• Author / Uploaded
• Bayu Taufiq Possumah

• Categories
• Integridad academica
• Deshonestidad academica
• Integridad
• Moralidad
• Liderazgo

Citation preview

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 92:1–13 DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0144-7

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity: A Positive Approach for Business Schools

Springer 2009

Cam Caldwell

ABSTRACT. The problem of academic dishonesty in Business Schools has risen to the level of a crisis according to some authors, with the incidence of reports on student cheating rising to more than half of all the business students. In this article we introduce the problem of academic integrity as a holistic issue that requires creating a cultural change involving students, faculty, and administrators in an integrated process. Integrating the extensive literature from other scholars, we offer a ten-step model which can create a positive culture for academic integrity. The successful implementation of a well-crafted academic integrity program can have a positive impact on business schools and improve the reputation of tomorrow’s business leaders. KEY WORDS: teaching business ethics, academic dishonesty, academic integrity

‘‘Cheating in higher education is rampant … and students of business are among the most dishonest,’’ declared Levy and Rakovski (2006, p. 736) in an article summarizing the state of academic dishonesty in business schools. Within a business environment described as ‘‘a dynamic, turbulent, even chaotic world,’’ (Cameron, 2003, p. 190), business schools are struggling to train their graduates to be both ethical (Boyle, 2004) and competent (Mintzberg, 2005). The problem of academic dishonesty is a worldwide problem with Callahan (2004) calling American society ‘‘the cheating culture’’ and with high percentages of students admitting to cheating in countries other than the United States as well (Baty, 2007; DeLambert et al., 2005; Lin and Wen, 2007; Rawwas et al., 2007). Business faculty are seeking to inculcate a moral perspective into their students (Brady and Hart, 2007) in a society which has seen ethical debacles at Enron, Arthur Andersen, and WorldCom – as well as more recent examples involving morally questionable decisions in both the banking and insurance industries. Emphasizing moral conduct seems incredibly important at business schools where McCabe et al. (2006, p. 299) report that in a recent study 56% of graduate students and 47% of undergraduates ‘‘admitted to engaging in some form of cheating or questionable behavior.’’ The Academy of Management has revised its Code of Ethics and created an Ethics Ombudsperson (Henderson, 2007); the accrediting body for business schools, the AACSB has updated its ethics standards for business schools (Kennedy and Horn, 2007); and business scholars have advocated the importance of giving increased emphasis to moral standards for their students ‘‘a way out of the morass’’ (Locke, 2006, p. 324). Nonetheless, the public continues to view business leaders with distrust (Harwood, 2002). Research by numerous scholars has demonstrated that adopting honor codes can be effective in reducing cheating within some academic settings (Trevino et al., 1998), but even highly regarded business schools have found that adopting an honor code is not enough to eliminate academic dishonesty (Damast, 2008; Rawe, 2007) with some schools adopting a ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy’’ in acknowledging that a cheating problem may actually exist within their university walls (Damast, 2007). The purpose of this article is to describe the efforts being made to improve academic integrity at some universities and to provide a ten-step model to guide business schools that wish to implement an improved academic integrity program. We begin this article by reviewing the scholarly research related to academic dishonesty. Gleaning insights from this literature, we propose ten factors that we suggest can help business

2 Cam Caldwell schools to develop a practical and integrated academic integrity program. We conclude by identifying how our article contributes to the academic and practitioner literature.

Duties of business schools Academic dishonesty has become so widespread that the print media has called the problem a ‘‘plague’’ (Embleton and Helfer, 2007; Junion-Metz, 2000) and scholars have labeled it a ‘‘crisis on campus’’ (Burke et al., 2007; Decoo, 2002). Kennedy et al. (2008) list 31 types of academic misconduct, and as high as 95% of students have been involved in academic dishonesty on some campuses (McCabe and Trevino, 1993, p. 523). Notwithstanding the implications of these numbers, 44% of 10,000 faculty surveyed have never reported academic cheating about which they were aware, according to an extensive study conducted by the Center for Academic Integrity (Burke et al., 2007, p. 59). In light of the fact that ‘‘students’ engagement in academic dishonesty is most influenced by whether they believe their peers are engaging in academic dishonesty’’(Broeckelman-Post,2008,p.206),university administrators and faculty members need to seriously examine how they view their own roles in addressing the academic dishonesty issue (Finn and Frone, 2004). Iffaculty and administrators seemtoignore or condone academic dishonesty, Broeckelman-Post (2008) has suggested that students are more likely to engage in dishonestbehaviors. Coupledwith thefact that student dishonesty strongly correlates with future business behaviors (Nonis and Swift, 2001; Sims, 1993), the implications of addressing the academic dishonesty problem affirm that the issue of cheating in business schoolsdemandsseriousimmediateattention(McCabe et al., 2001). The incidence of academic dishonesty in its many forms is well documented in the scholarly literature. McCabe et al. (2001) reported that not only are college students cheating more, but the nature of cheating has become more serious. Newstead et al. (1996) identified 21 distinct types of student cheating in a study of English college students. Vojak (2006, p. 177) has noted that cheating ‘‘has become both more prevalent and more socially acceptable.’’ Chiesl (2007, p. 204) reported that students cheat because ‘‘Everyone else is doing it; I see others cheating; It helps me get better grades, a good job, or admitted to graduate school; I see no reason not to cheat; There is little or no chance of getting caught; There is little, or no, punishment if I get caught (sic).’’ The availability of online web sites has made it easy for college students to construct articles based upon unattributed web resources, with cut-and-paste cheating increasing fourfold according to a study conducted by the Center for Academic Integrity (Etter et al., 2006). Acknowledging that cheating may occur in dozens of forms (Newstead et al., 1996), the Center for Academic Integrity (2007) defined cheating as any act that misrepresents a student’s work as representing his or her own work product in completing a courserelated assignment. In the last decade, business scholars have given increasing attention to the moral duties that business schools owe stakeholders in a business landscape demanding increased accountability (Bennis and O’Toole, 2005; Boyle, 2004; Caldwell and Boyle, 2007; Mintzberg and Gosling, 2002; Karri et al., 2005). Teaching principles of business ethics and helping students to apply those concepts in a highly competitive business world can be a challenging balancing act (Moberg, 2006) fraught with moral dilemmas (Badaracco, 1997). In reviewing the status of business schools, Pfeffer and Fong (2002, p. 78) have concluded that ‘‘business schools are not very effective’’ although business programs have become a ‘‘lucrative business’’ for many universities, both in the United States and abroad. Neelankavil (1994, p. 39) had previously noted that modern business education has been criticized as ‘‘largely irrelevant to business practice’’ with graduates that ‘‘fall short of expectations.’’ Business faculty have been criticized for lacking practical business experience (Shoemaker, 2008), and demonstrating a reluctance to hold students accountable to ethical standards (McCabe et al., 2002). Starkey et al. (2004) have argued for a business school model that incorporates a thoughtful view of the impact of businesses on society and that recognizes the implicit values of business choices. Salbu ( 2002, p. xiv) noted that the graduates of many business schools may have developed the analytical skills to quickly adapt to their business settings, but have failed to develop their characters or ‘‘build their moral muscles.’’ The public press has laid responsibility on business schools to more effectively teach business ethics, increase the quality of business research, improve the screening of those admitted to business schools,

