← Back
Synthesis, Characterization and Cytotoxic Activities of Half‐sandwich Pentamethylcyclopentadienyl Iridium(III) Complexes Containing 4,4'‐substituted 2,2'‐Bipyridine Ligands
Promoting Academic Integrity
AUTHOR:
Evelyn C. Garwe1
AFFILIATION:
Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Zimbabwe Council for Higher
Education, Harare, Zimbabwe
1
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Evelyn Garwe
EMAIL:
garweec@gmail.com
DATES:
Received: 15 Mar. 2019
Revised: 12 Sep. 2019
Accepted: 13 Sep. 2019
Published: 27 Nov. 2019
HOW TO CITE:
Garwe EC. Quality assurance
agencies: Creating a conducive
environment for academic integrity.
S Afr J Sci. 2019;115(11/12),
Art. #6231, 7 pages. https://doi.
org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6231
ARTICLE INCLUDES:
☒ Peer review
☐ Supplementary material
DATA AVAILABILITY:
☐ Open data set
☒ All data included
☐ On request from author(s)
☐ Not available
☐ Not applicable
EDITOR:
Hester du Plessis
Quality assurance agencies: Creating a conducive
environment for academic integrity
Academic integrity is a key measure of the quality, efficiency and competitiveness of higher education
systems. This article explores how a quality assurance agency can foster a conducive environment for
academic quality and integrity. A self-study methodology was used, with a focus on the insights and
experiences of the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education over a 10-year period. The findings show that
by assuming an innovative and transformational leadership role in instilling a culture of self-evaluation, as
well as maintaining its own integrity, an external quality assurance agency can improve academic integrity.
The article adds value to the existing knowledge by advancing the higher education ecosystem approach as
an integrity-based panacea and conducive way to induce integrity to flow from all players as opposed to the
use of heavy-handed regulatory approaches.
Significance:
•
This article highlights the importance of academic integrity and situates quality assurance agencies as
playing a central role in fostering academic integrity.
Introduction
Academic integrity refers to the adherence to a code of values and ideals (ethical standards) that inform the behaviour
and conduct generally understood and accepted worldwide.1,2 This code of practice demonstrates ‘a commitment,
even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage’3.
It is a universal trust-bearing measure of the quality of academic and professional practices (teaching, learning,
assessment, evaluation, research and community service) by individuals, groups or institutions within higher
education systems.4,5 Accordingly, the achievement of academic integrity is a critical goal that every higher education
system aspires to reach, to be part of the national and global communities of integrity.
Breaches of academic integrity through engaging in behaviour and practices that are not in keeping with expectations
is referred to as dishonesty, misdemeanor, fraud or corruption.6 Denisova-Schmidt7 highlights the global challenge of
dealing with the increasing incidences of ‘integrity deficiencies’ that undermine the trust placed in the outcomes of
higher education. In the globalised world, mobility of students and workers requires recognition of their qualifications.
Lack of academic integrity at individual, institutional or national level poses a significant threat to public safety in cases
in which graduates have not genuinely acquired the required competencies.7 A case in point is that of professional
courses (health and engineering) as well as programmes with economic bearing e.g. accounting and banking.
In order to uphold quality and standards, all players are collectively responsible for continuously scanning the
environment to prevent, identify and rid academia of corruption.6-8 Although several approaches to addressing
academic dishonesty have been suggested,2,9 it is generally accepted that the problem persists.
KEYWORDS:
Over the last two decades, over 100 countries have established external agencies to assure quality in higher education.10
The thesis here is that higher levels of academic quality and integrity prevent and reduce academic dishonesty. Although
these agencies operate within varied contexts and apply different quality assurance mechanisms, accreditation and
quality audits are the most effective and widely used methods of preventing systemic academic malpractices.
