Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 92:113

DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0144-7

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity:

A Positive Approach for Business Schools

Springer 2009

Cam
Caldwell

ABSTRACT. The problem of academic dishonesty in

Business Schools has risen to the level of a crisis according to some authors, with the incidence of reports on student
cheating rising to more than half of all the business students. In this article we introduce the problem of academic
integrity as a holistic issue that requires creating a cultural change involving students, faculty, and administrators in an
integrated process. Integrating the extensive literature from other scholars, we offer a ten-step model which can create a
positive culture for academic integrity. The successful implementation of a well-crafted academic integrity program
can have a positive impact on business schools and improve the reputation of tomorrows business leaders.
KEY WORDS: teaching business ethics, academic dishonesty, academic integrity

Cheating in higher education is rampant and students of business are among the most dishonest,
declared Levy and Rakovski (2006, p. 736) in an article summarizing the state of academic dishonesty in
business schools. Within a business environment described as a dynamic, turbulent, even chaotic world,
(Cameron, 2003, p. 190), business schools are struggling to train their graduates to be both ethical (Boyle,
2004) and competent (Mintzberg, 2005). The problem of academic dishonesty is a worldwide problem with
Callahan (2004) calling American society the cheating culture and with high percentages of students
admitting to cheating in countries other than the United States as well (Baty, 2007; DeLambert et al., 2005;
Lin and Wen, 2007; Rawwas et al., 2007). Business faculty are seeking to inculcate a moral perspective into
their students (Brady and Hart, 2007) in a society which has seen ethical debacles at Enron, Arthur
Andersen, and WorldCom as well as more recent examples involving morally questionable decisions in
both the banking and insurance industries. Emphasizing moral conduct seems incredibly important at
business schools where McCabe et al. (2006, p. 299) report that in a recent study 56% of graduate students
and 47% of undergraduates admitted to engaging in some form of cheating or questionable
behavior.
The Academy of Management has revised its
Code of Ethics and created an Ethics Ombudsperson (Henderson, 2007); the accrediting body for business
schools, the AACSB has updated its ethics standards for business schools (Kennedy and Horn, 2007); and
business scholars have advocated the importance of giving increased emphasis to moral standards for their
students a way out of the morass (Locke, 2006, p. 324). Nonetheless, the public continues to view
business leaders with distrust (Harwood, 2002). Research by numerous scholars has demonstrated that
adopting honor codes can be effective in reducing cheating within some academic settings (Trevino et al.,
1998), but even highly regarded business schools have found that adopting an honor code is not enough to
eliminate academic dishonesty (Damast, 2008; Rawe, 2007) with some schools adopting a dont ask, dont
tell policy in acknowledging that a cheating problem may actually exist within their university walls
(Damast, 2007).
The purpose of this article is to describe the efforts being made to improve academic integrity at some
universities and to provide a ten-step model to guide business schools that wish to implement an improved
academic integrity program. We begin this article by reviewing the scholarly research related to academic
dishonesty. Gleaning insights from this literature, we propose ten factors that we suggest can help business

2
Cam Caldwell
schools to develop a practical and integrated academic integrity program. We conclude by identifying how
our article contributes to the academic and practitioner literature.

Duties of business schools

Academic dishonesty has become so widespread that the print media has called the problem a plague
(Embleton and Helfer, 2007; Junion-Metz, 2000) and scholars have labeled it a crisis on campus (Burke et
al., 2007; Decoo, 2002). Kennedy et al. (2008) list 31 types of academic misconduct, and as high as 95% of
students have been involved in academic dishonesty on some campuses (McCabe and Trevino, 1993, p. 523).
Notwithstanding the implications of these numbers, 44% of 10,000 faculty surveyed have never reported
academic cheating about which they were aware, according to an extensive study conducted by the Center
for Academic Integrity (Burke et al., 2007, p. 59).
In light of the fact that students engagement in academic dishonesty is most influenced by whether they
believe their peers are engaging in academic dishonesty(Broeckelman-Post,2008,p.206),university
administrators and faculty members need to seriously examine how they view their own roles in addressing
the academic dishonesty issue (Finn and Frone, 2004). Iffaculty and administrators seemtoignore or condone
academic dishonesty, Broeckelman-Post (2008) has suggested that students are more likely to engage in
dishonestbehaviors. Coupledwith thefact that student dishonesty strongly correlates with future business
behaviors (Nonis and Swift, 2001; Sims, 1993), the implications of addressing the academic dishonesty
problem affirm that the issue of cheating in business schoolsdemandsseriousimmediateattention(McCabe et
al., 2001).
The incidence of academic dishonesty in its many forms is well documented in the scholarly literature.
McCabe et al. (2001) reported that not only are college students cheating more, but the nature of cheating has
become more serious. Newstead et al. (1996) identified 21 distinct types of student cheating in a study of
English college students. Vojak (2006, p. 177) has noted that cheating has become both more prevalent and
more socially acceptable. Chiesl (2007, p. 204) reported that students cheat because Everyone else is
doing it; I see others cheating; It helps me get better grades, a good job, or admitted to graduate school; I see
no reason not to cheat; There is little or no chance of getting caught; There is little, or no, punishment if I get
caught (sic). The availability of online web sites has made it easy for college students to construct articles
based upon unattributed web resources, with cut-and-paste cheating increasing fourfold according to a study
conducted by the Center for Academic Integrity (Etter et al., 2006). Acknowledging that cheating may occur
in dozens of forms (Newstead et al., 1996), the Center for Academic Integrity (2007) defined cheating as any
act that misrepresents a students work as representing his or her own work product in completing a
courserelated assignment.
In the last decade, business scholars have given increasing attention to the moral duties that business
schools owe stakeholders in a business landscape demanding increased accountability (Bennis and OToole,
2005; Boyle, 2004; Caldwell and Boyle, 2007; Mintzberg and Gosling, 2002; Karri et al., 2005). Teaching
principles of business ethics and helping students to apply those concepts in a highly competitive business
world can be a challenging balancing act (Moberg, 2006) fraught with moral dilemmas (Badaracco, 1997). In
reviewing the status of business schools, Pfeffer and Fong (2002, p. 78) have concluded that business
schools are not very effective although business programs have become a lucrative business for many
universities, both in the United States and abroad. Neelankavil (1994, p. 39) had previously noted that
modern business education has been criticized as largely irrelevant to business practice with graduates that
fall short of expectations. Business faculty have been criticized for lacking practical business experience
(Shoemaker, 2008), and demonstrating a reluctance to hold students accountable to ethical standards
(McCabe et al., 2002).
Starkey et al. (2004) have argued for a business school model that incorporates a thoughtful view of the
impact of businesses on society and that recognizes the implicit values of business choices. Salbu ( 2002, p.
xiv) noted that the graduates of many business schools may have developed the analytical skills to quickly
adapt to their business settings, but have failed to develop their characters or build their moral muscles.
The public press has laid responsibility on business schools to more effectively teach business ethics,
increase the quality of business research, improve the screening of those admitted to business schools,