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity 3 engage corporate partners in long-term efforts to address ethical conduct, and to ‘‘prove they mean business’’ in addressing ethics issues (Merritt, 2003, p. N). Ghoshal (2003, p. 19) has urged business school faculty and administrators to ‘‘own up to their own role in creating Enrons,’’ and sharply criticized business schools for promoting theories that are allegedly value free which actually are based upon ‘‘negative and highly pessimistic assumptions about people and institutions.’’ Research by several scholars (Davis et al., 1992; McCabe et al., 2002) suggests that schools that formally adopt an honor code positively impact the behavior of both students and faculties on college campuses. According to Melendez (1985) traditional honor codes generally include any of four basic elements, namely, (1) unproctored exams, (2) a written commitment or pledge whereby a student affirms that (s)he has not cheated on an exam or assignment, (3) a judicial or hearing process in which students play a major role, and (4) the expectation that students will report violations of the code that they observe. Because these elements may require preparation and diligence to successfully implement, ‘‘traditional honor codes are generally found on campuses that are small to medium in size and highly residential in character’’ (McCabe et al., 2002, p. 362). In contrast with traditional honor codes, modified honor codes (1) tend to be found at larger universities, (2) focus on academic dishonesty, (3) communicate to students that academic integrity is a major priority, and (4) give students a major role in educating other students about the code and in serving on a judicial or hearing body (McCabe et al., 2002, p. 363). McCabe et al. (2002) concluded that modified honor codes reduce the incidence of academic dishonesty, particularly at universities where faculty give the clear signal that the honor code would be enforced and that cheating would not be condoned. In implementing an honor code, Dufresne (2004, p. 201) argued for an action learning process ‘‘designed with full acknowledgement of the traditions and culture present in the student body, with the involvement of virtually all organization members.’’ Creating a culture of integrity McCabe (2005, p. 26) has opined that the most important factor that determines academic dishonesty in universities has been ‘‘the culture of academic integrity to which incoming students were exposed.’’ Weber (2006, p. 24) advocated the importance of business schools creating a comprehensive cultural change to successfully implement an effective ethics program, but noted that ‘‘the trend in the past few years has been to eliminate business ethics courses and downgrade the importance of or attention to ethics within the business schools.’’ Early research by McCabe and Trevino (1993) found that several factors associated with student perception were important in affecting the likelihood of students engaging in academic dishonesty, including student perceptions (1) of peer behavior, (2) about faculty understanding and acceptance of policies about academic integrity, (3) about the overall effectiveness of these policies, and (4) about the severity of the penalties imposed on those who cheated. Dalton (1985) had proposed that peer values were influential in creating a peer culture accepted by college students. McCabe et al. (2002, p. 360) opined that ‘‘peer perceptions concerning academic dishonesty can be an important influence as students make individual decisions about cheating.’’ A later study by McCabe et al. (2006) confirmed peer perceptions were particularly important for graduate business students in the decision about whether to cheat. Closely related to adopting an honor code in influencing peer perceptions and student conduct (Zimny et al., 2008) is the creation of a code of ethics. However, Marnburg (2000) noted that an ethics code is inadequate if an organization does not support that code with sustained leadership and demonstrated efforts to create an environment and culture that reflect organizational commitment. McCabe et al. (2006, p. 306) advised that ‘‘developing an ethical culture is a complex task that should be undertaken only if there is a strong and ongoing commitment to it,’’ based upon insights that they obtained from their study of more than 5000 business students from 32 colleges and universities. Trevino et al. (1998, p. 451) described an ethical culture as including ‘‘broad patterns of underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions’’ which remained constant over a broad set of circumstances. Creating an organizational culture that is perceived as ethical and congruent requires communicating values in a clear manner and modeling behavior by organizational leaders (Schein, 2003). Implicitly, all values have a heavy ethical content and are based upon how individuals frame

