7 – Plagiarism and scientific fraud defrauds the System Nobody has more than twenty-four hours in a day. If you know how long it takes to produce a publishable paper…

8 - Fraud and plagiarism lead to the malfunctioning of scientific journals. They cause turmoil within the linear production process of journals. The journals face serious constraints when it comes time to withdraw an article.

9 – Plagiarism Harms Educational Establishments. In an Institute survey, 37% of respondents declared the main victim of researchers’ plagiarism to be the academic system and its reputation. According to these respondents, the system’s credibility and public image are damaged because when the media exposes plagiarism, it harms all academic stakeholders.

10 consequences

10 – Fighting Plagiarism is Expensive Any university that chooses to fight plagiarism must first set up an investigation commission; the investigations will likely be long and costly. Today, nobody knows the true cost of such investigations that include lawyers’ and other investigators’ fees, time lost by all involved, reputation costs, etc. Furthermore, when plagiarism is discovered in research laboratories or other university departments, more time must be spent checking that it has not spread throughout the establishment. For example, in a case of scientific fraud in Luxemburg, specialists from each discipline checked the practices of all the suspected plagiarist’s collaborators.

4. The responsibility of the scientist or

How to root a virtuous ethic

Develop a common language

Train and support

Verify and sanction

Bring peace to communities

4. How to root a virtuous ethic

Traditional Thinking

What penalties?

How can we check?

Which detection software?

Check for which mistakes?

Disclosing, denouncing, tattling?

For which values? © IIRAFPA - Bergadaà, 2018 28 4. How to root a virtuous ethic

We answer

What type of university do we want for the future?

Who will control the system, people or rules?

How can we develop the International Institute?

How can we develop new competencies?

What practical ethics should be promoted?

4. How to root a virtuous ethic

Our real blockers

• The logic of the cause • The «little attorney» and the appeal of the sanction • The truth holder • The "touch and go" communication

or How to act at different levels

5. The Institute’s actions

• 500 to 600 papers are withdrawn per year. And it's part of the iceberg. Once an article is published, it is quoted, the authors quote themselves from author to author without returning to the sources... .

How to make ethics courses mandatory?

• 725,000 students are currently involved in doctoral programmes in Europe. That's 240,000 a year. Thus, teaching ethics and integrity in traditional classes of 15 students on average would require more than 1,600 courses/teachers.

How to train teachers and make real "Virtue Ethics"?

• Certification 1 : Organizational references for the implementation of integrated projects (“responsible university”)

• Certification 2 : Conduct of commissions to investigate cases of fraud or plagiarism

• Certification 3 : Drawing up of expertise files and use of detection software

• Certification 4 : Integrity Champions

Thank you!

University of Geneva March 16, 2018 Michelle Bergadaà

President of the Institute IRAFPA 1

Agenda

1 - Bachelor and Master levels: How to stop plagiarism?

2 – Doctorate level: How to become a delinquent?

3 – All levels: Different profiles of delinquents

4 – Discussion

2 © IIRAFPA - Bergadaà, 2018 Introduction

Academic organizational dynamics and processes

Fraudsters and Editors and publishers plagiarists

Fraud and Non-ethical plagiarism publications

Society

1. Bachelor and Master levels: How to stop plagiarism?

• Internet has revolutionized knowledge acquisition and production in the same way that printing had revolutionized society

• But, the different actors (researchers, students, editors, establishments...) do not communicate with each other

The will to fight academic fraud should go hand in hand with the will of actors to get involved in the revolution of knowledge

1. Bachelor and Master levels

The Web Culture

The Community Culture

Search for documents

1. Bachelor and Master levels

Developing a common language

Training and coaching

Control and sanction

Develop a series of 7 messages with students

We make students vote (0,1, or 2)

We then propose a poster competition with the students on the chosen focus

1. Bachelor and Master levels

Message 1. The moral lesson

Message 2. The Risk

Message 3. The call for reason

Message 4. The sanction

Message 5. Shame

Message 6. Pride

Message 2. The Perceived risk

Message 4. The sanction

Message 5. Shame

1. Bachelor and Master levels

Message 1. The moral lesson

Message 2. The Risk

Message 3. The call for reason

Message 4. The sanction

Message 5. Shame

Message 6. Pride

2. How to become a delinquent?

Research Object Researcher : « Me »

We do not make research,

- we ARE players

- within our environment and our time

As long as the player is able to distinguish the « me », from the Academic system « I » within the system, he/she will know how to freely move from one position to the other.

Author : « Me » Research object

Player : « I » © IIRAFPA - Bergadaà, 2018 21

2. How to become a delinquent?

System If the player starts from the system, he/she can become a pure opportunist

« I »

Are there mechanisms that regulate knowledge creation and distribution? System

« Me » Object

« I » © IIRAFPA - Bergadaà, 2018 23

3. All levels: Different profiles of delinquents

VALUES

A set of shared cultural elements that do not need to be enacted

NORMS

A set of explicit behavioural models and rules developed by a given society

3. Different profiles of delinquents

Autonomy

A D

Falsifiers Bricoleurs

Norms

Immorality Amorality Values

B C Manipulators Cheaters

Discipline

Autonomy • Falsifiers : Trust the outcome A of their actions/risks. Can Falsifiers download a whole dissertation

and change its author’s name.