FUNDING:
This article explores how a national quality assurance agency, the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE),
improved academic integrity in Zimbabwe, a country whose high quality education11 contrasts with high levels of
corruption in the wider society12,13 thus posing an enigma. The case study approach is premised on using the widely
recognised method of concentrating on a context/locality and generalising therefrom.
higher education ecosystem,
self-evaluation, transformational
leadership, Zimbabwe
None
Contextualising academic integrity in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe is a medium-sized country which gained independence from Britain on 18 April 1980. The country takes
pride in its relatively well-established higher education system that spans over 60 years. The first higher education
institution was the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, established in 1955, in an affiliate relationship
with the University of London.14 The new government, upon gaining independence, introduced aggressive
policy reforms focusing on curriculum review, inclusivity, planning and efficiency, quality and relevance. Some
publications11 position Zimbabwe as the best-educated country in Africa, with literacy levels in excess of 94%.
Zimbabwe experienced a rapid expansion of higher education characterised by increasing student enrolments and
new state and public institutions between 1998 and 2005. This expansion was not supported with proportionate
infrastructural, human, material and financial resources necessary to maintain the original high-quality standards.
This is largely explained by the fact that the country experienced economic decline during the same period, which
resulted in a brain drain of highly qualified and experienced academics and other professionals.
© 2019. The Author(s). Published
under a Creative Commons
Attribution Licence.
In its quest to safeguard quality, the country established ZIMCHE in 2006, through an Act of Parliament, to regulate
and promote quality in higher education.15 ZIMCHE developed a quality assurance framework to guide institutions
to achieve ethical, legal and professional standards. ZIMCHE has recently undertaken a curriculum overhaul in
line with the concept of University 5.0 introduced by the Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and
Technology Development, Honourable Professor Amon Murwira. Two pillars of the university mandate (innovation and
industrialisation/commercialisation) were added to teaching, research and community service. This move positioned
higher education to contribute effectively to the national vision of achieving an upper-middle income status by 2030.
Research Article
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6231
1
Volume 115| Number 11/12
November/December 2019
Promoting Academic Integrity: Quality assurance agencies
Page 2 of 7
Corruption was reported to be the major cause of both Zimbabwe’s
economic downturn and the persistent failure to resolve the problem.12,13
These authors12,13 used the Corruption Perception Index wherein Zimbabwe
featured at position 154 out of 175 most corrupt nations in the world to
premise their proposition that economic improvement in the country will
only commence after serious and concerted efforts to root out corruption.
the real data to craft new theories or create new knowledge. Academic
supervisors can sometimes alter and publish the work done by students
without due acknowledgement. At times academics can pay research
assistants to collect data, undertake literature reviews and draft reports,
which they simply spruce-up and publish as sole author.26
Plagiarism
Studies focusing on academic dishonesty affirmed the existence of
dishonest tendencies by students, staff and management.16-18 Media
reports revealed cases in which some universities awarded unmerited
degrees to public figures through coercion, or voluntarily in search of
favours. A case in point is the award of a doctorate to a former first lady
by a reputable university in Zimbabwe. Some unregulated non-higher
education institutions also sell ‘honorary’ doctorates and professorships
to public figures – an activity that is legally a preserve of registered and
accredited higher education institutions.
Plagiarism involves academics or students copying other people’s work
(e.g. ideas, wording, approaches, artworks or inventions) with or without
modification and without due acknowledgement.22 Plagiarism occurs in
different forms inclusive of:
Cognisant of the corruption-infested national context, its global
manifestation and its consequences for higher education and the wider
society, ZIMCHE has played a key role in fostering academic integrity
through quality assurance.
Literature review
Academic integrity breaches
There exist different kinds of integrity breaches which negatively
impact quality, effectiveness and efficiency and the sanctity of higher
education.19,20 Academic integrity breaches are complex in that all players
in the higher education ecosystem are potential perpetrators.8 In higher
education institutions, students (both at undergraduate and postgraduate
levels), academic and support staff, management as well as the governing
council are prone to academic dishonesty. These breaches can occur
during student admissions, staff recruitment, grading, promotion,
teaching, supervision, assessment, research, reporting, publication and
qualification award. Examples of some of the common breaches are
discussed below.