4 Cam Caldwell the duties that they owe to others with whom they hold a unique relationship, to self, to a higher power, or to society (Caldwell and Hayes, 2007). The teaching of business ethics has been addressed by a variety of studies (Bean and Bernardi, 2007; Beauvais et al., 2007; Gonin, 2007; Poff, 2007), with scholars (Boyle, 2007) and practitioners (Krehmeyer, 2007) debating the most effective approach to influencing behaviors about moral conduct. Penn and Collier (1985) advocated the teaching of moral reasoning more than 20 years ago and recommended that this teaching utilized Kohlberg’s moral reasoning model. Trevino and McCabe (1994, pp. 406, 408) argued that academic training should include ‘‘guidance concerning the norms of appropriate conduct in a business management context’’ (italics in the original) – suggesting that an ethics curriculum required extensive discussion of moral dilemmas ‘‘that lasted from four to twelve weeks.’’ This ethics training would incorporate wrestling with problems that lead a student to ‘‘question his or her own reasoning, and consider the next higher reasoning stage’’ – thereby restructuring cognitive patterns and moral development (Trevino and McCabe, 1994, p. 407). Trevino and McCabe’s (1994) model attempts to integrate moral reasoning with an in-depth application of the impact of decisions, rather than a purely cognitive approach that viewed ethical decisions as the application of a conceptual theoretical model. Badaracco (1997) and Hosmer (2007) have also framed moral decision making in context with complex ethical dilemmas that required an acknowledgement that the impact of choices and their consequences are neither simple nor universally beneficial. Although a variety of models for teaching ethics have been utilized, a critical factor in assessing each of those models needs to include the degree to which the models require students to thoughtfully assess the ultimate consequences of their choices. Ashworty and Bannister (1997) confirm the importance of creating an integrated educational experience that communicates to students that they are part of a larger academic community and that emphasizes the obligations owed to society. Chapman et al. (2004) noted that creating cultural norms was achieved by a multi-faceted approach to academic integrity. Eastman et al. (2006) emphasized the importance of creating personal relationships between faculty and students at the departmental level while combining a wellreasoned approach to both educating students about the importance of ethical conduct and enforcing academic honesty standards. Caldwell and Jean (2007) suggested that business schools must clearly focus on their mission and purpose and integrate best practices of other successful programs if they are to change the culture of dishonesty that exists at many business schools. Creating a new model Although the problem of academic dishonesty has been addressed in hundreds of articles (CAI, 2007), the incidence of academic cheating persists, even at some of the best universities, despite concerted efforts to emphasize academic integrity (Embleton and Helfer, 2007; Rawe, 2007). Incorporating the gleanings from the extensive research about academic dishonesty with anecdotal evidence of successful elements of programs that have brought fruitful results, we sought to develop a clear and relatively simple model that could be helpful in assisting administrators and business faculties to create a new model for improving academic integrity within their own schools. The process of researching the literature to develop this model is eminently practical and consistent with the expectations of academic scholars, although the diversity of thinking in academia allows for the critiquing of whatever model might be developed. From a simply practical perspective, we have developed a framework that is intended to allow other academicians and administrators to select the elements of this model, which they think apply best to their circumstances – cautioning those who modify key elements to remember that an incremental approach to implementing change is often less effective than a systemic and holistic effort (cf. Pfeffer, 1998). In deciding to implement this model, university faculty and administrators may wish to benchmark the current attitudes of their own colleagues and students about the factors identified in this article. A comparison of perceptions prior to and after the implementation of this ten-step model may be helpful in assessing the value of this model and in identifying where additional improvements can be made.

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity A ten-step model for academic integrity

5

We propose a ten-step model to integrate the best insights of scholars and practitioners. As Schein (2003, pp. 25–28) has noted, organizations are most effective in achieving results when their cultures reflect alignment between the actions, espoused beliefs, and core assumptions of leaders. Dufresne (2004) had emphasized that creating an integrated and aligned culture requires the dynamic involvement of all the participants in an action-learning process. The model that we propose reflects Dufresne’s thinking and includes a significant role for students, faculty, and administrators. (1) Articulation of a clear purpose and mission. Establishing clear objectives for an academic integrity program is consistent with the best practices of management, and can help build shared ownership so critical to the success of a change in organizational culture (Schein, 2003). Clear direction and commitment to an academic integrity program ultimately begins with the top administrators of a university and a business school (Gallant and Drinan, 2006b). Procario-Foley and Bean (2002) suggested that the values and mission statement of a university are the foundation of a successful ethics initiative. Derby (2006) noted that a clear statement of purpose and the creation of support systems to address inappropriate conduct has been a key factor for the success of the academic integrity program at the Air Force Academy. After surveying academic institutions about academic integrity programs, Gallant and Drinan (2006b, p. 66) concluded that ‘‘in order for academic integrity to ’stick’ in the fabric of an organization, there must be structures, procedures, and symbols that all support the enactment of academic integrity.’’ (2) Orientation and training of faculty. The effective orientation and training of faculty as to the desired outcomes of an academic integrity program can be facilitated by sharing information contained in the academic literature. Since business faculty are very familiar with the academic research literature, much of the preparation for that orientation can take place most effectively by providing copies of articles, power point summaries, and well-crafted written materials prior to a formal faculty meeting to prepare faculty for a discussion of the elements contained in a proposed program. This material should include the rationale for adopting a comprehensive systemic program rather than incremental pieces. Faculty attitudes toward cheating, the enforcement of university policies related to cheating, and the efforts that faculty members make to create a personal connection with students are significant factors that affect the likelihood of students cheating (Simon et al., 2003). Academic integrity encompasses five fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility (CAI, 2007). Incorporating those five values into the creation of a successful program to create a culture that discourages academic dishonesty requires the commitment of an entire faculty who believe that their efforts will be supported by their administrators. Simon et al. (2004) reported that students are more likely to report cheating when they believe that faculty genuinely cared about them as learners and when they believed that faculty members were not likely to ignore the occurrence of cheating. The effective direction of organizational leaders is a critical element in establishing and following up on an ethics initiative, and administrator support of faculty enforcement efforts helps build faculty commitment and trust in the academic integrity program (Weber, 2006). (3) Explanation and clarification of current policies. Widespread communication of all elements of an ethics program ‘‘at every opportunity available’’ is an important part of establishing understanding and commitment about an ethics program, especially at its outset (Weber, 2006, p. 35). Students are often confused as to what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate academic conduct. Because many students are not well prepared for the rigors of university-level academic assignments, Sileo and Sileo (2008) have suggested that faculty need to help students to (1) learn how to properly conduct research, (2) identify what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate use of the words and ideas of others, and (3) understand where to go for assistance in writing at the university level. Aluede et al. (2006) have noted the important role of faculty in academic advising in explaining academic integrity policies, particularly to international students. Kennedy et al. (2008) noted that student views about academic conduct, ranging from making up references in an article to attempting to put pressure on professors about a grade, influenced their decision to cheat. Kennedy et al. (2008) also confirmed the importance of (1) being clear with students about what constitutes inappropriate conduct; and (2) establishing control systems in the classroom that demonstrated that