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

3
engage corporate partners in long-term efforts to address ethical conduct, and to prove they mean business
in addressing ethics issues (Merritt, 2003, p. N). Ghoshal (2003, p. 19) has urged business school faculty and
administrators to own up to their own role in creating Enrons, and sharply criticized business schools for
promoting theories that are allegedly value free which actually are based upon negative and highly
pessimistic assumptions about
people and institutions.
Research by several scholars (Davis et al., 1992; McCabe et al., 2002) suggests that schools that formally
adopt an honor code positively impact the behavior of both students and faculties on college campuses.
According to Melendez (1985) traditional honor codes generally include any of four basic elements, namely,
(1) unproctored exams, (2) a written commitment or pledge whereby a student affirms that (s)he has not
cheated on an exam or assignment, (3) a judicial or hearing process in which students play a major role, and
(4) the expectation that students will report violations of the code that they observe. Because these elements
may require preparation and diligence to successfully implement, traditional honor codes are generally
found on campuses that are small to medium in size and highly residential in character (McCabe et al.,
2002, p. 362).
In contrast with traditional honor codes, modified honor codes (1) tend to be found at larger universities,
(2) focus on academic dishonesty, (3) communicate to students that academic integrity is a major priority,
and (4) give students a major role in educating other students about the code and in serving on a judicial or
hearing body (McCabe et al., 2002, p. 363). McCabe et al. (2002) concluded that modified honor codes
reduce the incidence of academic dishonesty, particularly at universities where faculty give the clear signal
that the honor code would be enforced and that cheating would not be condoned. In implementing an honor
code, Dufresne (2004, p. 201) argued for an action learning process designed with full acknowledgement of
the traditions and culture present in the student body, with the involvement of virtually all organization
members.
Creating a culture of integrity
McCabe (2005, p. 26) has opined that the most important factor that determines academic dishonesty in
universities has been the culture of academic integrity to which incoming students were exposed. Weber
(2006, p. 24) advocated the importance of business schools creating a comprehensive cultural change to
successfully implement an effective ethics program, but noted that the trend in the past few years has been
to eliminate business ethics courses and downgrade the importance of or attention to ethics
within the business schools.
Early research by McCabe and Trevino (1993) found that several factors associated with student
perception were important in affecting the likelihood of students engaging in academic dishonesty, including
student perceptions (1) of peer behavior, (2) about faculty understanding and acceptance of policies about
academic integrity, (3) about the overall effectiveness of these policies, and (4) about the severity of the
penalties imposed on those who cheated. Dalton (1985) had proposed that peer values were influential in
creating a peer culture accepted by college students. McCabe et al. (2002, p. 360) opined that peer
perceptions concerning academic dishonesty can be an important influence as students make individual
decisions about cheating. A later study by McCabe et al. (2006) confirmed peer perceptions were
particularly important for graduate business students in the decision about whether to cheat.
Closely related to adopting an honor code in influencing peer perceptions and student conduct (Zimny et
al., 2008) is the creation of a code of ethics. However, Marnburg (2000) noted that an ethics code is
inadequate if an organization does not support that code with sustained leadership and demonstrated efforts
to create an environment and culture that reflect organizational commitment. McCabe et al. (2006, p. 306)
advised that developing an ethical culture is a complex task that should be undertaken only if there is a
strong and ongoing commitment to it, based upon insights that they obtained from their study of more than
5000 business students from 32 colleges and universities. Trevino et al. (1998, p. 451) described an ethical
culture as including broad patterns of underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions which remained
constant over a broad set of circumstances. Creating an organizational culture that is perceived as ethical and
congruent requires communicating values in a clear manner and modeling behavior by organizational leaders
(Schein, 2003). Implicitly, all values have a heavy ethical content and are based upon how individuals frame

