The challenges of defining “corruption” might also be explained by the fact that corruption is a crime. 2013 Golunov 2014 Curtis and Vardanega 2016 Chapman and Linder 2016 Denisova-Schmidt 2016a Denisova-Schmidt et al. Some scholars often do not dare to call it “corruption” and mitigate this small “sin” by referring to it as “student dishonesty”, “academic dishonesty”, “cheating”, or just simply “plagiarism” (s. Faculty members do not necessarily have to be bribed to do it their reasons might vary, from being overloaded with other duties to the lack of time to investigate. In this case, the faculty member is misusing an entrusted power for private gain, in the broader sense (Denisova-Schmidt 2017a). Taking it a step further, let’s say that the faculty member who is responsible for grading this paper chooses to ignore the plagiarism. The student submits this paper and receives a grade for it.
He or she plagiarizes, which is to say, he or she copies and pastes text from other sources without acknowledging them. More concretely: Imagine a student writing a term paper. How does this relate to higher education? While some might argue that these definitions apply to public universities only and do not cover private ones, these definitions, in fact, relate to both public and private institutions since what they both offer-education-is a public good. In spite of some slight differences in wording, the idea is approximately the same: something that was previously “public” becomes “private”, often in an improper way. “Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (Transparency International Footnote 3). “ the misuse of public power, office or authority for private benefit through bribery, extortion, influence peddling, nepotism, fraud, speed money or embezzlement” (UNDP) Footnote 2 “ the abuse of public office for private gain” (World Bank Footnote 1) The paper is structured as follows: first, I discuss the current trends in the general research on corruption and its implications for higher education within the Bologna context, then I give an overview of some successful tools for mitigating academic dishonesty and discuss the challenges of their implementation. Can corruption be exported and/or imported with the rise of mobility among students and faculty and the internationalisation of educational institutions? Are universities prepared to deal with actors from endemically corrupt societies? What tools and best practices are particularly effective in increasing academic integrity? Or is it an irreversible process? How can the latest research contribute to the policy debate within the Bologna process? While corruption in higher education is not a new phenomenon, its unprecedented dimensions, the growing challenge of mitigating and preventing it in many academic systems as well as its international aspect are rather new. Along with the kinds of monetary and non-monetary corruption that can be found anywhere in society, such as corruption in procurement and favouritism in hiring and/or promoting employees, corruption in higher education can implicate the students themselves, thus exerting an influence over the next generation (Denisova-Schmidt 2016a, b, c, 2017a, b, c, 2018a, b Denisova-Schmidt and de Wit 2017). Corruption might be perceived or it might not in higher education, however, this differentiation is less relevant (Heyneman 2013).
Transparency International (TI), an NGO working on corruption worldwide, commonly defines corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” In higher education, however, corruption also encompasses “the lack of academic integrity.” The second definition applies to both public and private institutions, since what they both offer-education-can be construed as a public good.
0 kommentar(er)
