The New Zealand- Finnish cooperation explored how university teachers and researchers conceptualise academic integrity and how they understand their own role in teaching it. On the surface, all agree that academic integrity is important, but there is great variation in how academics believe it should be taught, and how they see their role in it. The study is part of the Academy of Finland funded research project “Teaching and Learning Academic Integrity in Social Sciences”.

In Finnish: Integriteetti ja rehellisyys tieteessä: kenen tehtävä opettaminen on? Uusi-seelantilais-suomalaisen tutkimusyhteistyön tavoitteena oli selvittää mitä yliopiston opettajat ja tutkijat ymmärtävät integriteetillä ja miten he näkevät oman roolinsa siinä. Päällisin puolin yliopiston opettajat ja tutkijat ovat yksimielisiä siitä, että integriteetti ja rehellisyys ovat tärkeitä arvoja tieteessä, mutta tarkempi analyysi paljastaa, että heidän näkemyksissään siitä, miten integriteettiä tulisi opettaa ja mikä heidän oma roolinsa siinä on, vaihtelevat suuresti. Tutkimus on osa Suomen Akatemian rahoittamaa “Teaching and Learning Academic Integrity in Social Sciences” -tutkimusta.

Original research article: Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M. & Shephard, K. (published online June 26, 2014). Who teaches academic integrity to students and how do they do it? Higher Education.

DOI 10.1007/s10734-014-9784-3

Abstract

Whose role is it to teach academic integrity to university students? We explored academics’ conceptions about their role in promoting academic integrity in two countries, namely New Zealand and Finland. We used Q methodology to find common configurations of perspectives that can help us understand the premises based on which academics approach the tasks and roles associated with teaching academic integrity. The 56 academics in our sample were asked to sort 42 statements highlighting a broad spectrum of perspectives on academic integrity and the teaching of it, and answer some related interview questions. A centroid factor analysis using PQMethod software resulted in five configurations of views with distinctive characteristics. We used three frameworks to interrogate these differences: (1) possible narrative from a students’ perspective, (2) Biggs’s levels of thinking about teaching, and (3) an ethical interpretation. Academics at our institutions appear united in respecting the importance of academic integrity, but not of one mind about what it is, how it should be taught, whether or not it can be taught, whose responsibility it is to teach it, and how to handle cases of misconduct. The results suggest that teachers are confused about integrity policies extant in higher education and about their roles within these.