Norms Immorality • Reaction: The falsifier does not deny, but negotiates his/ Values her discrete exit or engages a lawyer

• Risks : may take advantage of globalization and play the system and move away

• The question: How to identify the falsifiers with the minimum of human and financial costs, and formally exclude them from the academic system?

3. Different profiles of delinquents

Values • Manipulators: will trust their Immorality own values which legitimize plagiarism. They adapt their behaviors to the different environments. B Manipulators • Reaction: The manipulator places

the conflict on stage and says

Norms Discipline « they are jealous of me ».

• Risks: To not have the courage to stop the manipulator who will continue to falsify his/her writings.

• The question: how to detect the deviant behavior of the manipulator and to provide the "cure" by confronting his illness?

• Cheaters: they trust their peers behaviors and do not dare to Values discuss the aspects of plagiarism Amorality

• Reaction: The cheater refuses to C

accept responsibilities of his/her Cheaters cheating and let his hierarchy Norms react. Discipline • Risks: If the cheater is punished instead of the true responsibles.

• The question: How to train cheaters for pure knowledge ?

3. Different profiles of delinquents

• Bricoleurs: they self structure their knowledge. Enjoy Autonomy constructing their work using the « cut and paste » function. D

Bricoleurs

Norms • Reaction: the bricoleur admits immediately: "How was I so Amorality stupid?"

• Risks: if confronted, the Values bricoleur’s creativity potential may be lost.

• The question: How to best channel their creativity and avoid its dilution in the web ?

Autonomy

Norms A Falsifiers A Bricoleur A Bricoleur Bricoleurs Bricoleur

Immorality Amorality Values

«The frequency and the visibility of the deviant action influences the speed of acquiring a deviant character » Pillon, 2003

4. Discussion

Develop a common language

Train and support

Control and sanction

Pacify academic communities

Thank you!

13 mars 2018

Obtaining the « Responsible Institution » label

Me Jean-Pierre Méan

Agenda

1 – Introduction

2 - Obtaining the « Responsible Institution »label

3. Label Guidelines

4. The Institutional Officer

5. Program Implementation

6. IRAFPA Certification

JPM / 13.03.18 2

1. Introduction : Combating Corruption

• The criminal liability of enterprises

• The emergence of anti-corruption standards

• Certification

3 JPM / 13.03.2018

1. Introduction

• What about universities?

• Corruption and bribery

• Sketchy landscape

• Pioneering role of IRAFPA

4 JPM / 13.03.2018 2. Obtaining the «Responsible Institution» label

• Determining the scope

• Guidelines and Requirements

• Certification audit

• Annual updates

• Renewal

5 JPM / 13.03.2018

3. Label guidelines

• Integrity program

• Plagiarism : violation of scientific integrity in research and publishing

• prevention, follow up and sanctions

• For searchers

• For professors and searchers

6 JPM / 13.03.2018 3. Label guidelines

Leadership

Who?

• Those representing the organization

• Those vouching for the academic degrees

Human, financial and legal resources

7 JPM / 13.03.2018

3. Label guidelines

Institutional commitment

A clear position on plagiarism

Responsible for the implementation of integrity charter

Commitment to implement the IRAFPA program

Time horizon: 1-2 years

8 JPM / 13.03.2018 3. Label guidelines

Human and Financial Organization

• Budget

• Appointment of an Institutional Officer

• Program team

9 JPM / 13.03.2018

4. The Institutional Officer

Profile

• Seniority

• Role

• Direct contact to governing body

10 JPM / 13.03.2018 4. The Institutional Officer

Her/his role

Change attitudes

For students and searchers

Information on reporting procedures

11 JPM / 13.03.2018

5. Program Implementation

The Team

Elaborate the Integrity Charter

Obtain commitments

Coordinate communication and training

Define procedures and organize their implementation

Keep track of cases

Propose improvements

12 JPM / 13.03.2018 5. Program Implementation

The integrity charter defines

Prevention and information measures

The policy

Investigation procedures

The roles

The sanctions

13 JPM / 13.03.2018

5. Program Implementation

Reporting procedure

Encourage reporting

Confidentiality

Protection

14 JPM / 13.03.2018 6. IRAFPA Certification

Training the teams on:

Training students and researchers

Communication

Publishing cases

Handling lawyers

15 JPM / 13.03.2018

6. IRAFPA Certification

Training of institutional Officers on:

Setting up reporting systems

Ensuring confidentiality

Setting up review commissions

Defining the consequences and sanctions of violations Publishing cases and sanctions