4
Cam Caldwell
the duties that they owe to others with whom they hold a unique relationship, to self, to a higher power, or to
society (Caldwell and Hayes, 2007).
The teaching of business ethics has been addressed by a variety of studies (Bean and Bernardi, 2007;
Beauvais et al., 2007; Gonin, 2007; Poff, 2007), with scholars (Boyle, 2007) and practitioners (Krehmeyer,
2007) debating the most effective approach to influencing behaviors about moral conduct. Penn and Collier
(1985) advocated the teaching of moral reasoning more than 20 years ago and recommended that this
teaching utilized Kohlbergs moral reasoning model. Trevino and McCabe (1994, pp. 406, 408) argued that
academic training should include guidance concerning the norms of appropriate conduct in a business
management context (italics in the original) suggesting that an ethics curriculum required extensive
discussion of moral dilemmas that lasted from four to twelve weeks. This ethics training would
incorporate wrestling with problems that lead a student to question his or her own reasoning, and consider
the next higher reasoning stage thereby restructuring cognitive patterns and moral development (Trevino
and McCabe, 1994, p. 407). Trevino and McCabes (1994) model attempts to integrate moral reasoning with
an in-depth application of the impact of decisions, rather than a purely cognitive approach that viewed ethical
decisions as the application of a conceptual theoretical model. Badaracco (1997) and Hosmer (2007) have
also framed moral decision making in context with complex ethical dilemmas that required an
acknowledgement that the impact of choices and their consequences are neither simple nor universally
beneficial. Although a variety of models for teaching ethics have been utilized, a critical factor in assessing
each of those models needs to include the degree to which the models require students to thoughtfully assess
the ultimate consequences of their choices.
Ashworty and Bannister (1997) confirm the importance of creating an integrated educational experience
that communicates to students that they are part of a larger academic community and that emphasizes the
obligations owed to society. Chapman et al. (2004) noted that creating cultural norms was achieved by a
multi-faceted approach to academic integrity. Eastman et al. (2006) emphasized the importance of creating
personal relationships between faculty and students at the departmental level while combining a wellreasoned approach to both educating students about the importance of ethical conduct and enforcing
academic honesty standards. Caldwell and Jean (2007) suggested that business schools must clearly focus on
their mission and purpose and integrate best practices of other successful programs if they are to change the
culture of dishonesty that exists at many business schools.
Creating a new model
Although the problem of academic dishonesty has been addressed in hundreds of articles (CAI, 2007), the
incidence of academic cheating persists, even at some of the best universities, despite concerted efforts to
emphasize academic integrity (Embleton and Helfer, 2007; Rawe, 2007). Incorporating the gleanings from
the extensive research about academic dishonesty with anecdotal evidence of successful elements of
programs that have brought fruitful results, we sought to develop a clear and relatively simple model that
could be helpful in assisting administrators and business faculties to create a new model for improving
academic integrity within their own schools. The process of researching the literature to develop this model
is eminently practical and consistent with the expectations of academic scholars, although the diversity of
thinking in academia allows for the critiquing of whatever model might be developed.
From a simply practical perspective, we have developed a framework that is intended to allow other
academicians and administrators to select the elements of this model, which they think apply best to their
circumstances cautioning those who modify key elements to remember that an incremental approach to
implementing change is often less effective than a systemic and holistic effort (cf. Pfeffer, 1998). In deciding
to implement this model, university faculty and administrators may wish to benchmark the current attitudes
of their own colleagues and students about the factors identified in this article. A comparison of perceptions
prior to and after the implementation of this ten-step model may be helpful in assessing the value of this
model and in identifying where additional improvements can be made.

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

A ten-step model for academic integrity

We propose a ten-step model to integrate the best insights of scholars and practitioners. As Schein (2003, pp.
2528) has noted, organizations are most effective in achieving results when their cultures reflect alignment
between the actions, espoused beliefs, and core assumptions of leaders. Dufresne (2004) had emphasized that
creating an integrated and aligned culture requires the dynamic involvement of all the participants in an
action-learning process. The model that we propose reflects Dufresnes thinking and includes a significant
role for students, faculty, and administrators.
(1) Articulation of a clear purpose and mission. Establishing clear objectives for an academic integrity
program is consistent with the best practices of management, and can help build shared ownership so
critical to the success of a change in organizational culture (Schein, 2003). Clear direction and
commitment to an academic integrity program ultimately begins with the top administrators of a
university and a business school (Gallant and Drinan, 2006b). Procario-Foley and Bean (2002)
suggested that the values and mission statement of a university are the foundation of a successful
ethics initiative. Derby (2006) noted that a clear statement of purpose and the creation of support
systems to address inappropriate conduct has been a key factor for the success of the academic
integrity program at the Air Force Academy. After surveying academic institutions about academic
integrity programs, Gallant and Drinan (2006b, p. 66) concluded that in order for academic integrity
to stick in the fabric of an organization, there must be structures, procedures, and symbols that all
support the enactment of academic integrity.
(2) Orientation and training of faculty. The effective orientation and training of faculty as to the desired
outcomes of an academic integrity program can be facilitated by sharing information contained in the
academic literature. Since business faculty are very familiar with the academic research literature,
much of the preparation for that orientation can take place most effectively by providing copies of
articles, power point summaries, and well-crafted written materials prior to a formal faculty meeting
to prepare faculty for a discussion of the elements contained in a proposed program. This material
should include the rationale for adopting a comprehensive systemic program rather than incremental
pieces. Faculty attitudes toward cheating, the enforcement of university policies related to cheating,
and the efforts that faculty members make to create a personal connection with students are
significant factors that affect the likelihood of students cheating (Simon et al., 2003). Academic
integrity encompasses five fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility
(CAI, 2007). Incorporating those five values into the creation of a successful program to create a
culture that discourages academic dishonesty requires the commitment of an entire faculty who
believe that their efforts will be supported by their administrators. Simon et al. (2004) reported that
students are more likely to report cheating when they believe that faculty genuinely cared about them
as learners and when they believed that faculty members were not likely to ignore the occurrence of
cheating. The effective direction of organizational leaders is a critical element in establishing and
following up on an ethics initiative, and administrator support of faculty enforcement efforts helps
build faculty commitment and trust in the academic integrity program (Weber, 2006).
(3) Explanation and clarification of current policies. Widespread communication of all elements
of an ethics program at every opportunity available is an important part of establishing
understanding and commitment about an ethics program, especially at its outset (Weber, 2006, p.
35). Students are often confused as to what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate academic
conduct. Because many students are not well prepared for the rigors of university-level academic
assignments, Sileo and Sileo (2008) have suggested that faculty need to help students to (1) learn
how to properly conduct research, (2) identify what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate use of
the words and ideas of others, and (3) understand where to go for assistance in writing at the
university level. Aluede et al. (2006) have noted the important role of faculty in academic advising in
explaining academic integrity policies, particularly to international students. Kennedy et al. (2008)
noted that student views about academic conduct, ranging from making up references in an article to
attempting to put pressure on professors about a grade, influenced their decision to cheat. Kennedy et
al. (2008) also confirmed the importance of (1) being clear with students about what constitutes
inappropriate conduct; and (2) establishing control systems in the classroom that demonstrated that

