|
|
|
| The Mechanism of Dealing with Academic Misconduct in American Top Universities Based on Four American Research Universities |
| Duan Shifei1,Liang Jingjing2 |
| (1.College of Education, Zhejiang University,Hangzhou 310058, China;2.Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Academic misconduct is on the rise, and since 2009, the Ministry of Education has successively issued policies to curb this phenomena. Various signs show that it is imperative to improve the academic integrity system of colleges and universities in the new era. The current research on academic misconduct in universities mainly includes five aspects: the concept and definition of academic misconduct; the main classification and performance of academic misconduct; the inducement of academic misconduct; the negative impact of academic misconduct ; the preventive measures for academic misconduct. There are three main deficiencies in the existing research: first, the current academic circles have not reached a consensus on the definition of academic misconduct, which makes it impossible to determine the nature of academic misconduct; then there is a lack of discussion on the deep-seated reasons such as system, spirit, and culture; third, the research on the handling mechanism of academic misconduct is focused on the moral level of criticism, and the specific means and methods have not been systematically expounded. The top universities in the United States have paid attention to academic misconduct earlier, and have formed a more systematic and scientific response mechanism for academic misconduct.#br#Therefore this study selects two private universities in the United States based on the 2020-2021 QS World University Rankings. The universities are among the top in the world and two public universities known as "Public Ivy Leagues": Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and UC Berkeley. By using the comparative research method to analyze the academic norms, policies and practices of these four universities, this study aimsto contribute international experience to the improvement of the construction of the academic integrity system in Chinese universities. This study uses comparative research method to investigate the academic misconduct of the top universities in the United States from the dimensions of the basis, subject, processing procedures, supervision and remedy of academic misconduct. It conducts a comparative analysis of behavior processing, and summarizes the characteristics of the academic misconduct processing mechanism of top universities in the United States and the experience that can be used for reference.#br#By analyzing the policies and practices of four top universities in the United States to deal with academic misconduct, this study draws the following conclusions. (1) The mechanism for handling academic misconduct in the top universities in the United States is composed of processing basis, processing subject, processing procedure and supervisory remedies. (2) The organizational support, process guarantee and concept guidance are designed and expected to provide clear and comprehensive rules and regulations; the division of responsibilities is clearly set with both consideration of professionalism and autonomy; the procedural norms are highlighted to ensure timely and rigorous trials; people-orientedness is emphasized with education as the primacy and punishment as the supplement.#br#Unlike previous research on academic misconduct in top universities in the United States with a general focus on an individual case, this study makes a macro comparison and summarizes the general experience of the governance mechanism of academic misconduct in top universities in the United States and common features. Meanwhile there are still deficiencies and limitations in this study. On the one hand, this study focuses on the academic misconduct handling mechanism within the top universities in the United States, leaving the role of the government and society (such as academic groups) in the handling mechanism of academic misconduct untouched, butit plays an irreplaceable role in the handling of academic misconduct. On the other hand, the object of the study is two top private universities and two top public universities, and it studies the commonalities of the mechanisms of academic misconduct in private top universities and public top universities, but less about their differences. The research limitations of the above two aspects need to be further supplemented and improved in the future.#br#
|
|
Received: 26 May 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 中华人民共和国教育部.高等学校预防与处理学术不端行为办法[EB/OL]. (2016-06-16) [2021-01-15]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A02/s5911/moe_621/201607/t20160718_272156.html.
[2] 朱燕. 美国大学生学术不端的防治研究[D].北京：北京大学,2008：5.
[3] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Procedures for dealing with academic misconduct in research and scholarship [EB/OL]. (2017-08-03) [2021-01-15]. https://policies.mit.edu/policies-procedures/100-academic-and-research-misconduct-and-dishonesty/101-procedures-dealing.
[4] Harvard University. Interim policy and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct [EB/OL]. (2020-07-01) [2021-01-15]. https://research.fas.harvard.edu/policies/procedures-responding-allegations-misconduct-research.
[5] University of California Berkeley. Research misconduct[EB/OL]. (2013-03-06) [2021-01-15].https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/research-policies/research-compliance/research-misconduct.
[6] University of Michigan. Introduction to academic integrity [EB/OL]. (2020-12-21) [2021-01-15]. https://guides.lib.umich.edu/academicintegrity.
[7] University of Michigan. Academic misconduct [EB/OL]. (2017-06-18) [2021-01-15]. https://lsa.umich.edu/lsa/academics/academic-integrity/academic-misconduct.html.
[8] University of Michigan. Rackham academic and professional integrity policy [EB/OL]. (2019-06-17) [2021-01-15]. https://rackham.umich.edu/academic-policies/section8/.
[9] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Procedures for dealing with student academic dishonesty [EB/OL]. (2017-10-26) [2021-01-15]. https://policies.mit.edu/policies-procedures/100-academic-and-research-misconduct-and-dishonesty/102-procedures-dealing.
[10] University of California Berkeley. If you encounter academic misconduct [EB/OL]. (2016-05-07) [2021-01-15]. https://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-guide-contents/academic-misconduct-intro/encounter/.
[11] Harvard University. Academic integrity and academic dishonesty [EB/OL]. (2020-10-29) [2021-01-15]. https://handbook.fas.harvard.edu/book/academic-integrity.
[12] University of California Berkeley. Berkeley honor code [EB/OL]. (2017-05-11) [2021-01-15]. https://teaching.berkeley.edu/berkeley-honor-code.
[13] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Responsible conduct of research [EB/OL]. (2020-10-20) [2021-01-15]. https://research.mit.edu/integrity-and-compliance/respo nsible-conduct-research.
[14] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Academic integrity at MIT [EB/OL]. (2020-07-01) [2021-01-15]. https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/helping-you-succeed-resources.
[15] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. COD rules [EB/OL]. (2020-11-15) [2021-01-15]. http://cod.mit.edu/rules/section12.
[16] 鲁晓峰.国内外高校预防和处理学术不端的制度比较[J].中国高校科技,2019,35(9):12-16.
[17] 马焕灵,赵连磊.美国高校学生学术不端行为校园规制摭探[J].比较教育研究,2012,34(9):18-22.
[18] 陈翠荣, 张一诺.美国高校学术不端行为处理程序分析——以四所美国研究型大学为例[J].外国教育研究,2016,43(8):88-100.
|
|
|
|