16 JPM / 13.03.2018 6. IRAFPA Certification

Certification procedure

2 days training in Geneva

Case studies

Review of acquired knowledge

Interaction with IRAFPA experts

17 JPM / 13.03.2018

6. IRAFPA Certification

Follow up

Assistance for program set-up

Intervention upon expert request

Progress control at the end of years 1 and 2

Annual documentary follow-up

Revalidation of certification after 3 years 18 JPM / 13.03.2018

Thank you for your questions

19 Challenges)of)Open)Science)for)scien2ﬁc) integrity) )

Dr.)Laure)Ognois:Zaugg,)MPA) Directrice)du)Service)recherche) ) Visit)of)the)Delega2on)from)Montenegro)in)co:opera2on)with)UNESCO)) 14)March)2018)

2 The)Commission’s) three)pillars)of)ac2on)

INNOVATION'ECOSYSTEM'

PUBLIC'SECTOR' BUSINESSES'

CITIZENS'

ACADEMIA' FINANCE'

PILLAR'1' PILLAR'2' PILLAR'3' Reforming'the'Regulatory' Boos

Open)Science)

Data:) intensive)

Analysis'

Publica

DataSgathering' Pre:print) Open)data)

Collabora2ve)) bibliographies)

Source':'h*p://ec.europa.eu/research/consulta3ons/science52.0/background.pdf' Open)Science:)Priori2es)of) European)Commission)

) 1.Developing' research' infrastructures' for' Open' Science,' to' improve' data' hos3ng,' access'and'governance,'with'the'development'of'a'common'framework'for'research' data'and'crea3on'of'a'European)Open)Science)Cloud.) 2.Mainstreaming'and'further'promo3ng'open'access'policies'as'regards'both'research' data)and)research)publica6ons.' 3.Removing'barriers'to'Open'Science:'this'implies'a'review'of' researchers')careers)so' as'to'create'incen3ves'and'rewards'for'engaging'in'Open'Science.' 4.Research)Integrity) 5.Fostering'and'crea3ng'incen3ves'for'Open'Science,'by'promo3ng'best'prac3ces'and' increasing' the' input' of' knowledge' producers' into' a' more' open' science' environment' (ci6zen)science).))

Challenges)

• Role,)Responsabili2es)and)Strategies)of) Funding)Agencies) ! Governance)issues) ! SeTng)a)system)of)preven2on)vs)sanc2ons) ! SeTng)incen2ves)for)researchers)and)ins2tu2ons) ! Role)of)Na2onal)Funding)Agencies)vs)Interna2onal)Funding) Agencies,)na2onal)implica2on)in)Interna2onal)Code)of) Conducts)(ALLEA)etc)) Challenges)

Ins2tu2onal)Framework)and)Responsabili2es) ! Crea2ng)a)‘Culture)of)Responsible)Research’)towards)Open) Science)within)the)ins2tu2on)(governance,)leadership)issues,) ins2tu2onal)framework)and)policies,)crea2ng)an) environnement)of)trust)vs)accountability)) ! Posi2on)on)Altmetrics,)Ci2zen)Science,)Big)Science,)Open) Innova2on)(protec2ng)privacy,)dealing)with)intellectual) property)rights)) ! Assuring)research)quality)(guarenteeing)access)to) infrastructures)and)services,)fair)evalua2on))

Challenges)

• SeTng)the)«right»)support)system)for) researchers) ! Preven2on)(educa2on,)curricula)from)BA)to)re2rement)) ! Infrastructures)and)services)(repositories,)libraries,)grant’s) oﬃces,)etc.)) ! Research)evalua2on)and)research)assessment)(DORA,) Swissuniversi2es):>)fair)DATA,)fair)evalua2on)) ! Impact)and)society) Challenges)at)UNIGE)

! Ins2tu2onal)Board)regarding)Open)Science)) ! Set:up)of)an)ins2tu2onal)ethics)commision) (CUREG)) ! Infrastructures:)Cloud,)DLCM,)etc.)) ! DPO) ! Ac2ve)member)of)Integrity)community)of)LERU) ! Development)of)curricula)for)Switzerland)in)co: opera2on)with)Swiss)Academies)of)Sciences)) ! Workshops)(for)preven2on))

Thank)you)for)your) aben2on!) Ques2ons?)Discussion!) ) Contact:) [email protected]) ) Sources)slides)2:4:) Prof.'M.'da'Graça'Carvalho,'27'octobre' 2016,'Coimbra'High'Level'Seminar'

10 Université de Genève

March 14th 2018

Investigative Commissions Certification process to be supported by a good understanding – and roll out - of best practices

Pr. Pierre Jean Benghozi [email protected] 1 Introduction

1.2 Two basic issues to be solved

• “Stating what is right and fair" • Community peacemaking • Avoiding the abuse of plagiarism... • But also, avoid abusive or slanderous denunciations.