Cyber-plagiarism, essay mills or contract cheating, wherein
known or unknown (ghostwriters) third parties are contracted to
undertake assignments or research on behalf of a student, staff
member or contractor either physically or online.27
•
Self-plagiarism involving recycling one’s own work and presenting
it as new.28
•
Mosaic plagiarism where synonyms are used to replace words
used in the original article whilst maintaining the same ideas.29
•
Bureaucratic plagiarism involving abuse of power by superiors
who take ownership of work assigned and done by juniors in their
day-to-day work, for example reports, grant proposals, PowerPoint
presentations or speeches. The superior at times acknowledges the
originators but takes the limelight with little or no contribution.30 It is
important to note that in some cultures, bureaucratic plagiarism is
considered ‘business as usual’ as it is consistent with institutional
and cultural norms.31
Collusion
There are still grey areas regarding the point at which collaboration
becomes collusion, given that collaboration is encouraged and celebrated
in academia whereas collusion is condemned.32 The confusion results
from varied understandings and practices deemed appropriate regarding
assessment of students in different disciplines and contexts. Collusion
captures the possibility that arises when academics or students get
material and ideas from unattributed sources that are not Internet-based
and hence difficult to detect using electronic anti-plagiarism software, for
example interactions with other students, academics or professionals.33
Collusion also occurs when students collaborate with peers on a piece of
assessed work meant to be undertaken as an individual task. The group
work is then customised to avoid detection. Another form of collusion is
when a student or academic avails a completed assignment to another
for money or other favours.
Flawed student admission, staff recruitment, grading and
promotion practices
Fraudulent student admissions arise due to competition for places in highdemand programmes that are perceived to be prestigious (e.g. law and
medicine). Staff are either offered or demand bribes in order to circumvent
the process and admit certain students ahead of others.21 The issues of
merit do not apply here because all students will be qualified but competing
for limited places. Management can sometimes abuse power and appoint
or promote staff members on the basis of ethnicity, gender, personal
connections, family relationships, bribery or extortion.7,22 Recruitment and
promotion can also be done on the basis of misrepresented qualifications,
academic achievements, as well as leadership experience.23,24 This form
of misrepresentation is usually done by padding resumes with exaggerated
accomplishments and claims of fake qualifications including those
obtained from unrecognised institutions.
Academic integrity breaches in quality assurance agencies
Some quality assurance agencies accredit programmes/institutions
fraudulently in return for bribes or favours.34 There are also fake quality
assurance agencies that operate as accreditation mills.35 False audit or
evaluation reports resulting from conflict of interest and bribery by peer
reviewers, agency staff and board members are also common.34 Bribing
or threatening (as in the case of threats by political figures or other highranking officials) individuals constituting accrediting panels forces or
motivates them to by-pass certain criteria and produce reports in favour
of the department or give the programme or institution undue advantage.
Grade inflation or compression
Inflating or compressing grades happens when assessors award
marks to increase or decrease grades inconsistent with the student’s
deserved grade.25 In addition to monetary incentives, grade inflation
or compression is sometimes motivated by sexual favours. In other
instances, administrative staff put pressure on academics to inflate grades
for the benefit of institutional reputation. This is usually motivated by the
need to get higher appropriations where institutions are funded on the
basis of student throughput.25 Where students are offered merit-based
scholarships, academics are inclined to give students higher grades to
avoid students dropping out because they lose their scholarship, which
would result in the institution losing tuition income.