Cam Caldwell
inappropriate conduct would be discovered and penalized. Faculty and administration leaders need to
clearly explain the many types of academic dishonesty and communicate to students how they will
ensure that conduct will be monitored.
(4) Implementation of a realistic process for addressing violations. Sharkey and Culp (2005, p. 104)
explained that [m]any educators are neither sure nor comfortable with how to deal with plagiarism
and other forms of academic dishonesty. An academic honesty policy and an enforcement process that
is realistic and fair to all parties is a critical element for business schools seeking to prevent academic
dishonesty or to confront it when it occurs. A fair policy clearly articulates the consequences of
cheating
and the due process provided to students (Edgren and Walters, 2006). Bell (2005) found that a
facilitated discussion process that provided a timely and responsive approach to dealing with incidents
of student dishonesty improved the willingness of faculty members to report student misconduct and
provided students with reasonable due process while de-escalating the legalistic nature of the process.
Morrow (2008) described the effectiveness of a student-run honor court at the University of North
Carolina that hears all charges of academic misconduct. Because many university faculty members are
also from countries other than the United States and may have differing cultural backgrounds about
cheating and academic dishonesty (Caldwell et al., 2007), efforts must also be made to ensure that all the
faculty members understand the academic integrity program and are committed to its enforcement. Both
Bell (2005) and Morrow (2008) implicitly emphasize that the approach to enforcement contains complex
legal issues and due process concerns that require administrative buy-in to emphasize that the goal of
academic integrity is to teach compliance with ethical standards rather than to emphasize the punishment
of offenders.
(5) Attainment of student ownership. Bolin (2004) found that attitudes toward academic dishonesty
mediated the relationship between perceived opportunity and the decision to cheat. Research by Klein
et al. (2007) found that the definition of cheating held by business students is more lax than the
definition of cheating held by other professional students. Asking students to affirmatively pledge to
support an honor code and to refrain from unethical conduct is perceived by many universities to
personalize the individual responsibility of each student and to thereby increase compliance.
Duquesne University is just one of many universities that asks students to sign a statement affirming
that they have read, understand, and will abide by its honor code (Weber, 2006). Involving students in
the adjudication of complaints about ethical misconduct is also an approach that has worked
effectively at major institutions (Morrow, 2008). Many undergraduate and graduate business
programs include students from cultures other than the United States who have differing attitudes
about cheating (Flynn, 2003). American universities need to not only articulate the specific
expectations that they have about academic integrity, but also clearly communicate what they require
of international students with regard to plagiarism, testing behaviors, and other performance factors
and ask those students to make the commitment to honor the universitys academic integrity policy
(Magnus et al., 2002).
(6) Empowerment of students in education and enforcement. Clearly explaining university policies about
plagiarism and carefully articulating the many types of inappropriate academic conduct are critical
tasks in educating students and enforcing academic integrity policies (Sharkey and Culp, 2005) and
tasks are made easier when student peers participate in and support this communication effort (Crown
and Spiller, 1997). McCabe et al. (2003, p. 369) reported that 81% of faculty in universities with
honor codes believe that students should be involved in handling cheating incidents. Research
suggests that students who identify strongly with a university are less likely to cheat than those who
have a lower sense of personal identification. Kohlberg (1985) had suggested that moral communities
provide conditions that encourage moral behavior and encouraged universities to involve students in
playing an active role in the development of policies and rules to create a just environment. Crown
and Spiller (1997) noted that student involvement in policy development is an important factor in
successfully implementing a program to increase academic honesty.
(7) Maintenance of dialogue with stakeholders. Several scholars have suggested that an effective
academic integrity program requires the shared commitment of faculty, administrators, the business
community, and students working together (Alschuler and Blingling, 1995; Havnes, 2004; Leonard

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

7
and LaBrasseur, 2008). Gallant and Drinan (2006a) suggest that solving the student cheating problem
can most effectively be addressed by organizational dialogue focused on understanding the root
causes of cheating and developing an appropriate organizational strategy which involves key
stakeholders. Murdock and Anderman (2006) offer a rational framework for understanding (1) student
goals, (2) expectations for accomplishing those goals, and (3) assessments about the costs of
achieving those goals. Making the effort to talk about cheating with students, faculty, and
administrators can help universities to address the factors that motivate the decision of students to
cheat (Naimi, 2007). This dialogue will also increase faculty understanding of the importance of
developing high quality teaching methods and support systems that can build student self-efficacy and
the confidence that there is a realistic and feasible alternative to cheating to achieve success in the
classroom (Bandura, 1997). Providing students with top quality teaching and resources is a duty owed
by business schools to their students (Caldwell et al., 2007). Involving the business community in this
dialogue can create community support for the business school and increase community awareness
about the academic integrity program.
(8) Refinement of the ethics curriculum. Although the questions of how to teach business ethics and
whether ethical behavior can be taught have been debated for many years, a growing body of
evidence supports the idea that moral awareness can be learned and ethical decision making can be
improved by training in business ethics (Ritter, 2006). Vega (2007) found that involving business
students in service learning projects improved student awareness of moral issues. Sims and Felton
(2006) have suggested that business ethics training be focused on clearly targeted learning outcomes.
Trevino
and McCabe (1994) have advocated that business ethics courses focus on moral development
training, problem solving to address moral dilemmas, and education about the application of ethical
and moral principles. Poff (2007) has argued that business schools have the duty to teach their
students principles of moral reasoning as well as informing them about ethical theories. Satava et al.
(2006) urged that business ethics teaching be focused on principlebased rather than rule-based
concepts. Rest and Thoma (1986) found that a teaching strategy that addressed moral dilemmas was
most effective in teaching moral reasoning. Courses in both graduate and undergraduate business
training need to be reviewed constantly, kept current, and must focus on the application of moral
principles if ethics education is going to impact student behaviors (Trevino and McCabe, 1994).
(9) Monitored enforcement and documentation of results. Monitoring enforcement and documentation of
the results of the academic integrity process is a critical control function identified by leadership
scholars as absolutely essential for ensuring effective implementation and follow-through (Kotter,
1996; Pfeffer, 1998). Monitoring results of the academic integrity program will enable a university to
keep faculty focused on the benefits and outcomes of the program. Unfortunately, the tendency of
many faculty members in responding to observed instances of academic dishonesty is to ignore it
(McCabe and Trevino, 1993) thereby sending a message to students that unethical conduct will not
be punished (McCabe et al., 2002). Many students blame faculty for failing to monitor obvious
cheating and for failing to penalize students who cheat (Levy and Rakovski, 2006). Jarman et al.
(2006) emphasized that monitoring academic honesty required understanding how cheating takes
place, combined with wellplanned efforts to design assignments and testing processes to make it more
difficult for students to cheat. Naimi (2007) has suggested that a successful business ethics education
program demands a comprehensive approach which is consistently applied and carefully monitored.
Ross (2005, p. 31) noted that in monitoring cheating, faculty must be aware of the sophistication of
dishonest students (in being dishonest) and match that sophistication in detecting their dishonesty.
Faculty and administrators working together determine the effectiveness of an academic integrity
program; at the same time, university administrators need to carefully assess the role that they play
and the resources they provide in creating a sustainable program (McCabe, 2005).
(10) Evaluation of outcomes and communication of results. Thoughtfully assessing information gathered
in the monitoring and documentation stage can lead to key improvements, and communicating results
to stakeholders provides an opportunity for thanking participants, validating their efforts, and
celebrating change (Scholtes et al., 2003). Evaluating outcomes and communicating the progress of
the effort to improve academic integrity have been identified as important factors to develop a