• Considering different possible forms of action • Direct requests from the plagiarized person • The whistleblower's involvement if he or she is other • Information and solicitation of potential third party structures (review, conference, association, publisher) • Applying for assistance at one's own establishment • The resort to the plagiarist hierarchy • The establishment of a mediation body • Advertising on the web or via various blogs • Filing of legal complaints Fighting against silence

• The greatest criticism for higher education institutions • the total lack of transparency for investigative commissions when it comes to complacency PhD or plagiarism of collaborators.

•Shameful diseases • not that a certain percentage of collaborators are cheaters, contrary to what leaders often believe in academic fraud • actual lack of transparency in procedures and conclusions • minimization of integrity issues.

4 Cautions before considering an investigation

• It calls for time • between 6 months and 9 months • not possible to go any faster considering each other's workloads, geographical distance and the time taken to examine parts • with or without detection software

• A longer investigation puts the protagonists in a painful situation • everyone must also be psychologically protected because otherwise they stop producing serenely pedagogy and research.

• Privacy and confidential process • The exchanges of e-mails are in principle secured by the establishments of the experts. • More so, in any case, than uncontrolled mailing exchanges • But leaks are always to be feared. The flaws in the system are above all human, and no one is immune.

5 An integrated vision

Academic organizational dynamics and processes

Frauders and Editors andpublishers plagiarists

Fraud and Non-ethical plagiarism publications Society

6 © Bergadaà, 2017 Investigative commission : a multiple step process

1.7 1 – When a formal complaint is submitted

• Anyone can submit complaint of fraud or plagiarism • not only victims, but witnesses or managers. • Denial of institution managers • stems from their misunderstanding of the nature of fraud and plagiarism • fear of damaging the institution's image • Lack of knowledge of academic issues since, in some countries, managers might not be actual academics… and not always fully aware of breaches affecting our core business. • If the case is not investigated quickly and objectively • confused complainants can criticize the secrecy regarding these cases via their social networks • They feel themselves as victims of injustice • Their action might damage the reputation of the institution

Our advice: Always ask that the case to be examined very quickly by an expert for a mediation attempt If the case reveals real presumptions of fraud, an ad hoc committee should be set up.

8 2 – Setting up an ad hoc comittee

• The most common mistake made by researchers or institutions • "one washes one's dirty laundry as a family" • to entrust the entire investigation to an internal commission

• Even if such a commission carries out honest and objective work, its conclusions will always be tainted by (the doubt of) partiality. • Not to mention the "political" pressures that members might face from their colleagues or “peers”

Our advice: Choose experts outside the establishment. The mandated commission will work in serene and dispassionate conditions.

9 3 – Selecting Comittee members

• One of the members should be a experienced doctor of law or lawyer • In the majority of cases now, accused persons have taken out a legal insurance policy that provides them with good lawyers.

• One or two experts should be from the discipline concerned • who can examine the case and examine the points of the dispute on a case-by- case basis. • Only them are able of distinguishing between genuine fraud, negligence or ethical misconduct.

• One of the expert must be either a specialist in plagiarism and scientific fraud • failing that, a specialist in ethics and academic deontology

Our advice: As soon as the commission is set up, each member is bound by the requirements of confidentiality It protects the protagonists as well as the establishment from possible media interrogations. 10 4 – Facts, facts, always facts

• Plagiarism-related documentation should be properly assembled. • not uncommon being squeezed, afterwards, for truncated files and records • Beware of mails and documents overwhelmed by emotion • Cf email exchanges (sometimes violent) that illustrate degraded relationships.

• “Smoke screens" make it impossible to identify the facts compulsory to support decisions

• Work will be facilitated if - before the commission is at work - the records are objective, the documents properly referenced. • In case of appeal, lawyers will ask that all data whose source is not authenticable be removed from the file. Our advice: No hearing of the parties before the empirical objective analysis of the records there is a risk of confusing the commission's role with that of a court or an administrative inquiry

11 5 – Qualifying the fault(s)

• Seriousness of fraud or plagiarism : • not the magnitude • Rather the proven intentionality of its perpetrator.

• Important to know how to distinguish • masking processes by simple techniques (e.g. copied and pasted) • camouflage using sophisticated techniques • appropriation of the thought/expression of a renowned author • (e. g. rework of an author's argumental style...).

Our advice: Evaluating the "delinquent behaviour " before meeting the parties involved.

12 6 – Contextualizing the case

• Hearing parties to contextualize the actors • PhD supervisors vs. Doctoral students • young researchers vs. dean • …

• Controlling associated responsibilities • e. g. no ethics training, no integrity chart…

• Setting the profiles of people who are convinced of scientific fraud or plagiarism • cheats, do-it-yourselfers, manipulators, fraudsters, etc.

• Controlling the past practices • whether there is addiction or recurrence of integrity violations.