Quality assurance agencies can also plagiarise instruments and standards
designed by sister agencies from other countries. In addition, peer
reviewers who are engaged by quality assurance agencies have been
reported to re-use the templates that they have used before in their
reports (self-plagiarism). Incidents of collusion have also been reported,
wherein board members, staff and peer reviewers work in cahoots to
influence decisions that would otherwise not have been made if rigour
was maintained. 34
Fabrication of research findings or falsification of reports
Situating quality assurance agencies in academic integrity
Fabrication usually occurs when research findings fail to conform to the
student’s or academic’s preferred theory or framework. Data are then
crouched or manipulated to suit the desired outcome instead of using
Research Article
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6231
•
Quality assurance agencies provide leadership in developing and
maintaining a framework to guide institutions to achieve academic quality
2
Volume 115| Number 11/12
November/December 2019
Promoting Academic Integrity: Quality assurance agencies
Page 3 of 7
and integrity in all aspects of the university mandate. Leadership is defined
as the ability to inspire, support and motivate others to achieve set goals.35
From an institutional perspective, leadership is the capacity to energise,
coordinate and synergise all players towards effective goal attainment.36
Davenport and Volpel37 suggest that today’s leadership should coordinate
communities in their mandate areas, create user-friendly cultures and fend
off bureaucracy.
The players in the higher education ecosystem include quality assurance
agencies, professional bodies, parents, general public, alumni,
prospective students, funders and higher education institutions. Higher
education institutions form a sub-system within the larger ecosystem
which includes the university council/board, management, academics,
students and support staff.53 The non-living components of this
ecosystem that direct the ways the human players behave and interact51
comprise physical and material resources, policies, systems and
procedures, organisational cultures, leadership styles and strategies19.
Quality assurance frameworks embed academic integrity in the standards
for programme/institutional accreditation and audit/review.38 Institutions
are required to detail the initiatives undertaken to maintain and improve
academic integrity in their self-evaluation reports.37 These claims are
then validated by the accreditation and audit teams during the mandatory
site visits. Placing academic integrity in the spotlight in this manner
motivates higher education institutions to prioritise and actively inculcate
a culture of academic integrity.38
An effective ecosystem requires the cooperation of all players and the
awareness of each other’s presence and contributions.46 Although quality
assurance agencies coordinate and regularly monitor and evaluate
results of individual and collective actions of players, it is the effective
interaction of all players that is responsible for achievement of goals.
Unprogressive attitudes, lack of professionalism and disagreement of
players in an ecosystem disrupts the smooth flow of activities and results
in pollution of the whole system.19 For example, if issues of academic
integrity are not well managed by institutions or agencies, the whole
system will become polluted. In other words, the integrity of quality
assurance agencies is integral to quality higher education systems; in
the same vein, no agency can rise above the quality of its institutions
– effective collaboration reinforces and safeguards academic integrity.
Many quality assurance agencies use the philosophy of zero tolerance39
involving use of heavy-handed approaches (e.g. legal, software and
structures) to discourage, accost and discipline those who commit
academic misdemeanors.40 This approach is premised on the assumed
opportunistic tendencies of human beings who largely behave according
to their self-interests in order to optimise their own utility, ignoring the
potential conflict of interest with their assigned duties.41 This approach
of putting emphasis on detection and sanctions to achieve academic
integrity as opposed to awareness, integration and promotion of desired
behaviours is fraught with many challenges.42 To begin with, it focuses on
inputs and process; some agencies spend a fortune on surveillance and
oversight mechanisms rather than on productive and progressive work.43
Furthermore, institutions incur additional costs to prove compliance
to standards.44
The success and reputation of institutions depend on the quality
of their graduates; hence they have an intrinsic stake in upholding
academic integrity. Quality assurance agencies should work together
with institutions to develop strategies to maintain academic integrity.
This calls for a positive approach wherein integrity is embedded in the
self (both at individual, institutional and sectoral level) as opposed to
viewing it from a negative perspective.54 This approach is premised on
the stewardship theory which argues that selflessness and pro-social
behaviours promote collectivism as opposed to individualism. Hence the
interests of agencies are aligned to those of institutions and all other
players in the higher education ecosystem.55
Approaches that are inclusive, goal and improvement-oriented influence
the choice of human behaviour.45 An inclusive environment, in which every
player is valued, inculcates a sense of belonging and a quest to contribute
positively to set goals. The nature of the mentor–mentee relationship
influences the awareness and acceptance of standards.46 Students,
staff and institutions acquire habits in their interactions with faculty,
management and agencies through capacity building and exemplary
conduct.47 Thus the positive approach to academic integrity48 produces
better results and demands that all players play their role in encouraging
good conduct through leading by example and exhibiting academic
integrity at the individual level.
