CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Academic integrity and plagiarismHigher Education Practises and EngagementHigher Education Governance and Development

A theory of change for student-led academic integrity

Richards, Deborah, Saddiqui, Sonia, White, Fiona, McGuigan, Nicholas, Homewood, Judi·2016·Quality in Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/13538322.2016.1265849
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Breaches in academic integrity are a pervasive and enduring international concern to the overall quality of higher education. Despite students being the group most affected by academic integrity policies, organisational culture is such that students tend to be passive recipients of change initiatives, rather than the drivers. To deliver a paradigm change, a theory of change framework was designed, implemented and applied to explore the viability of a student-led academic integrity society. To achieve this, a national research project involving three stages of data collection (surveys, interviews and focus groups) was conducted to obtain the perspectives of students and student representatives. The key outcome of the project has been the recent launch of an academic integrity student society, a novel initiative outside the United States of America. The theory of change framework presented here seeks to offer guidance to other institutions contemplating the viability of student-led change to academic integrity and the establishment of academic integrity student societies, in particular.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13538322.2016.1265849

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Punitive models seek to deter students from committing breaches through the threat of penalties, while educative models aim to reduce the likelihood of students committing breaches by providing them with relevant skills and knowledge.

    “where punitive models seek to 'deter students from com -mitting breaches through the threat of penalties,' and the educative approach aims to 'reduce the likelihood of stu -dents committing breaches by providing them with relevant skills and knowledge' [ 110 ].”

    From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [110]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Richards, D., Saddiqui, S., White, F., McGuigan, N., & Homewood, J.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Richards, Deborah
ORCID
Venue
Quality in Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-09
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
242-259
ISSN
  • 1353-8322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1081
DOI
10.1080/13538322.2016.1265849
OpenAlex
W2577612187
Cited by
34
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Quality in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Higher Education Governance and Development
Keywords
academic integrity, theory of change, student organizations, student representatives, higher education quality, organizational culture, student engagement, academic integrity policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review