Our advice: to analyze the case by taking a necessary distance to measure globally the impact on all stakeholders

13 7 – Determining delinquency behaviour

• Checking the impact of fraudulent behavior • on collateral victims (e. g. publishers, readers, etc.)

• Verifying integrity violations among the 10 consequences identified by the IRAFPA Institute

Our advice: Determine the impact of possible sanctions Consider the chances of rehabilitation in the academic system

14 8 – Defining remedies

• If it is a matter of removing a title or function • make recommendations to that effect to close the case • If it is a theft of works or writings • ask for communication from the publishers and fraudulent authors • If it is a matter of negligence or breach of ethics • ask for formal letters of apology accompanied by the repair of the situation (e.g. the addition of an author, restitution of an order of author on article).

Our advice: remedies must be conceived as a means of easing tensions allowing everyone to go ahead in their career as serenely as possible.

15 9 – Concluding the investigation

• A report shall be drawn up by the Chairman of the committee • It is then forwarded to the patron.

• It always ends with formal recommendations following the establishment of facts • Not uncommon for an extension of the investigation to be recommended, • either to other fraudulent situations that the examination of the documents has revealed • or to collaborators of the accused persons.

• Conclusions must keep in mind the two main objectives • to pacify communities • while restoring equity between individuals, actors and organizations

Our advice: Provide the most accurate conclusions possible clearly advise on possible avenues of extension of the investigation but do not propose sanctions. 16 10 – Communicating on fraud forensics

• Provide an annual summary and a compiled table of the number of cases investigated • Anonymous • Quantity and nature of sanctions, if possible sorted by faculty or department. • The Canadian model

• Keep up statistics to check for changes in misconduct. • Do not hesitate to compare and compile them with those of other establishments

• Users cases and “Data-based Regulation” • each individual should make his / her own reflection and self-training

• These cases make it possible to measure the impact on a career of integrity failure.

Our advice: Don't be afraid to reveal cases that have given rise to investigations: they allow everyone - individuals and process managers - to make progress towards a more ethical approach.

17 Conclusion

– Care should be taken to conceive simultaneously • an awareness raising policy and a mediation mechanism

– Various actions to be implemented • Empowering disciplinary communities • Establishing a means of dealing with disputes • Developing capacities for investigation and arbitration • Ensuring the regulation of relations and pacification of academic coopetition • Gradually defining shared jurisprudence and good practices How to contribute through IRAFPA Certification

• Training the teams on: • Training students and researchers • Communication • Publishing cases • Handling lawyers • Training of institutional Officers on: • Setting up reporting systems • Ensuring confidentiality • Setting up review commissions • Defining the consequences and sanctions of violations • Publishing cases and sanctions • Certification procedure • 2 days training in Geneva • Case studies • Review of acquired knowledge • Interaction with IRAFPA experts • Follow up • Assistance for program set-up • Intervention upon expert request • Progress control at the end of years 1 and 2 • Annual documentary follow-up 19 • Revalidation of certification after 3 years Thank you for your attention Any question ?

20 Université de Genève

14 mars 2018

The « Integrity champions » certification: Training in mediation, conflict management, and fact analysis for doctoral students and young researchers

Dr. Nada Sayarh, Postdoctoral fellow GSEM, University of Geneva

Agenda

1 – Background

2 – « The integrity champions» certification

– Day 1: Context, Foundations, Action, Method

- Day 2 : Mediation Methodology, 5 phases, method

- Continuing Education: The future

2 NS / 14.03.2018

1. Background :

• 725,000 people are involved in doctoral studies in Europe.

• 187,000 enrolling each year.

• Teaching ERI, would require more than 12,000 trainings.

• « One Shot » course: to establish the roots of the “virtue ethics”.

3 NS / 14.03.2018

1. Background

• Sustainable action “ Ethics and Integrity” - Power in science in 10 or 15 years.

• How to promote ethics within research?

• Doctoral candidates interested in ethics: - champions of ethics and integrity (academia or in the private sector.

• Difficult for the victims/ witnesses to know whether to intervene and/or whom to address.

4 NS / 14.03.2018

1. Background

• Training in mediation, conflict management, and fact analysis.

• An ad hoc certificate, recognized by their employers and their peers.

• Gather in a conference every two years.

- Collaborative network: sustainability

5 NS / 14.03.2018

2. « The integrity champions» certification

The Institute's seminars allow participants to:

- Systemic analysis of situations.

- Contextualize and manage conflicts

- To help colleagues and co-workers in negotiating solutions.

6 NS / 14.03.2018 2. « The integrity champions» certification

• 300 real life cases.

• 25 to enrich tutorials as well as debates.

• Cultural and research context, generic guidelines.

• Information technology: adequate learning environment, self- train, to interact with peers.

• A 2 days residential training: consolidate the learning, validate “competencies”, and to interact with experts.

7 NS / 14.03.2018

2. « The integrity champions» certification

I) First day: Background, Context

• Change in researchers job: “publish or perish,” electronic communications, online libraries ...