Purpose of study
The study was aimed at examining the role of a quality assurance agency
in providing leadership in academic quality and integrity. Specifically, the
study sought to answer the following questions:
Higher education ecosystem
Systems theories (general, ecological, life-model, and ecosystems)
embrace mutual relationships amongst elements that are part of a whole.
The study adopts the ecosystem approach, a concept that has diversified
from botany49 to wider application in education and other disciplines50,51.
Ecosystems are functional and coordinated entities characterised by
dynamic bilateral and multilateral connectivity, interdependence and
interaction of different players (living and non-living) for survival and growth
within a specific environment. A higher education ecosystem (Figure 1) is
a self-sustained, self-regulating system of players united by shared goals
and mutual interdependence based on a value co-creation approach.52
Figure 1:
What challenges does ZIMCHE face in rallying Zimbabwean
universities around issues of quality and academic integrity?
2.
How does ZIMCHE assure quality and academic integrity
in Zimbabwe?
3.
What lessons and good practices can be drawn from ZIMCHE’s
approach to academic integrity?
Methodology
Originating from the teaching practice, the self-study methodology
(intimate scholarship) has gained foothold in all disciplines as an
important approach to informing and transforming practice through
leveraging personal and institutional experiences.56 This methodology is
premised on the self-study theory which propounds continual reflection,
critical examination, communication and comparison of personal and
institutional activities, strategies and experience with the literature and
development of innovative and effective interventions, in contrast to
pursuing practices that are premised on tradition, habit or impulse.57
Although often criticised on the basis of bias and an assumed lack of
objectivity, the self-introspection of the distant and immediate past as
well as current experiences to interrogate and identify useful insights for
improvement engenders trustworthiness and transparency.58,59 The edge
of the methodology over alternatives derives from its improvementorientation, interactivity and comparability with similar situations.57
ZIMCHE and the Zimbabwean higher education ecosystem were used as
the institutional self and the ecological self, respectively. ZIMCHE started
its operations in 2009 and hence has rich experiences spanning over
10 years. Using the five-step self-study guidelines recommended by
Samaras and Roberts57, the author worked with colleagues within and
The higher education ecosystem.
Research Article
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6231
1.
3
Volume 115| Number 11/12
November/December 2019
Promoting Academic Integrity: Quality assurance agencies
Page 4 of 7
outside ZIMCHE to brainstorm, interrogate, critique and obtain feedback
regarding the three research questions identified for the study. The five
steps were adapted as follows:
•
•
collaboration and engagement, trust and respect are born. Internal and
external quality assurance complement each other.
Interpretation, lengthy processes and existence of multiple
regulatory bodies
Step 1: The study questions were designed due to their relevance
to the improvement of academic quality and integrity. The questions
were generated from observations, experiences and relevance to
professional growth and quality improvement.
Many institutions report that quality assurance policies, standards, tools,
and procedures are complex and difficult to interpret, which results in
misunderstandings and varied interpretations and implementation.
This creates a need for awareness and extensive capacity building
which is resource intensive and costly. The time spent by institutions
on preparing accreditation documents and self-evaluation reports is
substantial, and therefore diminishes the cost:benefit ratio.
Step 2: Sessions were held to brainstorm, interrogate, critique
and obtain feedback from colleagues responsible for registration,
accreditation, audit and compliance monitoring in ZIMCHE,
quality assurance directors, registrars and academic deans, peer
reviewers, ministry of higher education and professional bodies.
The author held these sessions during events occurring between
December 2017 to November 2018. In this way, it was possible
to obtain insights and perspectives to ascertain concrete and
valuable information to respond to the study questions.
•
Step 3: Using the information collected, areas of good and bad
practices on how to improve quality and academic integrity
were identified.
•
Step 4: The author packaged the study and presented the findings
at a quality promotion conference on academic integrity.