6

Cam Caldwell inappropriate conduct would be discovered and penalized. Faculty and administration leaders need to clearly explain the many types of academic dishonesty and communicate to students how they will ensure that conduct will be monitored. (4) Implementation of a realistic process for addressing violations. Sharkey and Culp (2005, p. 104) explained that ‘‘[m]any educators are neither sure nor comfortable with how to deal with plagiarism’’ and other forms of academic dishonesty. An academic honesty policy and an enforcement process that is realistic and fair to all parties is a critical element for business schools seeking to prevent academic dishonesty or to confront it when it occurs. A fair policy clearly articulates the consequences of cheating and the due process provided to students (Edgren and Walters, 2006). Bell (2005) found that a ‘‘facilitated discussion’’ process that provided a timely and responsive approach to dealing with incidents of student dishonesty improved the willingness of faculty members to report student misconduct and provided students with reasonable due process while de-escalating the legalistic nature of the process. Morrow (2008) described the effectiveness of a student-run honor court at the University of North Carolina that hears all charges of academic misconduct. Because many university faculty members are also from countries other than the United States and may have differing cultural backgrounds about cheating and academic dishonesty (Caldwell et al., 2007), efforts must also be made to ensure that all the faculty members understand the academic integrity program and are committed to its enforcement. Both Bell (2005) and Morrow (2008) implicitly emphasize that the approach to enforcement contains complex legal issues and due process concerns that require administrative buy-in to emphasize that the goal of academic integrity is to teach compliance with ethical standards rather than to emphasize the punishment of offenders. (5) Attainment of student ownership. Bolin (2004) found that attitudes toward academic dishonesty mediated the relationship between perceived opportunity and the decision to cheat. Research by Klein et al. (2007) found that the definition of cheating held by business students is more lax than the definition of cheating held by other professional students. Asking students to affirmatively pledge to support an honor code and to refrain from unethical conduct is perceived by many universities to personalize the individual responsibility of each student and to thereby increase compliance. Duquesne University is just one of many universities that asks students to sign a statement affirming that they have read, understand, and will abide by its honor code (Weber, 2006). Involving students in the adjudication of complaints about ethical misconduct is also an approach that has worked effectively at major institutions (Morrow, 2008). Many undergraduate and graduate business programs include students from cultures other than the United States who have differing attitudes about cheating (Flynn, 2003). American universities need to not only articulate the specific expectations that they have about academic integrity, but also clearly communicate what they require of international students with regard to plagiarism, testing behaviors, and other performance factors – and ask those students to make the commitment to honor the university’s academic integrity policy (Magnus et al., 2002). (6) Empowerment of students in education and enforcement. Clearly explaining university policies about plagiarism and carefully articulating the many types of inappropriate academic conduct are critical tasks in educating students and enforcing academic integrity policies (Sharkey and Culp, 2005) and tasks are made easier when student peers participate in and support this communication effort (Crown and Spiller, 1997). McCabe et al. (2003, p. 369) reported that 81% of faculty in universities with honor codes believe that ‘‘students should be involved in handling cheating incidents.’’ Research suggests that students who identify strongly with a university are less likely to cheat than those who have a lower sense of personal identification. Kohlberg (1985) had suggested that moral communities provide conditions that encourage moral behavior and encouraged universities to involve students in playing an active role in the development of policies and rules to create a just environment. Crown and Spiller (1997) noted that student involvement in policy development is an important factor in successfully implementing a program to increase academic honesty. (7) Maintenance of dialogue with stakeholders. Several scholars have suggested that an effective academic integrity program requires the shared commitment of faculty, administrators, the business community, and students working together (Alschuler and Blingling, 1995; Havnes, 2004; Leonard

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity 7 and LaBrasseur, 2008). Gallant and Drinan (2006a) suggest that solving the student cheating problem can most effectively be addressed by organizational dialogue focused on understanding the root causes of cheating and developing an appropriate organizational strategy which involves key stakeholders. Murdock and Anderman (2006) offer a rational framework for understanding (1) student goals, (2) expectations for accomplishing those goals, and (3) assessments about the costs of achieving those goals. Making the effort to talk about cheating with students, faculty, and administrators can help universities to address the factors that motivate the decision of students to cheat (Naimi, 2007). This dialogue will also increase faculty understanding of the importance of developing high quality teaching methods and support systems that can build student self-efficacy and the confidence that there is a realistic and feasible alternative to cheating to achieve success in the classroom (Bandura, 1997). Providing students with top quality teaching and resources is a duty owed by business schools to their students (Caldwell et al., 2007). Involving the business community in this dialogue can create community support for the business school and increase community awareness about the academic integrity program. (8) Refinement of the ethics curriculum. Although the questions of how to teach business ethics and whether ethical behavior can be taught have been debated for many years, a growing body of evidence supports the idea that moral awareness can be learned and ethical decision making can be improved by training in business ethics (Ritter, 2006). Vega (2007) found that involving business students in service learning projects improved student awareness of moral issues. Sims and Felton (2006) have suggested that business ethics training be focused on clearly targeted learning outcomes. Trevino and McCabe (1994) have advocated that business ethics courses focus on moral development training, problem solving to address moral dilemmas, and education about the application of ethical and moral principles. Poff (2007) has argued that business schools have the duty to teach their students principles of moral reasoning as well as informing them about ethical theories. Satava et al. (2006) urged that business ethics teaching be focused on principlebased rather than rule-based concepts. Rest and Thoma (1986) found that a teaching strategy that addressed moral dilemmas was most effective in teaching moral reasoning. Courses in both graduate and undergraduate business training need to be reviewed constantly, kept current, and must focus on the application of moral principles if ethics education is going to impact student behaviors (Trevino and McCabe, 1994). (9) Monitored enforcement and documentation of results. Monitoring enforcement and documentation of the results of the academic integrity process is a critical control function identified by leadership scholars as absolutely essential for ensuring effective implementation and follow-through (Kotter, 1996; Pfeffer, 1998). Monitoring results of the academic integrity program will enable a university to keep faculty focused on the benefits and outcomes of the program. Unfortunately, the tendency of many faculty members in responding to observed instances of academic dishonesty is to ignore it (McCabe and Trevino, 1993) – thereby sending a message to students that unethical conduct will not be punished (McCabe et al., 2002). Many students blame faculty for failing to monitor obvious cheating and for failing to penalize students who cheat (Levy and Rakovski, 2006). Jarman et al. (2006) emphasized that monitoring academic honesty required understanding how cheating takes place, combined with wellplanned efforts to design assignments and testing processes to make it more difficult for students to cheat. Naimi (2007) has suggested that a successful business ethics education program demands a comprehensive approach which is consistently applied and carefully monitored. Ross (2005, p. 31) noted that in monitoring cheating, faculty ‘‘must be aware of the sophistication of dishonest students (in being dishonest) and match that sophistication in detecting their dishonesty.’’ Faculty and administrators working together determine the effectiveness of an academic integrity program; at the same time, university administrators need to carefully assess the role that they play and the resources they provide in creating a sustainable program (McCabe, 2005). (10) Evaluation of outcomes and communication of results. Thoughtfully assessing information gathered in the monitoring and documentation stage can lead to key improvements, and communicating results to stakeholders provides an opportunity for thanking participants, validating their efforts, and celebrating change (Scholtes et al., 2003). Evaluating outcomes and communicating the progress of the effort to improve academic integrity have been identified as important factors to develop a