• These changes have come about so quickly that we have not had time to establish stable guidelines for ethical behavior.

• Several young researchers realize their work has been stolen but do not know how to assert their rights.

8 NS / 14.03.2018 2. « The integrity champions» certification

I) First day: Foundations, Action.

• Rules to avoid scientific fraud and plagiarism.

• The procedures if one is the victim of plagiarism or a related practice (if forced to use a ghostwriter, self-plagiarize, or translated without authorization) in order to remain in control of the situation.

• To put together evidence relating to a claim and to present it.

9 NS / 14.03.2018

2. « The integrity champions» certification

I) First day: Action

• The different profiles of delinquents, the pitfalls, how to react if you are the victim.

• How to handle plagiarism cases involving complex conflict situations (doctoral candidates, professors, administrators, authors, journals, etc.).

Method

• Presentations based on our work over the past 10 years.

• Analysis of case reports based on real-life situations.

10 NS / 14.03.2018 2. « The integrity champions» certification

II) Second day : Mediation methodology

• Good mediation requires meta-communication.

• Focus on what is not said as much as on what is said: reduces conflict.

• Under ten days! Common sense, objective facts.

• Victims: law of silence and an extra layer of injustice.

• Our five-phase protocol of mediation.

11 NS / 14.03.2018

2. « The integrity champions» certification

II) Second day : Mediation methodology

• Phase 1:

Reframing the situation: the facts must be established.

Phone calls with the « victims » or «witnesses»

Focusing on the problem rather than on the individuals.

12 NS / 14.03.2018 2. « The integrity champions» certification

II) Second day : Mediation methodology

• Phase 2:

The mediation protocol.

Mediation leverage: necessary knowledge (legal, organizational, political…).

Competencies focus on the core problem, priority, not what it first appears to be.

13 NS / 14.03.2018

2. « The integrity champions» certification

II) Second day : Mediation methodology

• Phase 3:

People are upset: react with extreme behavior/ say nothing. Some key stakeholders take responsibility/ Others avoid it.

Identify parties’ deep attitude: - how does the conflict prevent them from becoming what they want to be? - What are their true objectives and real motivations? - What do they expect the situation to become in one or two years’ time?

Conflict put into perspective: mediation phase.

Exaggerated claims dropped in favor of a call for reason and win/ win solutions.

14 NS / 14.03.2018 2. « The integrity champions» certification

II) Second day : Mediation methodology

• Phase 4:

Reframing to break out of shame and accusation.

A discussion at 3 levels.

- The Institute could help formulate a strategy of action.

– The basic principles of scientific integrity.

– Reiterating the basis of academic deontology.

15 NS / 14.03.2018

2. « The integrity champions» certification

II) Second day : Mediation methodology

• Phase 5:

Parties voice their opinions as to the outcome.

The heart of the problem can then be reformulated (plagiarism, modification of the order of authors, scientific fraud, etc.).

Ways of repairing the situation (letters of apology)

16 NS / 14.03.2018 2. « The integrity champions» certification

II) Second day : Mediation methodology

Method

• Based on the work we have been doing on the subject over the past 10 years

• Analysis of case reports based on real-life situations that we have encountered

17 NS / 14.03.2018

2. « The integrity champions» certification

III) Continuing education: the future

Serious games

3 Serious Games (University of Geneva)

Immersive simulations: -understand the dimensions of an ethical problem (human, legal, individual, collective…), - obtain information about the references or sources -to improve their competencies.

An smart phone application.

18 NS / 14.03.2018 2. « The integrity champions» certification

III) Continuing education: the future

• To maintain conmunication with the Champions, to test their knowledge and to renew their certification.

• To interact with Integrity champions from other countries

• To built a responsible integrity network: the future.

Method • Intensive sessions organized each year for all the Champions.

• Case writing: renew certification, enrich the database.

19 NS / 14.03.2018

Questions?

20 Study visit: ‘Higher Education Institutions in Geneva, Switzerland – Integrity in higher education’ Geneva, 13-15 March 2018

Introduction to quality assurance and accreditation systems in Europe

Jacques Hallak and Muriel Poisson

Concept of quality assurance

• Process of establishing stakeholder confidence that provision (input, process and outcomes) fulfills expectations or measures up to minimum requirements • Process designed to monitor, maintain and enhance quality • Accreditation, assessment, and audit • Accountability, improvement, transparency Hallak & Poisson © IIEP-UNESCO

1 General model of quality assessment

Common features

Market co-ordination • Intermediary agency (US, Canada) responsible for quality checks • Self-evaluation mechanisms State control (Western Europe) • Site visits • Peer reviews • Result reporting • Link quality review/funding

Different features of quality approaches

2 Current trends

• Moving from a program-focused to an institution-wide approach • Internationalization of quality assurance • Involving students and graduates • Employability in quality assurance • Assessing e-Learning, MOOCs and OER