•
Step 5: After further refining the insights following dialogue and
comments from colleagues at the conference, the final stage was
to document the reflections, insights and recommendations for
promoting academic integrity for publication and dissemination to the
wider academic audience for adaptation and further improvement.
Zimbabwe has witnessed a marked increase in regulatory bodies that
require compliance from different angles (academic and professional).
These regulatory bodies often work in an uncoordinated fashion, thereby
frustrating higher education institutions’ effort. Incidents in which
ZIMCHE approve degrees and professional bodies disown them and the
graduates thereof were reported. An example given was that of medical
students who were disowned by the relevant professional body when
they had completed 4 years of study and were only left with the final year
before housemanship. All but one managed to successfully complete
their studies in neighbouring countries. In addition, there are additional
costs associated with preparing documents and arranging visits for
these regulatory bodies.
Conflicts of interest
A conflict of interest exists when one’s private interests are divergent
with academic or professional obligations. Experiences revealed that
in cases where one has overlapping responsibilities, for example
academics who serve as peer reviewers and Vice Chancellors who
serve in the ZIMCHE Board, the intertwining of responsibilities poses a
threat to academic integrity. There were cases where some ZIMCHE staff
revealed that they faced potential compromise in their actions towards
certain institutions because of the intentions of securing post-contract
or post-retirement jobs at that institution. A conflict of interest may relate
to anticipated material gain or loss and can also relate to non-monetary
benefits relating to improvements in professional and personal status or
access to facilities or classified information.
The findings are presented according to the responses to the first two
research questions regarding the ZIMCHE challenges and approaches
to quality and academic integrity. The discussion section deals with
Question 3 on lessons and good practices derived from ZIMCHE’s
approach to academic quality and integrity.
Findings
Challenges
In pursuit of quality, ZIMCHE is expected to promote and protect academic
quality and integrity by creating a conducive environment based on good
governance, best practice and capacity development. The challenges faced
by ZIMCHE in pursuit of this cause relate to: academic staff grading and
promotion; autonomy of institutions; interpretation of quality assurance
tools, policies, and standards; lengthy processes and procedures;
existence of multiple regulatory bodies; and conflicts of interest.
Assuring quality and academic integrity in Zimbabwe
ZIMCHE positioned itself to support the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary
Education Science and Technology Development deliver an integrated
higher education system that brings about convergence, transparency,
comparability and consistency. The leadership was achieved through
inspiring all players in the higher education system; setting standards;
modelling the way; collaborating and capacitating higher education
institutions as well as through self-evaluation and continuous improvement.
Academic staff grading and promotion
In order to correct the existence of disparate criteria for academic staff
grading and promotion, ZIMCHE harmonised these guidelines across
the 20 registered universities in Zimbabwe. This standardisation applied
pressure on academics to publish or perish. Whilst institutions reserve
the right to establish promotion criteria with respect to teaching and
community service, the ZIMCHE instrument harmonised issues to do
with the quantum of research outputs. This puts pressure on academics
to ‘publish or perish’ to such an extent that some may engage in
academic integrity breaches inclusive of: publishing articles in low
quality (‘predatory’) journals; manipulating research results; forming
authorship cartels; making use of ghostwriters; or publishing on the
basis of plagiarising work done by students or other sources.
Inspiration
Considering the potential challenges facing ZIMCHE in its pursuit of
quality and taking cognisance of this difficult and important mission,
there is need for inspiration. ZIMCHE derived its inspiration and
motivation from the works of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry60, described in
his book entitled The Wisdom of the Sands:
If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men
to gather wood, divide the work and give orders.
Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and
endless sea.
Autonomy
Thus, extrapolating from the inspiring statement in the context of
providing leadership in quality assurance and academic integrity,
ZIMCHE’s conviction is that:
Higher education institutions in Zimbabwe are autonomous institutions
governed by an Act of Parliament for public higher education institutions
and by a charter for private ones. As such, the perception within higher
education institutions is that the state or state agencies ought not to
interfere with the affairs of institutions. They argue that, for quality
to prevail, academic freedom should be respected. However, for
academic integrity to prevail, total autonomy is only achievable through
interdependence of all players in the ecosystem. Through transparency,
Research Article
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6231
If you want to build academic integrity, avoid
bureaucracy, straightjacketing, stifling innovation
and excessive sanctions. Instead, inspire and
capacitate all higher education players to yearn for
communities of integrity.