8

Cam Caldwell sustainable culture. Duquesne University noted that a commitment to ‘‘constant review, reflection, and modification’’ as part of an ongoing continuous improvement process was one of six key lessons learned in implementing a change in its ethics culture (Weber, 2006). Gambescia (2007) has also advocated an ongoing annual review of the process used for monitoring programs to promote academic honesty. Wood and Warnken (2004) have emphasized the importance of an integrated approach that monitors outcomes, continually evaluates results, and develops a community partnership for continuous improvement. Granitz and Loewy (2007) have suggested that an effective academic integrity program will clearly communicate results to faculty, students, and administrators involved and use that information to refine efforts to reduce dishonesty. Although this ten-step model is comprehensive, the nature of the academic dishonesty problem that exists at universities seems to merit a comprehensive effort if a business school is going to seriously address this growing problem (McCabe et al., 2006). Incremental or ad hoc efforts that send an unclear message to students about the university’s commitment are unlikely to change a culture (Schein, 2003). In contemplating the challenges associated with implementing this ten-step model, many universities and business schools may see the creation of an academic integrity program to be a daunting task that requires additional faculty time, the commitment of scarce resources, and the involvement of students and community leaders. The creation of an academic integrity program, admittedly, has its costs, but those costs should be weighed against the duties owed by business schools to their students, to society, to the business profession, and to their own university’s reputation if former students are found to violate the moral standards of society as future business leaders. Conclusion Taylor-Bianco and Deeter-Schmelz (2007, p. 82) have written, ‘‘If academics are to influence student values positively and create a new class of ethical corporate citizens, we must understand how to instill in our students a strong sense of ethics.’’ Creating that sense of ethics demands that faculty and administrators clearly understand the root causes of academic dishonesty (Strom and Strom, 2007), the cultural elements that communicate the values of the organization (Marnburg, 2000; McCabe et al., 2006), the reinforcing systems that demonstrate the organization’s commitment to creating a culture of integrity (Weber, 2006), and the mechanisms that deter and detect academic dishonesty (McCabe et al., 2002). In writing about the moral duties of leaders in the modern organization, Lennick and Kiel ( 2008, p. 209) suggest that the obligations owed to stakeholders encompass three levels of responsibility: (1) the responsibility to do no harm, (2) the responsibility to add current value, and (3) the responsibility to add future value. Business schools that clearly communicate to their students the value of personal integrity and the folly of academic dishonesty begin to honor these three moral obligations. Faculty members that overlook academic cheating to avoid the work required to follow through on academic discipline are violating a broad variety of stakeholder duties (Caldwell et al., 2007) – including duties owed to their schools (Caldwell et al., 2005), to their students (Granitz and Loewy, 2007), to students’ future employers (Brubaker, 2003; Nonis and Swift, 2001; Sims, 1993), and to the community at large (Boyle, 2004; Caldwell and Boyle, 2007; Swift and Nonis, 1998). It is important to note that university faculty and administrators who fail to instill principles of academic integrity in their students implicitly contribute to the cheating culture. Creating an academic culture that incorporates the above ten steps requires a visionary administration that understands the importance of system reinforcing cultural factors (Schein, 2003) that are essential to aligning practices with principles and actions with ideals. The failure of business leaders to understand and to follow moral principles typified by Enron, WorldCom, and a host of other notable examples affirms the need to address the importance of moral conduct in instructing future business leaders how to make ethical decisions in honoring duties to stakeholders. The evidence from studies by highlyregarded scholars (Etter et al., 2006; McCabe and Trevino, 1993) and commentaries from news analysts (Merritt, 2003; McLean and Elkind, 2003) confirm the importance of practitioners and business students understanding and applying ethical concepts, and the correlation between moral conduct and understanding moral principles. As academic administrators and business school faculty contemplate the problems implicit in the dishonesty prevalent in today’s business schools, the ten-step model identified herein can become a useful tool in creating a culture of academic integrity and in influencing the future behavior of tomorrow’s business executives.

