Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
A study of 207 graduate business students found that 80% had engaged in at least one of 15 unethical academic practices as a graduate student (Brown, 1995). These students also perceived themselves as more ethical than their undergraduate counterparts, although they had similar rates of academic dishonesty. Because the research conducted among various graduate schools has been lim-ited in scope, we systematically investigated the definition, prevalence, perceived prevalence, and severity of, as well as justifications for and expected responses to, academic dishonesty at the graduate level using the same approach as LaGrange (1992). These issues were assessed and compared from the perspectives of students and faculty representing multiple disciplines within the university. Students', fac-ulty members', and administrators' ideal and realistic expectations of how cheating would be handled were also examined. Finally, the relation between academically dishonest behavior and student demographic variables was examined. METHOD Procedure A sample of students, faculty, and administrators at the graduate and professional school level was obtained from a large, private, religiously affiliated Midwestern university. All programs were invited to participate in this research, and 22 pro-grams agreed to participate. Students, faculty, and administrators all received pack-ets that contained a recruitment letter, a survey, two answer sheets, and an envelope for returning the survey via intercampus mail. Respondents were asked to return the surveys unmarked if they did not want to complete them. Surveys were placed in the campus mailboxes of 2,669 graduate students. One department did not have mailboxes and consequently 83 surveys were distributed via U.S. mail. Surveys were distributed to 387 faculty and 50 administrators via intercampus mail. Participants Survey instruments were sent to 2,752 students, with 246 students returning com-pleted surveys for a return rate of 8.9%. The student group is made up of students representing all year levels, working toward a variety of graduate degrees (MA, MS, JD, MD, and PhD), and representing the social sciences, natural sciences, hu-manities, health sciences, nursing, law, and medicine. Survey instruments were sent to 387 faculty, with 49 faculty returning com-pleted surveys for a return rate of 12.6%. The faculty sample was 61.2% men, and included 34 (69.4%) tenured faculty and 15 (30.6%) nontenure-track faculty. Sev-enty-seven percent of the faculty were either associate or full professors. The ma-
DOI link for A study of 207 graduate business students found that 80% had engaged in at least one of 15 unethical academic practices as a graduate student (Brown, 1995). These students also perceived themselves as more ethical than their undergraduate counterparts, although they had similar rates of academic dishonesty. Because the research conducted among various graduate schools has been lim-ited in scope, we systematically investigated the definition, prevalence, perceived prevalence, and severity of, as well as justifications for and expected responses to, academic dishonesty at the graduate level using the same approach as LaGrange (1992). These issues were assessed and compared from the perspectives of students and faculty representing multiple disciplines within the university. Students', fac-ulty members', and administrators' ideal and realistic expectations of how cheating would be handled were also examined. Finally, the relation between academically dishonest behavior and student demographic variables was examined. METHOD Procedure A sample of students, faculty, and administrators at the graduate and professional school level was obtained from a large, private, religiously affiliated Midwestern university. All programs were invited to participate in this research, and 22 pro-grams agreed to participate. Students, faculty, and administrators all received pack-ets that contained a recruitment letter, a survey, two answer sheets, and an envelope for returning the survey via intercampus mail. Respondents were asked to return the surveys unmarked if they did not want to complete them. Surveys were placed in the campus mailboxes of 2,669 graduate students. One department did not have mailboxes and consequently 83 surveys were distributed via U.S. mail. Surveys were distributed to 387 faculty and 50 administrators via intercampus mail. Participants Survey instruments were sent to 2,752 students, with 246 students returning com-pleted surveys for a return rate of 8.9%. The student group is made up of students representing all year levels, working toward a variety of graduate degrees (MA, MS, JD, MD, and PhD), and representing the social sciences, natural sciences, hu-manities, health sciences, nursing, law, and medicine. Survey instruments were sent to 387 faculty, with 49 faculty returning com-pleted surveys for a return rate of 12.6%. The faculty sample was 61.2% men, and included 34 (69.4%) tenured faculty and 15 (30.6%) nontenure-track faculty. Sev-enty-seven percent of the faculty were either associate or full professors. The ma-
A study of 207 graduate business students found that 80% had engaged in at least one of 15 unethical academic practices as a graduate student (Brown, 1995). These students also perceived themselves as more ethical than their undergraduate counterparts, although they had similar rates of academic dishonesty. Because the research conducted among various graduate schools has been lim-ited in scope, we systematically investigated the definition, prevalence, perceived prevalence, and severity of, as well as justifications for and expected responses to, academic dishonesty at the graduate level using the same approach as LaGrange (1992). These issues were assessed and compared from the perspectives of students and faculty representing multiple disciplines within the university. Students', fac-ulty members', and administrators' ideal and realistic expectations of how cheating would be handled were also examined. Finally, the relation between academically dishonest behavior and student demographic variables was examined. METHOD Procedure A sample of students, faculty, and administrators at the graduate and professional school level was obtained from a large, private, religiously affiliated Midwestern university. All programs were invited to participate in this research, and 22 pro-grams agreed to participate. Students, faculty, and administrators all received pack-ets that contained a recruitment letter, a survey, two answer sheets, and an envelope for returning the survey via intercampus mail. Respondents were asked to return the surveys unmarked if they did not want to complete them. Surveys were placed in the campus mailboxes of 2,669 graduate students. One department did not have mailboxes and consequently 83 surveys were distributed via U.S. mail. Surveys were distributed to 387 faculty and 50 administrators via intercampus mail. Participants Survey instruments were sent to 2,752 students, with 246 students returning com-pleted surveys for a return rate of 8.9%. The student group is made up of students representing all year levels, working toward a variety of graduate degrees (MA, MS, JD, MD, and PhD), and representing the social sciences, natural sciences, hu-manities, health sciences, nursing, law, and medicine. Survey instruments were sent to 387 faculty, with 49 faculty returning com-pleted surveys for a return rate of 12.6%. The faculty sample was 61.2% men, and included 34 (69.4%) tenured faculty and 15 (30.6%) nontenure-track faculty. Sev-enty-seven percent of the faculty were either associate or full professors. The ma-
ABSTRACT
Survey instruments were sent to 50 administrators, with 20 administrators returning completed surveys for a return rate of 40%. The administration sample comprised 14 department chairs, 4 department deans or assistant deans, and 2 university-wide administrators (chancellors, president, etc.). All of the administrators had taught at one point in time, with 70% currently teaching a graduate course.