4
Volume 115| Number 11/12
November/December 2019
Promoting Academic Integrity: Quality assurance agencies
Page 5 of 7
During its quality assurance missions, staff from ZIMCHE inspire
individuals and institutions using the famous quote from Alan Simpson:
interactions will all stakeholders, has created an effective ecosystem in
which all players work together seamlessly.
If you have integrity, nothing else matters.
Self-evaluation and changing the approach to academic
integrity leadership
If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.
By way of challenging the process, in 2018 ZIMCHE reviewed its
approach to academic integrity leadership through introspection as well
as gathering feedback from stakeholders over the 9 years that it had
been in existence. ZIMCHE, with support from the African Union, African
Quality Assurance Network and the European Union (under the auspices
of the Harmonisation of African Higher Education Quality Assurance
and Accreditation project), subjected itself to external assessment.
The external review, undertaken by international experts who assessed
the performance of ZIMCHE as a quality assurance agency, presented a
good yardstick to measure performance against best practices in Africa
and beyond. The process involved preparation of a self-assessment
report by ZIMCHE, interviews of ZIMCHE Board and Secretariat as well
as vice chancellors, chairpersons of university councils, academics,
peer reviewers, students and indeed all stakeholders.
Setting standards
The quality assurance framework for ZIMCHE is centred around
the processes of registration, accreditation, audits and compliance
monitoring. In all these processes, ZIMCHE has embedded the elements
of academic integrity by developing support systems, policies, standards
and procedures to guide institutions.
ZIMCHE works in close collaboration with relevant academic and
professional higher education players to come up with ‘agreed’
standards of quality assurance in areas of operation and practice.
The term ‘agreed’ reflects the involvement and endorsement of the
standards by the key players and the fact that institutions are given
these standards and use them for self-evaluation during institutional
(internal) quality assurance processes. The standards relate to issues
of governance, leadership, academic and support staff, academic
grading and promotion, infrastructure, equipment, teaching and learning
facilities, minimum bodies of knowledge for each programme, ICT and
bandwidth, research, student admission, student assessment, student
support, and self-evaluation, among others.
Regarding academic integrity, the findings showed that the approach
that had been in use was largely effective in curtailing incidents of
academic dishonesty through accreditation, audits, compliance visits
and qualification assessments. All institutions had been requested to
establish institutional quality assurance units manned by a Director
who would act as the ‘local ZIMCHE’, and be responsible for ensuring
institutional compliance with ZIMCHE standards. Technologies such as
anti-plagiarism software became mandatory for all postgraduate and
research work. However, stakeholders indicated that the approach was
too intrusive, impersonal and sometimes outrightly coercive due to the
compliance-driven and rule-based nature of the approach. It therefore
became difficult to use it as a basis of developing a culture of academic
integrity due to the perception that this approach violates academic
freedom and autonomy.
Accreditation is the seal of approval by the external quality assurance
agency to assure the public that the higher education institution or
programme meets the ‘agreed’ quality standards and thus can be
trusted. The accreditation process involves the use of experts and peers
who benchmark with the best practices globally. This makes the process
transparent as well as promotes transparency in higher education
institutions. Accreditation therefore serves as an effective way of
measuring and promoting academic integrity, thereby curbing academic
misdemeanors in higher education institutions.
ZIMCHE, being a listening agency, decided to move from the compliancebased approach towards an integrity-based approach. The new approach
is premised on remediation and education and is deemed respectful
and never shame-based. The approach tries to avoid homogeneity
which stifles innovation as well as to avoid bureaucracy, delays or
straitjacketing. This approach is hoped to create a culture of continuous
self-evaluation at individual and institutional level. The results of these
exciting developments are yet to be evaluated. Watch this space!