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

9

References Alschuler, A. and G. Blingling: 1995, ‘Curbing Epidemic Cheating Through Systemic Change’, College Teaching 43(4), 123–125. Aluede, O., E. O. Omoregie and G. I. Osa-Edoh: 2006, ‘Academic Dishonesty as a Contemporary Problem in Higher Education: How Academic Advisers can Help’, Reading Improvement 43(2), 97–106. Ashworty, P. and P. Bannister: 1997, ‘Guilty in Whose Eyes? University Students’ Perceptions of Cheating and Plagiarism in Academic Work and Assessment’, Studies in Higher Education 22(2), 187–196. doi:10. 1080/03075079712331381034. Badaracco, J.: 1997, Defining Moments: When Managers must Choose Between Right and Right (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA). Bandura, A.: 1997, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (Freeman, New York). Baty, P.: 2007, ‘New Anti-Cheating Body to Push for ‘‘Honour Codes’’’, Times Higher Education Supplement August, p. 17. Bean, D. F. and R. A. Bernardi: 2007, ‘Ethics Education in our Colleges and Universities: A Positive Role for Accounting Practitioners’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 59–76. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9038-4. Beauvais, L. L., D. E. Desplaces, D. E. Melchar and S. M. Bosco: 2007, ‘Business Faculty Perceptions and Actions Regarding Ethics Education’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 121–136. doi:10.1007/s10805-0079046-4. Bell, D.: 2005, ‘Resolving Academic Dishonesty Through Facilitated Discussion’, Academic Leader 21(3), 3–4. Bennis, W. G. and J. O’Toole: 2005, ‘How Business Schools Lost Their Way’, Harvard Business Review 83(9), 96–104. Bolin, A. U.: 2004, ‘Self-Control, Perceived Opportunity, and Attitudes as Predictors of Academic Dishonesty’, Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied 138, 101–114. doi:10.3200/JRLP.138.2.101114. Boyle, M.-E.: 2004, ‘Walking Our Talk: Business Schools, Legitimacy, and Citizenship’, Business & Society 43(1), 37– 68. Boyle, M.-E.: 2007, ‘Learning to Neighbor? ServiceLearning in Context’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 85–104. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9045-5. Brady, N. and D. Hart: 2007, ‘An Exploration into the Development Psychology of Ethical Theory with Implications for Business Practice and Pedagogy’, Journal of Business Ethics 76(4), 397–412. Broeckelman-Post, M. A.: 2008, ‘Faculty and Student Influences on Academic Dishonesty’, IEEE Transactions on Education 51(2), 206–211. Brubaker, H.: 2003, ‘Big Companies Teach Business Ethics to Employees’, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News March 26, p. 1. Burke, J. A., R. S. Polimeni and N. S. Slavin: 2007, ‘Academic Dishonesty: A Crisis on Campus’, CPA Journal 77(5), 58–65. Caldwell, C. and M.-E. Boyle: 2007, ‘Academia, Aristotle and the Public Sphere – Stewardship Challenges to Schools of Business’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 5–20. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9048-2. Caldwell, C., S. E. Clapham and B. Davis: 2007, ‘Rights, Responsibility, and Respect: A Balanced Citizenship Model for Schools of Business’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 105–120. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9041-9. Caldwell, C. and L. Hayes: 2007, ‘Leadership, Trustworthiness, and the Mediating Lens’, Journal of Management Development 26(3), 261–278. Caldwell, C. and L. Jean: 2007, ‘Ethical Leadership and Building Trust – Raising the Bar for Business’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 1–4. doi:10.1007/s10805-0079044-6. Caldwell, C., R. Karri and T. Matula: 2005, ‘Practicing What we Teach – Ethical Considerations for Business Schools’, Journal of Academic Ethics 3, 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s10805-006-9007-3. Caldwell, C., H. White and R. H. Red Owl: 2007, ‘The Case for Creating a DBA Program – A Virtue-Based Opportunity for Universities’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(2–4), 179–188. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9030-z. Callahan, D.: 2004, The Cheating Culture: Why more Americans are Doing Wrong to get Ahead (Harcourt Books, Orlando, Fl). Cameron, K. S.: 2003, ‘Ethics, Virtuousness, and Constant Change’, in N. M. Tichy and A. R. McGill (eds.), The Ethical Challenge: How to Lead with Unyielding Integrity (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA), pp. 185–194. Center for Academic Integrity (CAI): 2007, The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity (Clemson University Press, Clemson, SC).

10

Cam Caldwell

Chapman, K. J., R. Davis, D. Toy and L. Wright: 2004, ‘Academic Integrity in the Business School Environment: I’ll get by with a Little Help from my Friends’, Journal of Marketing Education 26(3), 236–249. doi:10.1177/0273475304268779. Chiesl, N.: 2007, ‘Pragmatic Methods to Reduce Dishonesty in Web-Based Courses’, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 8(3), 203–211. Crown, D. and M. Spiller: 1997, ‘Faculty Responsibilities in Dealing with Collegiate Cheating: A Student Development Perspective’, Teaching Business Ethics 1, 117–130. doi:10.1023/A:1009728100939. Dalton, J. C.: 1985, Promoting Values Development in College Students (Teachers College Press, Columbus, OH). Damast, A.: 2007, ‘Are B-Schools Hiding the Cheaters?’, Business Week Online, June 21, p. 5. Damast, A.: 2008, ‘Fuqua Puts Scandal Behind It’, Business Week Online, May 23, p. 5. Davis, S. F., C. A. Grover, A. H. Becker and L. N. McGregor: 1992, ‘Academic Dishonesty: Prevalence, Determinants, Techniques, and Punishments’, Teaching of Psychology 19(1), 16–20. Decoo, W.: 2002, Crisis on Campus: Confronting Academic Misconduct (The MIT Press, Hong Kong). DeLambert, K., N. Ellen and L. Taylor: 2005, ‘Academic Dishonesty Among Students in Tertiary Institutions: A Literature Review’, Waikato Journal of Education 11(2), 83–99. Derby, L.: 2006, ‘Academic Integrity at the United States Air Force Academy’, Mid-Western Educational Researcher 19(1), 39–40. Dufresne, R. L.: 2004, ‘An Action Learning Perspective on Effective Implementation of Academic Honor Codes’, Group & Organization Management 29(2), 201–218. Eastman, J. K., R. Iver and K. L. Eastman: 2006, ‘Addressing Academic Dishonesty: The Implications for Business Schools, Professors, and Students’, Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 9, 1–8. Edgren, and Walters: 2006, ‘Academic Dishonesty in the 21st Century’, Journal of Continuing Higher Education 54(2), 56–59. Embleton, K. and D. S. Helfer: 2007, ‘The Plague of Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty’, Searcher 15(6), 23–26. Etter, S., J. J. Cramer and S. Finn: 2006, ‘Origins of Academic Dishonesty: Ethical Orientations and Personality Factors Associated with Cheating with Information Technology’, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39(2), 133–155. Finn, K. V. and M. R. Frone: 2004, ‘Academic Performance and Cheating: Moderating Role of School Identification and Self-Efficacy’, Journal of Educational Research 97(3), 115–122. Flynn, R. S.: 2003, ‘Confronting Academic Dishonesty in the Accounting Classroom: A Cultural Experience?’, Accounting Education 12(4), 437–439. Gallant, T. B. and P. Drinan: 2006a, ‘Organizational Theory and Student Cheating: Explanation, Responses, and Strategies’, Journal of Higher Education 77(5), 839–860. Gallant, T. B. and P. Drinan: 2006b, ‘Institutionalizing Academic Integrity: Administrator Perceptions and Institutional Actions’, NASPA Journal 43(4), 61–81. Gambescia, S. F.: 2007, ‘A Best Practice Protocol for Handling Academic Honesty Issues with Adult Students’, Journal of Continuing Higher Education 55(1), 47– 55. Ghoshal, S.: 2003, ‘Business Schools Share the Blame for Enron’, Financial Times, July 18, p. 19. Gonin, M.: 2007, ‘Business Research, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, and the Inherent Responsibility of Scholars’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 33–58. doi:10.1007/ s10805-007-9039-3. Granitz, N. and D. Loewy: 2007, ‘Applying Ethical Theories: Interpreting and Responding to Student Plagiarism’, Journal of Business Ethics 72(3), 293–306. Harwood, J.: 2002, ‘Americans Distrust Institutions in Poll’, Wall Street Journal 239(115), A4. Havnes, A.: 2004, ‘Examination and Learning: An Activity-Theoretical Analysis of the Relationship Between Assessment and Education Practice’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29(2), 159–176. Henderson, B.: 2007, ‘Interview with Linda Trevino – Academy of Management Ethics Ombudsperson’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 21–24. doi:10.1007/ s10805-007-9042-8. Hosmer, L.: 2007, The Ethics of Management (McGrawHill, New York). Jarman, R., B. Warner and G. Gill: 2006, ‘Cheater, Cheater, Pumpkin Eater: Dealing with Cheating in a Large Class’, Informing Faculty: An International Journal of Higher Education Cases 1, 1–22. Junion-Metz, G.: 2000, ‘The E-Plagiarism Plague’, School Library Journal 46, 43–44. Karri, R., C. Caldwell, E. P. Antonacopoulou and D. Naegle: 2005, ‘Building Trust in Schools of Business – Opportunities for Ethical Governance’, Journal of Academic Ethics 3(2–4), 159–182. doi:10.1007/ s10805-0069012-6.

