Essay Battling Academic Corruption in Higher Education
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 9, Num. 1 | June 2019 Essay Battling Academic Corruption in Higher Education: Does External Quality Assurance Offer a Ray of Hope? Lazarus Nabaho and WilBerforce Turyasingura Uganda Management Institute, Kampala, Uganda Submitted: April 21, 2019 | Peer reviewed: June 4, 2019 | Accepted: June 17, 2019 | Published: June 2019 Abstract The post-1980s changes in the global higher education landscape have triggered a burgeoning of incidents of academic corruption in higher education institutions. Since 2000, the discourse on how to combat academic corruption has gained traction in higher education and quality assurance is advanced as one of the strategies for fighting corruption in higher education. In 2016, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation) issued a “wakeup call” to quality assurance systems to take up a leading role in the battle against academic corruption in view of the massive societal risks associated with the vice. However, there is a dearth of empirical and conceptual studies on how the quality assurance systems, in general, and external quality assurance systems, in particular, can take up a leading role in the crusade against academic corruption. This conceptual article, using the crime– punishment model as an analytical lens, discusses how the national quality assurance agencies (and systems) can exercise the leadership role in comBating academic corruption. The article advances the setting of academic integrity standards, institutional and program accreditation, accreditation of academic journals, sharing information and promoting whistleblowing, monitoring of institutions, applying sanctions, and ranking of higher education institutions on the basis of integrity indicators as options that are availaBle to quality assurance agencies to exercise their leadership role in comBating academic corruption. These approaches are likely to create Both incentives and disincentives for the higher education institutions and staff in connection with engaging in academic corruption. Nevertheless, the article takes cognizance of the idea that external quality assurance is necessary but not sufficient in combating corruption at the academy level. Keywords: academic corruption, combating, higher education, quality assurance Introduction Academic corruption—or corruption in higher education—is a gloBal phenomenon that is not new in higher education (Chapman & Lindner, 2016; Mohamedbhai, 2016, 2017; Osipian, 2008; van’t Land, 2017). What appears to be new in the higher education landscape is the post- 1990 global attention that has been directed at the vice (Heyneman, 2013) and the transnational ramifications associated with it (Denisova-Schmidt, 2018). This assertion does not infer that the lower suBsectors of the education system are islands of integrity, But it does suggest that higher Author correspondence: [email protected] Suggested Citation: NaBaho, L., & Turyasingura, W. (2019). Battling academic corruption in higher education: Does external quality assurance offer a ray of hope? Higher Learning Research Communications, 9(1) 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v9i1.449 www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access education is more at risk of academic corruption than primary and secondary education. The susceptibility of higher education to academic corruption is explicated By, inter alia, the enormous benefits that accrue to the individuals from higher education and the stigma associated with failure to oBtain a credential from a higher education institution (Chapman & Lindner, 2016; Hallak & Poisson, 2007a). In the 21st century, postsecondary education is perceived as a means to an end. Specifically, higher education is responsible for the “distribution of life chances and privileged access to the labour market” (Martin, 2016, p. 49; Martin & Poisson, 2015, p. 1); acts as a stepping stone to most positions of power, authority, and prestige in most societies (Hallak & Poisson, 2007a); and bolsters salary prospects (Martin, 2016). The post-1980s debate on whether higher education is a public or private good lends credence to the view that higher education pays dividends to individuals, the ripple effect on society notwithstanding. The Burgeoning incidents of academic corruption have not taken place in a vacuum. ArguaBly, a plethora of post-1980s trends in higher education have amplified the opportunities for academic corruption. These shifts in the higher education landscape include, but are not limited to, the emergence of open and distance learning institutions, the growth in the private provision of higher education, the deregulation of higher education, the growth of transnational higher education, increased competition among students and institutions, and the emergence of private accreditation agencies at international level (Martin, 2016; Pollak & Poisson, 2007a; Stensaker, 2013). Academic corruption at the level of the academy occurs and is often reported in teaching, student admission and recruitment, student assessment credentials and qualifications, and research and puBlication of theses and dissertations (Chapman & Lindner, 2016; Hallak & Poisson, 2007B; MohamedBhai, 2016; O’Malley, 2018). The various internal stakeholders in higher education institutions—administrators, academics, and students—are both potential perpetrators of and allies in the crusade against academic corruption. From the angle of sustaining the vice, administrators at the various levels of the academy may be inclined to engage in the following corrupt practices: changing students’ grades for money or favors, Basing promotions on inappropriate criteria, running sham journals, displaying nepotism or favoritism, awarding degrees in return for favors, running or collaborating in operating degree mills, and awarding sham degrees (Chapman & Lindner, 2016). Conversely, academics may be inclined to engage in unethical practices such as selling admissions, falsifying data, plagiarizing, gift authoring, and ghost authoring. The student community could be involved in paying for or giving incentives for admission, oBtaining advance copies of tests and examinations, plagiarizing, and cheating. Despite this discourse, there is lack of consensus on what constitutes corruption, generally (and academic corruption, in particular), due to variations in cultural norms across different countries and regions. What may be considered corruption in a particular context may be an acceptable practice in another (Eaton, 2016). In some cultural contexts, the common corrupt practices at the level of the academy (and in higher education systems) are viewed as “unfortunate But necessary” (Eaton, 2018, p. 9). This suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach to combating academic corruption may be counterproductive. In other words, the corruption containment strategies ought to be context sensitive. It should be noted that the practices that have been highlighted here and in which the stakeholders in higher education engage are regarded as corruption in the African higher education landscape. Academic corruption has attracted consideraBle concern among the stakeholders in higher education (Chapman & Lindner, 2016). The concern stems from the realization that the vice intensifies inequities (Osipian, 2008) and threatens the “reputation of research products and graduates of the institutions” (Heyneman, 2013, p. 101) regardless of their guilt or innocence as well as the “crediBility, effectiveness and quality of higher education” (United Nations Educational, 2 L. Nabaho and W. Turyasingura High. Learn. Res. Commun. Vol. 9, Num. 1 | June 2019 Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] and Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2016, p. 9). Furthermore, academic corruption erodes the trust of the employers and the general public in the country’s higher education system, prepares underqualified professionals, teaches distorted values and culture (Rumyantseva, 2005), and undermines the cherished value of higher education (Vincent-Lancrin, 2013). Finally, corruption inadvertently sends a message, replete with danger, to the students that “personal success comes, not through merit and hard work, But through favoritism, BriBery and fraud” (Chapman & Lindner, 2016, p. 248). Corruption in higher education is a new field of research. The extant studies on the suBject focus on the definitions and nature of academic corruption (Hallak & Poisson, 2007B; Heyneman, 2004 Osipian, 2007), the opportunities for academic dishonesty (Hallak & Poisson, 2007a) and the costs associated with corruption. Since 2000, empirical studies that focus on academic corruption containment approaches have burgeoned (e.g. Hallak & Poisson, 2007b; Heyneman, 2004). However, within the discourse on combating academic corruption, there has been “little attention to whether QA [quality assurance] can play a role in preventing corruption” (CHEA, 2016, p. 3) despite its high potential to prevent and detect the vice (Heyneman, 2013; Martin, 2016; Martin & Poisson, 2015). Together with CHEA, UNESCO—in a 2016 advisory statement—issued a “wakeup call” to the sector’s quality assurance systems to take up a leading role in the battle against academic corruption (UNESCO & CHEA, 2016). The advisory statement has received accolades within the higher education community for “providing an opportunity to move forward and to engage this important topic” (Eaton, 2018, p. 8). Nevertheless, there is a dearth of empirical