Integrity and quality assurance

• Standards: integrity values; preventive tools (charts of ethics); policies to ensure academic integrity (anti-plagiarism software) • Governance: participation of internal and external stakeholders in decision-making, in particular students • Information: provision of public and transparent access to information (academic provision, administrative procedures for application and admission,

3 Ethical policy framework

 Institution’s overall approach to ethics and governance issues  Institutions responsibilities to academic and support staff  Institution's responsibility to students  Behavior of academic staff and students  Ethical issues involved in the teaching and learning process

Academic integrity maturity

4 Contact us!

Muriel Poisson, [email protected] Jacques Hallak, [email protected] VISIT OUR RESOURCE PLATFORM, « ETICO »: http:/etico.iiep.unesco.org

5 L’ACCRÉDITATION EN SUISSE

DÉLÉGATION DU MONTÉNÉGRO

15 mars 2018 LA SUISSE ET LE MONTÉNÉGRO

• ~ 8‘300‘000 habitants • ~ 650‘000 habitants

• 41‘285 km2 • 13‘812 km2 • 201 habitants / km2 • 45 habitants / km2

15.03.2018 AAQ 2 QUELQUES FAITS SUR LA SUISSE

Une Confédération de 26 États membres autonomes en matière de - finances - police - éducation

15.03.2018 AAQ 3 UN SYSTÈME D‘ÉDUCATION BASÉ SUR LA DUALITÉ

Maturité en chiffres: 3-8 ans

Universités 1980 2000 2015 3-5 ans Maturité 10.6% 17.8% 20.8% Hautes écoles Maturité 7.9% 18.1% prof. ISCED 5A ISCED 5A spécialisées (HES)

10.6% 25.7% 38.6% 3 ans 3+1 ans

Nombre d‘étudiants (2016/17) Ecoles de préparation Formation dans les à la maturité / Ecoles professionnelle initiale ISCED 3A du secondaire II ISCED 3B (apprentissage) + • Universités: 148‘534 Prép. maturité pro. • HES: 75‘098 • HEP: 20‘472 9 ans

Education secondaire I Education primaire ISCED 1+2

15.03.2018 AAQ 4 COORDINATION DE L‘ENSEIGNEMENT SUPÉRIEUR

Education Ens. Ens. supérieur– Tertiaire A primaire et supérieur – secondaire Tertiaire B Confédération

Conférence Conférence Conseil suisse suisse des des d‘accréditation hautes recteurs et agence écoles

Organisations prof. sectorielles

Cantons

15.03.2018 AAQ 5 TÂCHES ET COMPOSITION

15.03.2018 AAQ 6 CONSEIL D’ACCRÉDITATION - ORGANIGRAMME

15.03.2018 AAQ 7 GOUVERNANCE: RÉPARTITION DES RÔLES

Conseil des HE définit le cadre avec les Directives d‘accréditation (art. 30 LEHE )

Conseil d‘accréditation Préparation Agence Planifie et conduit les • Décide des accréditations procédures; garantit leur (art. 21 LEHE) intégrité (art. 32 LEHE): • Contrôle l‘agence Auto-évaluation • Information • Documentation • Rapports de synthèse Evaluation externe

Décision

15.03.2018 AAQ 8 SYSTÈME D‘ACCRÉDITATION SELON LA LEHE

HE Universitaires HE Spécialisées HE Pédagogiques

Loi sur l‘encouragement des hautes écoles

Accréditation institutionnelle comme condition préalable pour le Droit à l‘appellation

Accréditation institutionnelle comme cond. préalable pour les Contributions fédérales

Accréditation et / ou reconnaissance des professions règlementées

Professions médicales Professions de la santé Diplôme d’enseignement (LPMéd) (LPSan)

Professions de la psychologie Professions de la psychologie (LPsy) (LPsy)

Qualification pédagogique Qualification pédagogique professionnelle (LFPr) professionnelle (LFPr)

15.03.2018 AAQ 9 MANDAT LÉGAL DE L’AAQ

Loi sur l'encouragement et la coordination des hautes écoles, LEHE

Art. 32 Procédure d’accréditation En vertu de la convention de coopération, l'Agence suisse d'accréditation et les autres agences d'accréditation reconnues par le Conseil d'accréditation mènent la procédure d'accréditation au sens de la présente loi. La procédure doit être conforme aux normes internationales.

