Investigating the Dimensions of Academic Corruption in Higher Education: A Mixed Study

Subject Areas : Education

jamal salimi ¹ , keostan mohammadiansharif ² , Nematollah Azizi ³ , Shirko Mohammadi ⁴

1 - Associate Professor in University of Kurdistan, Department of Education
2 - PhD Graduate in Higher Education Educational Planning, University of Kurdistan
3 - Professor in University of Kurdistan, Department of Education
4 - Assistance Professor in Semnan University, Department of Education

Received: 2019-11-18 Accepted : 2021-06-17 Published : 2021-06-22

Keywords: higher education system, Mixed method Research, Academic Corruption, Dimensions and Components,

Abstract :

The purpose of study is survey to identify the dimensions and components of academic corruption in Iranian higher education. The research approach is heuristic mixed method. In the qualitative part, the Grounded Theory(GT) method was used. The participants in this section consisted of 20 professors of higher education in Tehran, Allameh Tabataba'i, Amirkabir University of Technology, Kurdistan and Semnan Universities of which selected through theoretical sampling method and data were collected using the Semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using open, axial and selective coding methods using MAXQDA qualitative analysis software. The results show that the concepts and categories related to the conceptual dimensions of academic corruption are structural, non-structural, and scientific. Also, the main categories of academic corruption were drawn in terms of causal, contextual, and confounding conditions, and finally, the resulting outcomes. The quantitative part was done by descriptive method and using survey. In the quantitative part, after designing the questionnaire tool based on the findings of the first part, data were tested for normality and confirmatory factor analysis was used for validity of the questionnaire, which was done for the concept of corruption; factors affecting academic corruption and its consequences. Then, using the Chi-square method and Friedman analysis, the dimensions, factors, and consequences of academic corruption were examined. The results show that in the structural-administrative dimension, the most important factor is the quantitative development of higher education with a mean (4.0489), and in the non-structural dimension, literacy with a mean (4.0326) is the most important; Is the least common of these species. Also among the causal factors are the mechanisms of production of science with a mean (15.7011); in the underlying factors, the mass higher education and the Credentialism with a mean (15.7880); Average (11.6739) is the most important.

References:

1. Anderson, M. (1992). Impostors in the Temple: American intellectuals are destroying our universities and cheating our students of their future. New York: Simon & Schuster.


2. Anderson, M. (1999). Uncovering the Covert: research on academic misconduct, in J. Braxton (Eds). Perspectives on Scholarly Misconduct in the Sciences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.


3. Anderson, M. (2001) The Complex Relations between the Academy and Industry: views from the literature. Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 226-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2649323


4. Bo Dal, E., & Rossi, M., A. (2004). Corruption and Efficiency: Theory and Evidence from Electric Utilities.


5. Chapman, D. W., & Lindner, S. (2016). Degrees of integrity: The threat of corruption in higher education. Higher Education, 41(2), 247–268.


6. Creswell J. w. (2012).Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (Fourth edition). Pearson. Boston.


7. Creswell J. w. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative & mixed method approaches (fourth edition).Sage publications London: New Delhi.


8. Danaeifard, H. (2013). The strategy of theorizing. Tehran: Semmat. (In Persian).


9. Darden, K. (2002). Graft and Governance: Corruption as an Informal Mechanism of State Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Working Paper.


10. Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2017). The challenges of academic integrity in higher education: current trends and prospects. Boston College Center for International Higher Education.


11. Denisova-Schmidt, E., & Huber, M. (2014). Regional differences in perceived corruption among Ukrainian firms. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 55(1), 10-36.


12. Denisova-Schmidt, E., Huber, M., & Leontyeva, E. (2016). On the development of students’ attitudes towards corruption and cheating in Russian universities. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(2): 128-143.


13. Dimkpa D. I. (2011). Prevalence, Causes and Effects of Academic Corruption in Rivers Stat Universities, Nigeria. Makerere Journal of Higher Education ISSN: 1816-6822; 3(1) 33 – 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/majohe.v3i1.4


14. Eckstein, M. (2003). Combating Academic Fraud: towards a culture of integrity. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).


15. Enfield, E., C. (1975). Corruption as a Feature of Governmental Organization. The Journal of Law and Economics, No. 18.


16. Ghaedi, M., Madhooshi, M., Razaghi, N, & Safaiee, A. (2018). Academic corruptions factors, context and outcomes. Research and Planning in Higher Education, 24(10), 113-135.


17. Heyneman, S. (2004) Education and Corruption. International Journal of Educational Development, 24 (November), 637-648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2004.02.005


18. Heyneman, S., Anderson, K. & Nuraliyeva, N. (2008). The Cost of Corruption in Higher Education, Comparative Education Review, 52(1), 1-26.


19. Miller, S., Roberts, P. & Spence, E. (2005). Corruption and Anti-Corruption: an applied philosophical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.


20. Noah, H. & Eckstein, M. (2001). Fraud and Education: the worm in the apple. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.


21. Nye, Joseph. (1967). Corruption and Political Development: a Cost-Benefit Analysis.
    American Political Science Review, 61(2), pp. 417-427.


22. Osipian, A. (2007). Higher education corruption in Ukraine: Opinions and estimates. International Higher Education, 49, 21–22.


23. Osipian, A. (2008a). Corruption and coercion: University autonomy versus state control. European Education: Issues and Studies, 40(3), 27–48.


24. Osipian, A. (2009). Investigating corruption in American higher education: The methodology. FedUniJournal of Higher Education, 4(2), 49–81.


25. Osipian, A. (2012). Education Corruption, Reform, and Growth: Case of Post-Soviet Russia.” Journal of Eurasian Studies, 3(1), 20–29.


26. Osipian, A. (2013a). Recruitment and admissions: fostering transparency on the path to higher education, Global Corruption Report: Education, Transparency International, pp. 148-155.


27. Osipian, A. (2013b). Will bribery and fraud converge? Comparative corruption in higher education in Russia and the USA. Compare: A Journal of Comparative 10.1080/03057925.2012.728374l Education.


28. Petrov, G., & Temple, P. (2004). Corruption in Higher Education: some findings from the states of the former Soviet Union. Higher Education Management and Policy, 16(1), 82-94.


29. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1978). Corruption: A Study in Political Economy. New York: AcademicPress.


30. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Strategies for Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press


31. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2004). Governance and Corruption, in Global Crises, Global Solutions .B. Lomborg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 6.


32. Sayed, T. & Bruce, D. (1998) Police Corruption: towards a working definition. African Security Review, 7(1), 1. http://www.iss.co.za/ASR/7No1/SayedBruce.html.


33. Segal, L. (2004). Battling Corruption in America’s Public Schools. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.


34. Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting Academic Misconduct Intentions and Behaviors Using the Theory of Planned Behaviors and Personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychological, 32, 35-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973530903539895


35. Strauss, A & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of Qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.


36. Tavakol, M & Naserirad, M. (2009). Scientific raid; with scientific sociological explanation. Ethics in sciences and technology, 4(3), 1-30.


37. Thelin, J. (1982). Higher Education and Its Useful Past. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.


38. Waite, D. & Allen, D. (2003) Corruption and Abuse of Power in Educational Administration. The Urban Review, 35(4), 281-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:URRE.0000017531.73129.4f


39. Washburn, J. (2005). The Corporate Corruption of American Higher Education. New York: Basic Books.