Harper’s Contributions to Understanding Academic Dishonesty
Academic dishonesty remains a persistent challenge in higher education, threatening both the credibility of qualifications and the integrity of future professional practice. Among the leading contemporary researchers in this field, Professor Rowena Harper has provided valuable empirical and theoretical insights into how institutional culture, assessment design, and student perceptions interact to foster or prevent academic misconduct. This post critically examines Harper’s contributions to the study of academic dishonesty, highlighting her research on contract cheating, staff and student perspectives, and implications for integrity leadership in teacher education.
1. Introduction
Academic dishonesty encompasses a broad range of unethical practices such as plagiarism, collusion, fabrication, and contract cheating. It undermines institutional trust and the ethical formation of students, particularly those in professional fields like teacher education where integrity is foundational. Rowena Harper’s scholarship has played a pivotal role in understanding the systemic and relational dimensions of academic dishonesty. Her work moves beyond individual moral failure, framing integrity as a shared institutional responsibility influenced by educational structures, teaching practices, and student experiences (Harper et al., 2021).
2. Theoretical Framework: Integrity as an Educational Ecosystem
Harper’s perspective aligns with the academic integrity as ecology model (Bretag, 2019), where learning environments, assessment policies, and institutional leadership are interdependent. She argues that unethical behaviour often arises not from deliberate deceit, but from misunderstandings, pressures, and unclear boundaries between legitimate collaboration and academic misconduct (Harper & Prentice, 2024). Thus, academic dishonesty must be examined within the context of institutional expectations, assessment culture, and socio-cultural diversity.
3. Major Empirical Contributions
3.1 Contract Cheating and Institutional Contexts
Harper co-led a national survey of over 14,000 Australian university students and 1,100 academic staff—the largest study of its kind (Bretag, Harper, et al., 2018). The findings revealed that contract cheating is significantly associated with dissatisfaction in learning environments, perception of unfair assessment, and limited support from staff. Students who reported poor engagement or high workload were more likely to outsource work to third parties. Harper’s conclusion was clear: assessment design and institutional culture, not merely student morality, shape dishonest behaviour.
3.2 Staff Perceptions and Powerlessness
In her 2024 paper Responsible but Powerless, Harper and Prentice explored staff attitudes toward academic dishonesty. Many educators felt ethically responsible for upholding integrity but lacked institutional backing, time, or evidence to pursue misconduct cases. The study exposed the emotional and structural constraints teachers face, suggesting that academic dishonesty cannot be mitigated without empowering educators through leadership support and training.
3.3 Student Perspectives: “We Share but They Cheat”
Harper’s companion study (2024) focused on student discourse surrounding cheating. Students often differentiated between sharing (helping peers) and cheating (deliberate deception). This revealed a cultural and linguistic gap between institutional definitions and student understandings. Importantly, the study highlighted bias and othering, noting that international students were often perceived more negatively even when engaging in similar behaviours. Harper argued for inclusive integrity education that considers diversity in academic norms and communication styles.
4. Conceptual Insights
Harper’s body of work reframes academic dishonesty as a continuum of behaviours rather than a binary construct. Sharing notes, discussing drafts, or exchanging ideas may occupy a grey zone between collaboration and collusion. Recognising this spectrum allows institutions to adopt more nuanced educational interventions rather than purely punitive measures (Harper et al., 2021). Furthermore, her work connects integrity with pedagogical quality, asserting that transparent, authentic, and varied assessments reduce the likelihood of misconduct.
5. Implications for Teacher Education
In teacher education, Harper’s findings hold profound relevance. Integrity must be modelled as part of professional identity formation. Future teachers who rationalise unethical practices may replicate similar behaviours in their classrooms. Hence, teacher education institutions should:
Redefine assessment design to include oral defences, reflective portfolios, and authentic tasks.
Integrate ethics and integrity training into curriculum and practicum experiences.
Develop leadership structures that empower academic staff to detect and address dishonesty with procedural fairness and institutional support.
Promote inclusivity and fairness for linguistically and culturally diverse students, reducing inequities that contribute to misconduct.
6. Academic Leadership and Integrity Culture
Harper’s research underscores the need for educational leadership that promotes transparency, dialogue, and shared responsibility. Leadership should not view integrity as a regulatory burden but as an element of moral stewardship. Universities and teacher training colleges must embed academic integrity into strategic plans, teaching evaluations, and student orientation programmes. Harper’s vision aligns closely with Bretag’s assertion that integrity is everyone’s responsibility (Bretag, 2016), extending from institutional policy to classroom practice.
7. Conclusion
Rowena Harper’s scholarship significantly advances the understanding of academic dishonesty by situating it within broader educational and ethical systems. Her empirical studies on contract cheating, staff constraints, and student perspectives reveal that dishonest behaviour is often a symptom of systemic disconnection rather than individual deviance. For teacher education, her insights reinforce the need to integrate ethical reasoning, professional identity, and inclusive pedagogy within programmes. Academic integrity, as Harper’s research affirms, is not a static rule—it is a living culture cultivated through leadership, fairness, and shared commitment to honesty.
References
Bretag, T. (2016). Guiding principles for academic integrity policy: Plagiarism and beyond. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(4), 406–419.
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., James, C., Green, M., East, J., McGowan, U., & Partridge, L. (2018). Contract cheating and assessment design: Exploring the relationship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 652–665.
Harper, R., & Prentice, F. (2024). Responsible but powerless: Staff qualitative perspectives on cheating in higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity.
Harper, R., & Prentice, F. (2024). “We share but they cheat”: Student perspectives on academic dishonesty in higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity.
Harper, R., Bretag, T., & Rundle, K. (2021). Detecting contract cheating: Examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 286–299.
Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2019). A Research Agenda for Academic Integrity. Edward Elgar Publishing.