Cam Caldwell
sustainable culture. Duquesne University noted that a commitment to constant review, reflection,
and modification as part of an ongoing continuous improvement process was one of six key lessons
learned in implementing a change in its ethics culture (Weber, 2006). Gambescia (2007) has also
advocated an ongoing annual review of the process used for monitoring programs to promote
academic honesty. Wood and Warnken (2004) have emphasized the importance of an integrated
approach that monitors outcomes, continually evaluates results, and develops a community
partnership for continuous improvement. Granitz and Loewy (2007) have suggested that an effective
academic integrity program will clearly communicate results to faculty, students, and administrators
involved and use that information to refine efforts to reduce dishonesty.
Although this ten-step model is comprehensive, the nature of the academic dishonesty problem that exists at
universities seems to merit a comprehensive effort if a business school is going to seriously address this
growing problem (McCabe et al., 2006). Incremental or ad hoc efforts that send an unclear message to
students about the universitys commitment are unlikely to change a culture (Schein, 2003).
In contemplating the challenges associated with implementing this ten-step model, many universities and
business schools may see the creation of an academic integrity program to be a daunting task that requires
additional faculty time, the commitment of scarce resources, and the involvement of students and community
leaders. The creation of an academic integrity program, admittedly, has its costs, but those costs should be
weighed against the duties owed by business schools to their students, to society, to the business profession,
and to their own universitys reputation if former students are found to violate the moral standards of society
as future business leaders.
Conclusion
Taylor-Bianco and Deeter-Schmelz (2007, p. 82) have written, If academics are to influence student values
positively and create a new class of ethical corporate citizens, we must understand how to instill in our
students a strong sense of ethics. Creating that sense of ethics demands that faculty and administrators
clearly understand the root causes of academic dishonesty (Strom and Strom, 2007), the cultural elements
that communicate the values of the organization (Marnburg, 2000; McCabe et al., 2006), the reinforcing
systems that demonstrate the organizations commitment to creating a culture of integrity (Weber, 2006), and
the mechanisms that deter and detect academic dishonesty (McCabe et al., 2002).
In writing about the moral duties of leaders in the modern organization, Lennick and Kiel ( 2008, p. 209)
suggest that the obligations owed to stakeholders encompass three levels of responsibility: (1) the
responsibility to do no harm, (2) the responsibility to add current value, and (3) the responsibility to add
future value. Business schools that clearly communicate to their students the value of personal integrity and
the folly of academic dishonesty begin to honor these three moral obligations. Faculty members that
overlook academic cheating to avoid the work required to follow through on academic discipline are
violating a broad variety of stakeholder duties (Caldwell et al., 2007) including duties owed to their schools
(Caldwell et al., 2005), to their students (Granitz and Loewy, 2007), to students future employers (Brubaker,
2003; Nonis and Swift, 2001; Sims, 1993), and to the community at large (Boyle, 2004; Caldwell and Boyle,
2007; Swift and Nonis, 1998). It is important to note that university faculty and administrators who fail to
instill principles of academic integrity in their students implicitly contribute to the cheating culture.
Creating an academic culture that incorporates the above ten steps requires a visionary administration that
understands the importance of system reinforcing cultural factors (Schein, 2003) that are essential to aligning
practices with principles and actions with ideals. The failure of business leaders to understand and to follow
moral principles typified by Enron, WorldCom, and a host of other notable examples affirms the need to
address the importance of moral conduct in instructing future business leaders how to make ethical decisions
in honoring duties to stakeholders. The evidence from studies by highlyregarded scholars (Etter et al., 2006;
McCabe and Trevino, 1993) and commentaries from news analysts (Merritt, 2003; McLean and Elkind,
2003) confirm the importance of practitioners and business students understanding and applying ethical
concepts, and the correlation between moral conduct and understanding moral principles. As academic
administrators and business school faculty contemplate the problems implicit in the dishonesty prevalent in
todays business schools, the ten-step model identified herein can become a useful tool in creating a culture
of academic integrity and in influencing the future behavior of tomorrows business executives.