15.03.2018 AAQ 10 ASSURANCE QUALITÉ INTERNE ET EXTERNE

Qualité • les objectifs découlent de la stratégie • sont différents pour l’enseignement, la recherche et les services • sont différenciés pour toutes les unités organisationnelles Assurance qualité interne • est une instrument de direction • permet la mise en place de la stratégie

Assurance qualité externe favorise „l’auto- réflexion“ • format (règles de procédure) • groupe d‘experts • standards de qualité

15.03.2018 AAQ 11 ACCÈS À L‘ACCRÉDITATION: EXIGENCES FORMELLES POUR LES HAUTES ÉCOLES

§ Liberté et unité d‘enseignement et de Entrée sur recherche demande

Critères formales formels § Appartenance à un des deux types de HE (Université et HES ou HEP) § Existence d‘un système d’ass. qualité § Compatibilité avec l‘Espace Européen Auto-évaluation d‘Enseignement Supérieur § Infrastructure en Suisse § Au moins une cohorte diplômée Evaluation externe § Sécurité financière § Personnalité juridique en Suisse

Décision Standards de qualité selon article 30 LEHE

15.03.2018 AAQ 12 RÈGLES DE PROCÉDURE

§ Règles de procédure: „fit for purpose“ Entrée sur Objet de l‘accréditation: demande § Institution Critères formels § Bachelors § Masters § MAS (≥ 60 ECTS)

Auto-évaluation § Groupes d‘experts: 5 membres, dont 1 étudiant-e, composition équilibrée § Droit des parties: prise de position sur la demande au Conseil d‘accréditation Evaluation externe Décision: § Accréditation § Accréditation avec condition(s) Décision § Rejet de l‘accréditation

Standards de qualité selon article 30 LEHE § Publication des décisions positives

20.01.2016 AAQ 13 STANDARDS

§ Article 30 LEHE: Directives d‘accréditation (...) un système d‘assurance qualité garantissant: 1. la qualité de l‘enseignement, de la recherche et des 1. Stratégie d‘assurance de la qualité prestations de services et une qualification appropriée de son personnel, 2. Gouvernance 2. le respect des conditions d’admission aux hautes écoles prévues aux art. 23, 24 ou 25 et, le cas échéant, des 3. Enseignement, recherche et prestations de principes concernant la nature des études dans les hautes écoles spécialisées prévus à l’art. 26, services 3. une direction et une organisation efficaces, 4. Ressources 4. un droit de participation approprié des personnes relevant de l‘institution, 5. Communication interne et externe 5. la promotion de l‘égalité des chances et de l‘égalité dans les faits entre les hommes et les femmes dans l‘accomplissement de ses tâches, 6. la prise en compte d’un développement économiquement, socialement et écologiquement durable dans l’accomplissement de ses tâches, 7. un contrôle de la réalisation de son mandat. la haute école universitaire ou la haute école spécialisée offre un enseignement, une recherche et des prestations de services dans plusieurs disciplines domaines d’études, la haute école ou toute autre institution du domaine des hautes écoles, de même que la collectivité responsable, présentent les garanties suffisantes pour garantir la pérennité de l’institution.

§ European Standards and Guidelines

20.01.201620.01.2016 AAQ AAQ 14 STANDARDS - EXEMPLES

15.03.2018 AAQ 15 CONCLUSIONS

Si l‘éthique et l‘intégrité ne sont pas directement mentionnées dans l’accréditation, elles sont omniprésentes dans l’assurance qualité. Notamment à travers les points suivants: • Inscription dans la loi -> base unique pour tous • Composition du Conseil -> intégration de profils variés, représentativité • Méthode de travail de l‘agence -> éviter le parti pris • Composition des panels d‘experts -> intégration de profils variés, représentativité • Mise en place de mesures de sécurité -> décision par un organe indépendant, demande de réexamen, etc. • Contenu des standards -> implication; droit de participation; indépendance; durabilité économique, écologique et sociale; égalité des chances; financement de la recherche; communication; transparence; etc. • Procédure centrée sur le dialogue -> chacun peut s‘exprimer librement

15.03.2018 AAQ 16 Merci pour votre attention!

15.03.2018 AAQ 17

STRENGHTEN INTEGRITY AND COMBAT CORRUPTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN MONTENEGRO MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION

INSTITUTION NAME Ministry of Education Biljana Mišović, Head of Unit for Higher Education and ENIC Centre Ministry of Education, Council for Milica Žižić, Adviser higher Education University of Montenegro Irena Orović, Vice-Rector and Head of the Scientific Committee University of Montenegro Sanja Peković, Director of the Centre for studies and quality control University of Montenegro Boris Vukićević, Head of the Ethical Board University of Montenegro Dragana Kujović, Member of the Ethical Board University of Montenegro Bojana Đuranović, Teacher at the Law Faculty University of Montenegro Đorđe Vučević, Member of the Student’s Parliamant University “Donja Gorica”, Podgorica Maja Drakić-Grgur, Dean of the Faculty for International (private) Economics, Finance and Business Council of Europe Vesna Atanasova, Programme Officer, Division of Cooperation and Capacity Building, Department of Education

Council of Europe (Programme Miloš Bošković, Project Manager for Educational Office, Podgorica, Montenegro) Actions, European Union Institut International for Educational Muriel Poisson, Programme Specialist, Manager of IIEP Planning (IIPE-UNESCO) project on Ethics and Corruption in Education International consultant Jacques Hallak Two interpreters (Montenegrin/French)