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

11

Kennedy, M. J. and L. C. Horn: 2007, ‘Thoughts on Ethics Education in the Business School Environment: An Interview with Dr. Jerry Trapnell, AACSB’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 77–84. doi:10.1007/s10805007-90437. Kennedy, P., T. O. Bisping, H. Patron and K. Roskelley: 2008, ‘Modeling Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Student Perceptions and Misconduct Type’, Journal of Economic Education 39(1), 4–21. Klein, H., N. Levenburg, M. McKendall and W. Mothersell: 2007, ‘Cheating During the College Years: How do Business School Students Compare?’, Journal of Business Ethics 72, 197–206. doi:10.1007/ s10551-006-9165-7. Kohlberg, L.: 1985, ‘The just Community Approach to Moral Education in Theory and Practice’, in M. W. Berkowitz and F. Oser (eds.), Moral Education: Theory and Practice (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 27–88. Kotter, J. P.: 1996, Leading Change (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA). Krehmeyer, D.: 2007, ‘Teaching Business Ethics: A Critical Need’, Business Week Online, October 26, p. 4. Lennick, D. and F. Kiel: 2008, Moral Intelligence: Enhancing Business Performance and Leadership Success (Wharton Business School Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Leonard, V. and R. LaBrasseur: 2008, ‘Individual Assignments and Academic Dishonesty – Exploring the Learning Conundrum’, Australian Educational Researcher 35(1), 37–56. Levy, E. S. and C. C. Rakovski: 2006, ‘A Zero Tolerance Professor and Student Registration Choices’, Research in Higher Education 47(6), 735–754. Lin, C. H. and L. Y. Wen: 2007, ‘Academic Dishonesty in Higher Education—A Nationwide Study in Taiwan’, Higher Education 54(1), 85–97. Locke, E. A.: 2006, ‘Business Ethics: A Way Out of the Morass’, Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(3), 324–332. Magnus, J. R., V. M. Polterovich, D. L. Danilov and A. V. Savvateev: 2002, ‘Tolerance of Cheatinging: An Analysis Across Countries’, The Journal of Economic Education 33(1), 125–135. Marnburg, E.: 2000, ‘The Behavioural Effects of Corporate Ethical Codes: Empirical Findings and Discussion’, Business Ethics: A European Review 9(3), 200–210. McCabe, D. L.: 2005, ‘Academic Dishonesty & Educational Opportunity’, Liberal Education 91(3), 26–31. McCabe, D. L., K. D. Butterfield and L. K. Trevino: 2003, ‘Faculty and Academic Integrity: The Influence of Current Honor Codes and Past Honor Code Experiences’, Research in Higher Education 44(3), 367–385. McCabe, D. L., K. D. Butterfield and L. K. Trevino: 2006, ‘Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs: Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Action’, Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(3), 294–305. McCabe, D. L. and L. K. Trevino: 1993, ‘Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences’, The Journal of Higher Education 64(5), 522– 538. doi:10.2307/2959991. McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino and K. D. Butterfield: 2001, ‘Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research’, Ethics & Behavior 11, 220. doi:10. 1207/S15327019EB1103_2. McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino and K. D. Butterfield: 2002, ‘Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences on Academic Integrity: A Replication and Extension to Modified Honor Code Settings’, Research in Higher Education 43(3), 357– 378. doi:10.1023/A:101489310 2151. McLean, B. and P. Elkind: 2003, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron (Penguin Group, New York). Melendez, B.: 1985, Honor Code Study (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA). Merritt, J.: 2003, ‘Ethics is Also B-School Business’, Business Week Online, January 17, p. N. Mintzberg, H.: 2005, Managers not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA). Mintzberg, H. and J. Gosling: 2002, ‘Educating Managers Beyond Borders’, Academy of Management Learning & Education 1, 64–76. Moberg, D. J.: 2006, ‘Best Intentions, Worst Results: Grounding Ethics Students in the Realties of Organizational Context’, Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(3), 307–316. Morrow, D.: 2008, ‘Don’t Lie, Don’t Cheat, Don’t Steal’, BizEd 7(2), 46–48. Murdock, T. B. and E. M. Anderman: 2006, ‘Motivational Perspectives on Student Cheating: Toward an Integrated Model of Academic Dishonesty’, Educational Psychologist 41(3), 129–145. Naimi, L.: 2007, ‘Strategies for Teaching Research Ethics in Business, Management and Organisational Studies’, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 5(1), 26– 39. Neelankavil, J. P.: 1994, ‘Corporate America’s Quest for an Ideal MBA’, Journal of Management Development 13(5), 38–52.