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

References
Alschuler, A. and G. Blingling: 1995, Curbing Epidemic Cheating Through Systemic Change, College Teaching 43(4),
123125.
Aluede, O., E. O. Omoregie and G. I. Osa-Edoh: 2006, Academic Dishonesty as a Contemporary Problem in Higher
Education: How Academic Advisers can Help, Reading Improvement 43(2), 97106.
Ashworty, P. and P. Bannister: 1997, Guilty in Whose Eyes? University Students Perceptions of Cheating and
Plagiarism in Academic Work and Assessment, Studies in Higher Education 22(2), 187196. doi:10.
1080/03075079712331381034.
Badaracco, J.: 1997, Defining Moments: When Managers must Choose Between Right and Right (Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA).
Bandura, A.: 1997, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (Freeman, New York).
Baty, P.: 2007, New Anti-Cheating Body to Push for Honour Codes, Times Higher Education Supplement August,
p. 17.
Bean, D. F. and R. A. Bernardi: 2007, Ethics Education in our Colleges and Universities: A Positive Role for
Accounting Practitioners, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 5976. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9038-4.
Beauvais, L. L., D. E. Desplaces, D. E. Melchar and S. M. Bosco: 2007, Business Faculty Perceptions and Actions
Regarding Ethics Education, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 121136. doi:10.1007/s10805-0079046-4.
Bell, D.: 2005, Resolving Academic Dishonesty
Through Facilitated Discussion, Academic Leader 21(3), 34.
Bennis, W. G. and J. OToole: 2005, How Business Schools Lost Their Way, Harvard Business Review 83(9), 96104.
Bolin, A. U.: 2004, Self-Control, Perceived Opportunity, and Attitudes as Predictors of Academic Dishonesty, Journal
of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied 138, 101114. doi:10.3200/JRLP.138.2.101114.
Boyle, M.-E.: 2004, Walking Our Talk: Business Schools, Legitimacy, and Citizenship, Business & Society 43(1), 37
68.
Boyle, M.-E.: 2007, Learning to Neighbor? ServiceLearning in Context, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 85104.
doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9045-5.
Brady, N. and D. Hart: 2007, An Exploration into the Development Psychology of Ethical Theory with Implications for
Business Practice and Pedagogy, Journal of Business Ethics 76(4), 397412.
Broeckelman-Post, M. A.: 2008, Faculty and Student Influences on Academic Dishonesty, IEEE Transactions on
Education 51(2), 206211.
Brubaker, H.: 2003, Big Companies Teach Business Ethics to Employees, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News
March 26, p. 1.
Burke, J. A., R. S. Polimeni and N. S. Slavin: 2007, Academic Dishonesty: A Crisis on Campus, CPA Journal 77(5),
5865.
Caldwell, C. and M.-E. Boyle: 2007, Academia, Aristotle and the Public Sphere Stewardship Challenges to Schools
of Business, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 520. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9048-2.
Caldwell, C., S. E. Clapham and B. Davis: 2007, Rights, Responsibility, and Respect: A Balanced Citizenship Model
for Schools of Business, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 105120. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9041-9.
Caldwell, C. and L. Hayes: 2007, Leadership, Trustworthiness, and the Mediating Lens, Journal of Management
Development 26(3), 261278.
Caldwell, C. and L. Jean: 2007, Ethical Leadership and Building Trust Raising the Bar for Business, Journal of
Academic Ethics 5(1), 14. doi:10.1007/s10805-0079044-6.
Caldwell, C., R. Karri and T. Matula: 2005, Practicing What we Teach Ethical Considerations for Business Schools,
Journal of Academic Ethics 3, 125. doi: 10.1007/s10805-006-9007-3.
Caldwell, C., H. White and R. H. Red Owl: 2007, The Case for Creating a DBA Program A Virtue-Based
Opportunity for Universities, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(24), 179188. doi:10.1007/s10805-007-9030-z.
Callahan, D.: 2004, The Cheating Culture: Why more Americans are Doing Wrong to get Ahead (Harcourt Books,
Orlando, Fl).
Cameron, K. S.: 2003, Ethics, Virtuousness, and Constant Change, in N. M. Tichy and A. R. McGill (eds.), The
Ethical Challenge: How to Lead with Unyielding Integrity (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA), pp. 185194.
Center for Academic Integrity (CAI): 2007, The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity (Clemson University Press,
Clemson, SC).

10

Cam Caldwell

Chapman, K. J., R. Davis, D. Toy and L. Wright: 2004, Academic Integrity in the Business School Environment: Ill
get by with a Little Help from my Friends, Journal of Marketing Education 26(3), 236249.
doi:10.1177/0273475304268779.
Chiesl, N.: 2007, Pragmatic Methods to Reduce Dishonesty in Web-Based Courses, The Quarterly Review of Distance
Education 8(3), 203211.
Crown, D. and M. Spiller: 1997, Faculty Responsibilities in Dealing with Collegiate Cheating: A Student Development
Perspective, Teaching Business Ethics 1, 117130. doi:10.1023/A:1009728100939. Dalton, J. C.: 1985, Promoting
Values Development in College Students (Teachers College Press, Columbus, OH). Damast, A.: 2007, Are B-Schools
Hiding the Cheaters?, Business Week Online, June 21, p. 5. Damast, A.: 2008, Fuqua Puts Scandal Behind It,
Business Week Online, May 23, p. 5.
Davis, S. F., C. A. Grover, A. H. Becker and L. N. McGregor: 1992, Academic Dishonesty: Prevalence, Determinants,
Techniques, and Punishments, Teaching of Psychology 19(1), 1620.
Decoo, W.: 2002, Crisis on Campus: Confronting Academic Misconduct (The MIT Press, Hong Kong).
DeLambert, K., N. Ellen and L. Taylor: 2005, Academic Dishonesty Among Students in Tertiary Institutions: A
Literature Review, Waikato Journal of Education 11(2), 8399.
Derby, L.: 2006, Academic Integrity at the United States Air Force Academy, Mid-Western Educational
Researcher 19(1), 3940.
Dufresne, R. L.: 2004, An Action Learning Perspective on Effective Implementation of Academic Honor Codes,
Group & Organization Management 29(2), 201218.
Eastman, J. K., R. Iver and K. L. Eastman: 2006, Addressing Academic Dishonesty: The Implications for Business
Schools, Professors, and Students, Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 9, 18.
Edgren, and Walters: 2006, Academic Dishonesty in the 21st Century, Journal of Continuing Higher Education 54(2),
5659.
Embleton, K. and D. S. Helfer: 2007, The Plague of Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty, Searcher 15(6), 2326.
Etter, S., J. J. Cramer and S. Finn: 2006, Origins of Academic Dishonesty: Ethical Orientations and Personality Factors
Associated with Cheating with Information Technology, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39(2),
133155.
Finn, K. V. and M. R. Frone: 2004, Academic Performance and Cheating: Moderating Role of School
Identification and Self-Efficacy, Journal of Educational Research 97(3), 115122.
Flynn, R. S.: 2003, Confronting Academic Dishonesty in the Accounting Classroom: A Cultural Experience?,
Accounting Education 12(4), 437439.
Gallant, T. B. and P. Drinan: 2006a, Organizational Theory and Student Cheating: Explanation, Responses, and
Strategies, Journal of Higher Education 77(5), 839860.
Gallant, T. B. and P. Drinan: 2006b, Institutionalizing Academic Integrity: Administrator Perceptions and Institutional
Actions, NASPA Journal 43(4), 6181.
Gambescia, S. F.: 2007, A Best Practice Protocol for Handling Academic Honesty Issues with Adult Students, Journal
of Continuing Higher Education 55(1), 47 55.
Ghoshal, S.: 2003, Business Schools Share the Blame for Enron, Financial Times, July 18, p. 19.
Gonin, M.: 2007, Business Research, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, and the Inherent Responsibility of Scholars, Journal of
Academic Ethics 5(1), 3358. doi:10.1007/ s10805-007-9039-3.
Granitz, N. and D. Loewy: 2007, Applying Ethical Theories: Interpreting and Responding to Student Plagiarism,
Journal of Business Ethics 72(3), 293306. Harwood, J.: 2002, Americans Distrust Institutions in Poll, Wall Street
Journal 239(115), A4.
Havnes, A.: 2004, Examination and Learning: An Activity-Theoretical Analysis of the Relationship Between
Assessment and Education Practice, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29(2), 159176.
Henderson, B.: 2007, Interview with Linda Trevino Academy of Management Ethics Ombudsperson, Journal of
Academic Ethics 5(1), 2124. doi:10.1007/ s10805-007-9042-8.
Hosmer, L.: 2007, The Ethics of Management (McGrawHill, New York).
Jarman, R., B. Warner and G. Gill: 2006, Cheater, Cheater, Pumpkin Eater: Dealing with Cheating in a Large Class,
Informing Faculty: An International Journal of Higher Education Cases 1, 122.
Junion-Metz, G.: 2000, The E-Plagiarism Plague, School Library Journal 46, 4344.
Karri, R., C. Caldwell, E. P. Antonacopoulou and D. Naegle: 2005, Building Trust in Schools of Business
Opportunities for Ethical Governance, Journal of Academic Ethics 3(24), 159182. doi:10.1007/ s10805-0069012-6.

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

11

Kennedy, M. J. and L. C. Horn: 2007, Thoughts on Ethics Education in the Business School Environment: An
Interview with Dr. Jerry Trapnell, AACSB, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 7784. doi:10.1007/s10805007-90437.
Kennedy, P., T. O. Bisping, H. Patron and K. Roskelley: 2008, Modeling Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Student
Perceptions and Misconduct Type, Journal of Economic Education 39(1), 421.
Klein, H., N. Levenburg, M. McKendall and
W. Mothersell: 2007, Cheating During the College Years: How do Business School Students Compare?, Journal of
Business Ethics 72, 197206. doi:10.1007/ s10551-006-9165-7.
Kohlberg, L.: 1985, The just Community Approach to Moral Education in Theory and Practice, in M. W. Berkowitz
and F. Oser (eds.), Moral Education: Theory and Practice (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 2788.
Kotter, J. P.: 1996, Leading Change (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA).
Krehmeyer, D.: 2007, Teaching Business Ethics: A Critical Need, Business Week Online, October 26, p. 4. Lennick,
D. and F. Kiel: 2008, Moral Intelligence: Enhancing Business Performance and Leadership Success (Wharton Business
School Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Leonard, V. and R. LaBrasseur: 2008, Individual Assignments and Academic Dishonesty Exploring the Learning
Conundrum, Australian Educational Researcher 35(1), 3756.
Levy, E. S. and C. C. Rakovski: 2006, A Zero Tolerance Professor and Student Registration Choices, Research in
Higher Education 47(6), 735754.
Lin, C. H. and L. Y. Wen: 2007, Academic Dishonesty in Higher EducationA Nationwide Study in Taiwan, Higher
Education 54(1), 8597.
Locke, E. A.: 2006, Business Ethics: A Way Out of the Morass, Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(3),
324332.
Magnus, J. R., V. M. Polterovich, D. L. Danilov and A. V. Savvateev: 2002, Tolerance of Cheatinging: An Analysis
Across Countries, The Journal of Economic Education 33(1), 125135.
Marnburg, E.: 2000, The Behavioural Effects of Corporate Ethical Codes: Empirical Findings and Discussion,
Business Ethics: A European Review 9(3), 200210.
McCabe, D. L.: 2005, Academic Dishonesty & Educational Opportunity, Liberal Education 91(3), 2631.
McCabe, D. L., K. D. Butterfield and L. K. Trevino: 2003, Faculty and Academic Integrity: The Influence of Current
Honor Codes and Past Honor Code Experiences, Research in Higher Education 44(3), 367385.
McCabe, D. L., K. D. Butterfield and L. K. Trevino: 2006, Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs:
Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Action, Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(3), 294305.
McCabe, D. L. and L. K. Trevino: 1993, Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual
Influences, The Journal of Higher Education 64(5), 522 538. doi:10.2307/2959991.
McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino and K. D. Butterfield: 2001, Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research,
Ethics & Behavior 11, 220. doi:10. 1207/S15327019EB1103_2.
McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino and K. D. Butterfield: 2002, Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences on Academic
Integrity: A Replication and Extension to Modified Honor Code Settings, Research in Higher Education 43(3), 357
378. doi:10.1023/A:101489310 2151.
McLean, B. and P. Elkind: 2003, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron
(Penguin Group, New York). Melendez, B.: 1985, Honor Code Study (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA).
Merritt, J.: 2003, Ethics is Also B-School Business, Business Week Online, January 17, p. N.
Mintzberg, H.: 2005, Managers not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management
Development (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA).
Mintzberg, H. and J. Gosling: 2002, Educating Managers Beyond Borders, Academy of Management Learning &
Education 1, 6476.
Moberg, D. J.: 2006, Best Intentions, Worst Results: Grounding Ethics Students in the Realties of Organizational
Context, Academy of Management Learning & Education 5(3), 307316.
Morrow, D.: 2008, Dont Lie, Dont Cheat, Dont Steal, BizEd 7(2), 4648.
Murdock, T. B. and E. M. Anderman: 2006, Motivational Perspectives on Student Cheating: Toward an Integrated
Model of Academic Dishonesty, Educational Psychologist 41(3), 129145.
Naimi, L.: 2007, Strategies for Teaching Research Ethics in Business, Management and Organisational Studies,
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 5(1), 26 39.
Neelankavil, J. P.: 1994, Corporate Americas Quest for an Ideal MBA, Journal of Management Development 13(5),
3852.