12

Cam Caldwell

Newstead, S. E., A. Franklyn-Stokes and P. Armstead: 1996, ‘Individual Differences in Student Cheating’, Journal of Educational Psychology 88, 229–241. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.229. Nonis, S. and C. O. Swift: 2001, ‘An Examination of the Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Workplace Dishonest: A Multicampus Investigation’, Journal of Education for Business 77(2), 69–76. Penn, W. Y. Jr. and B. D. Collier: 1985, ‘Current Research in Moral Development as a Decision Support System’, Journal of Business Ethics 4(2), 131–136. Pfeffer, J.: 1998, The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First (Harvard Business School Press, Boston). Pfeffer, J. and C. T. Fong: 2002, ‘The End of Business Schools? Less Success than Meets the Eye’, Academy of Management Learning & Education 1(1), 78–95. Poff, D. C.: 2007, ‘Duties Owed in Serving Students: The Importance of Teaching Moral Reasoning and Theories of Ethical Leadership in Educating Business Students’, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 25–32. doi:10.1007/s10805007-9040-x. Procario-Foley, E. G. and D. F. Bean: 2002, ‘Institutions of Higher Education: Cornerstones in Building Ethical Organizations’, Teaching Business Ethics 6, 101–116. doi:10.1023/A:1014214909390. Rawe, J.: 2007, ‘A Question of Honor’, Time 169(22), 59–60, May 28. Rawwas, M., Z. Swaidan and H. Isakson: 2007, ‘A Comparative Study of Ethical Beliefs of Master of Business Administration Students in the United States with Those in Hong Kong’, Journal of Education for Business 82(3), 146–158. Rest, J. and S. J. Thoma: 1986, ‘Educational Programs and Interventions’, in J. Rest (ed.), Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory (Praeger Publishers, New York). Ritter, B.: 2006, ‘Can Business Ethics be Trained? A Study of the Ethical Decision-making Process in Business Students’, Journal of Business Ethics 68(2), 153–164. Ross, K. A.: 2005, ‘Academic Dishonesty and the Internet’, Communications of the ACM 48(10), 29–31. doi:10.3166/isi.10.3.29-48. Salbu, S.: 2002, ‘Foreword’, in B. Cruver (ed.), Anatomy of Greed: The Unshredded Truth from an Enron Insider (Hutchinson, London). Satava, D., C. Caldwell and L. Richards: 2006, ‘Ethics and the Auditing Culture: Rethinking the Foundation of Accounting and Auditing’, Journal of Business Ethics 64(3), 271–284. Schein, E. H.: 2003, Organizational Culture and Leadership (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco). Scholtes, P. R., B. L. Joiner and B. Streibel: 2003, The Team Handbook, 3rd Edition (Oriel Inc, Madison, WI). Sharkey, J. R. and F. B. Culp: 2005, ‘Cyberplagiarism and the Library: Issues and Solutions’, Reference Librarian 44(91/92), 103–116. Shoemaker, P. J. H.: 2008, ‘The Future Challenges of Business: Rethinking Management Education’, California Management Review 50(3), 119–139. Sileo, J. M. and T. W. Sileo: 2008, ‘Academic Dishonesty and Online Classes: A Rural Education Perspective’, Rural Special Education Quarterly 27(1/2), 55–60. Simon, C. A., J. R. Carr and S. M. McCullough: 2003, ‘The Other Side of Academic Dishonesty: The Relationship Between Faculty Skepticism, Gender and Strategies for Managing Student Academic Dishonesty Cases’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28(2), 193–207. doi:10.1080/02602930301669. Simon, C. A., J. R. Carr and S. M. McCullough: 2004, ‘Gender, Student Perceptions, Institutional Commitments and Academic Dishonesty: Who Reports in AcademicDishonestyCases?’,Assessment&Evaluationin Higher Education 29(1), 75–90. doi:10.1080/02602930 32000158171. Sims, R. L.: 1993, ‘The Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Unethical Business Practices’, Journal of Education for Business 68(4), 207–211. Sims, R. and E. Felton: 2006, ‘Designing and Delivering Business Ethics Teaching and Learning’, Journal of Business Ethics 63(3), 297–312. Starkey, K., A. Hatchuel and S. Tempest: 2004, ‘Rethinking the Business School’, Journal of Management Studies 41(8), 1521–1531. Strom, P. S. and R. D. Strom: 2007, ‘Curbing Cheating, Raising Integrity’, Education Digest 72(8), 42–50. Swift, C. O. and S. Nonis: 1998, ‘When no one is Watching: Cheating Behaviors on Projects and Assignments’, Marketing Education Review 8, 27–36. Taylor-Bianco, A. and D. Deeter-Schmelz: 2007, ‘An Exploration of Gender and Cultural Differences in MBA Students’ Cheating Behavior: Implications for the Classroom’, Journal of Teaching in International Business 18(4), 81–99.

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

13

Trevino, L. K., K. D. Butterfield and D. L. McCabe: 1998, ‘The Ethical Context in Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors’, Business Ethics Quarterly 8(3), 447–476. Trevino, L. K. and D. McCabe: 1994, ‘Meta-Learning About Business Ethics: Building Honorable Business School Communities’, Journal of Business Ethics 13(6), 405–416. Vega, G.: 2007, ‘Teaching Business Ethics Through Service Learning Metaprojects’, Journal of Management Education 31(5), 647–678. Vojak, C.: 2006, ‘What Market Culture Teaches Students About Ethical Behavior’, Ethics and Education 1(2), 177–195. doi:10.1080/17449640600950808. Weber, J.: 2006, ‘Implementing an Organizational Ethics Program in an Academic Environment: The Challenges and Opportunities for the Duquesne University Schools of Business’, Journal of Business Ethics 65, 23– 42. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-3970-2. Wood, G. and P. Warnken: 2004, ‘Academic Original Sin: Plagiarism, the Internet, and Librarians’, Journal of Academic Librarianship 30(3), 237–242. Zimny, S. T., D. U. Robertson and T. Bartoszek: 2008, ‘Academic and Personal Dishonesty in College Students’, North American Journal of Psychology 10(2), 291– 312.

McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]