12

Cam Caldwell

Newstead, S. E., A. Franklyn-Stokes and P. Armstead: 1996, Individual Differences in Student Cheating, Journal of
Educational Psychology 88, 229241. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.229.
Nonis, S. and C. O. Swift: 2001, An Examination of the Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Workplace
Dishonest: A Multicampus Investigation, Journal of Education for Business 77(2), 6976.
Penn, W. Y. Jr. and B. D. Collier: 1985, Current Research in Moral Development as a Decision Support System,
Journal of Business Ethics 4(2), 131136.
Pfeffer, J.: 1998, The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First (Harvard Business School Press,
Boston).
Pfeffer, J. and C. T. Fong: 2002, The End of Business Schools? Less Success than Meets the Eye, Academy of
Management Learning & Education 1(1), 7895.
Poff, D. C.: 2007, Duties Owed in Serving Students: The Importance of Teaching Moral Reasoning and Theories of
Ethical Leadership in Educating Business Students, Journal of Academic Ethics 5(1), 2532. doi:10.1007/s10805007-9040-x.
Procario-Foley, E. G. and D. F. Bean: 2002, Institutions of Higher Education: Cornerstones in Building Ethical
Organizations, Teaching Business Ethics 6, 101116. doi:10.1023/A:1014214909390. Rawe, J.: 2007, A Question of
Honor, Time 169(22), 5960, May 28.
Rawwas, M., Z. Swaidan and H. Isakson: 2007, A Comparative Study of Ethical Beliefs of Master of Business
Administration Students in the United States with Those in Hong Kong, Journal of Education for Business 82(3),
146158.
Rest, J. and S. J. Thoma: 1986, Educational Programs and Interventions, in J. Rest (ed.), Moral Development:
Advances in Research and Theory (Praeger Publishers, New York).
Ritter, B.: 2006, Can Business Ethics be Trained? A Study of the Ethical Decision-making Process in Business
Students, Journal of Business Ethics 68(2), 153164.
Ross, K. A.: 2005, Academic Dishonesty and the Internet, Communications of the ACM 48(10), 2931.
doi:10.3166/isi.10.3.29-48.
Salbu, S.: 2002, Foreword, in B. Cruver (ed.), Anatomy of Greed: The Unshredded Truth from an Enron Insider
(Hutchinson, London).
Satava, D., C. Caldwell and L. Richards: 2006, Ethics and the Auditing Culture: Rethinking the Foundation of
Accounting and Auditing, Journal of Business Ethics 64(3), 271284.
Schein, E. H.: 2003, Organizational Culture and Leadership (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Scholtes, P. R., B. L. Joiner and B. Streibel: 2003, The Team Handbook, 3rd Edition (Oriel Inc, Madison, WI).
Sharkey, J. R. and F. B. Culp: 2005, Cyberplagiarism and the Library: Issues and Solutions, Reference Librarian
44(91/92), 103116.
Shoemaker, P. J. H.: 2008, The Future Challenges of Business: Rethinking Management Education, California
Management Review 50(3), 119139.
Sileo, J. M. and T. W. Sileo: 2008, Academic Dishonesty and Online Classes: A Rural Education Perspective, Rural
Special Education Quarterly 27(1/2), 5560.
Simon, C. A., J. R. Carr and S. M. McCullough: 2003, The Other Side of Academic Dishonesty: The Relationship
Between Faculty Skepticism, Gender and Strategies for Managing Student Academic Dishonesty Cases, Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education 28(2), 193207. doi:10.1080/02602930301669.
Simon, C. A., J. R. Carr and S. M. McCullough: 2004, Gender, Student Perceptions, Institutional Commitments and
Academic Dishonesty: Who Reports in
AcademicDishonestyCases?,Assessment&Evaluationin Higher Education 29(1), 7590. doi:10.1080/02602930
32000158171.
Sims, R. L.: 1993, The Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Unethical Business Practices, Journal of
Education for Business 68(4), 207211.
Sims, R. and E. Felton: 2006, Designing and Delivering Business Ethics Teaching and Learning, Journal of Business
Ethics 63(3), 297312.
Starkey, K., A. Hatchuel and S. Tempest: 2004,
Rethinking the Business School, Journal of Management Studies 41(8), 15211531. Strom, P. S. and R. D. Strom:
2007, Curbing Cheating, Raising Integrity, Education Digest 72(8), 4250.
Swift, C. O. and S. Nonis: 1998, When no one is Watching: Cheating Behaviors on Projects and Assignments,
Marketing Education Review 8, 2736.
Taylor-Bianco, A. and D. Deeter-Schmelz: 2007, An Exploration of Gender and Cultural Differences in MBA Students
Cheating Behavior: Implications for the Classroom, Journal of Teaching in International Business 18(4), 8199.

A Ten-Step Model for Academic Integrity

13

Trevino, L. K., K. D. Butterfield and D. L. McCabe: 1998, The Ethical Context in Organizations: Influences on
Employee Attitudes and Behaviors, Business Ethics Quarterly 8(3), 447476.
Trevino, L. K. and D. McCabe: 1994, Meta-Learning About Business Ethics: Building Honorable Business School
Communities, Journal of Business Ethics 13(6), 405416.
Vega, G.: 2007, Teaching Business Ethics Through Service Learning Metaprojects, Journal of Management Education
31(5), 647678.
Vojak, C.: 2006, What Market Culture Teaches Students About Ethical Behavior, Ethics and Education 1(2), 177195.
doi:10.1080/17449640600950808.
Weber, J.: 2006, Implementing an Organizational Ethics Program in an Academic Environment: The Challenges and
Opportunities for the Duquesne University Schools of Business, Journal of Business Ethics 65, 23 42.
doi:10.1007/s10551-005-3970-2.
Wood, G. and P. Warnken: 2004, Academic Original
Sin: Plagiarism, the Internet, and Librarians, Journal of Academic Librarianship 30(3), 237242.
Zimny, S. T., D. U. Robertson and T. Bartoszek: 2008, Academic and Personal Dishonesty in College Students, North
American Journal of Psychology 10(2), 291 312.

McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA, U.S.A. E-mail:

cam.caldwell@gmail.com