Modelling the way
In modelling the way, ZIMCHE created platforms for information sharing,
recognised and rewarded best practices as well as encouraged continuous
quality improvement. The voices and experiences, financial, material,
intellectual and moral support of colleagues, experts, peer reviewers and
partners helped the platforms to be vibrant and productive. ZIMCHE and
the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology
Development created an annual platform for information sharing and
recognising best practices by individuals and institutions (in all areas of
the university mandate) in 2009. This platform was coined the Research
and Intellectual Outputs, Science and Technology Development (RIOSET)
Expo. Different themes were selected every year, to embrace the prevailing,
critical and emerging national imperatives. To showcase the importance of
the event, the Expo was graced by its patron, the President of the Republic
of Zimbabwe, who delivered the distinguished lecture. In the spirit of
sharing and benchmarking, world-renowned academics and professionals
also presented and exhibited. Every stakeholder in the higher education
fraternity looked forward to RIOSET.
As ZIMCHE undertakes these activities, there is an overwhelming
response from stakeholders that it is exhibiting good leadership which
improves both quality and academic integrity as illustrated in Figure 2.
Collaborative and collective approach to engaging all players
ZIMCHE engages all stakeholders and enhances their capacity in
academic integrity and other quality assurance matters through running
relevant seminars, workshops and conferences aimed at capacity
building and discussing pertinent issues. ZIMCHE also guides dialogue
through online and physical communication platforms. Through creating
opportunities and providing multi-layered support to all stakeholders,
ZIMCHE aims to engender a culture of shared responsibility and
obligations to academic integrity. Teams hold focus group and targeted
discussions with students, academics and management to engage on
issues of welfare or any other matter that can affect the quality of the
higher education experience. Efforts are made to make representations
and find ways of addressing the areas of contention. In addition, ZIMCHE
is open to receive complaints, grievances and suggestions on deviant
behaviour and on how to address emerging challenges. ZIMCHE, through
Research Article
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6231
AI, academic integrity; HES, higher education system
Figure 2:
Continuum and effects
(QAA) leadership.
of
quality
assurance
agency
Discussion
The challenges of conflicts of interest by members of ZIMCHE Secretariat
and Board that might compromise the decisions during quality assurance
undertakings are consistent with the challenges reported in existing
5
Volume 115| Number 11/12
November/December 2019
Promoting Academic Integrity: Quality assurance agencies
Page 6 of 7
literature.33 ZIMCHE was, however, able to circumvent their occurrence
by taking a leadership role in promoting academic quality and integrity
through the ecosystem approach. By setting ‘agreed’ quality standards
collaboratively with all stakeholders and evaluating institutions with the
involvement of the internal members, peers and relevant professional
bodies, the processes are transparent, and the achievement of trust was
made possible. The evaluation processes of registration, accreditation and
audits went a long way in promoting academic integrity in line with the
assertion by Mckenzie37. This collaboration and engagement created an
ecosystem in which all stakeholders are aware of each other’s presence,
needs, contributions and expectations in sync with similar research
results.46 The events and fora for capacity building, dialogue and exposition
of good practices by individuals, institutions and stakeholders created
vibrant platforms for information sharing integration and promotion of
desired behaviours, as expounded in literature.41,42,46
The leadership role taken by ZIMCHE in inspiring and supporting
institutions through establishment of institutional quality assurance units
was developmental and geared at achieving set goals for academic quality
and integrity, as suggested in other studies.34 Engagement of students
and staff in institutions, and all stakeholders in various capacities,
demonstrated ZIMCHE’s capacity to energise, coordinate and synergise all
players towards effective goal attainment, as reported in the literature.35,36
7.
Denisova-Schmidt E. Corruption, the lack of academic integrity and other ethical
issues in higher education: What can be done within the Bologna process?
In: Curaj A, Deca L, Pricopie R, editors. European higher education area: The
impact of past and future policies. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 61–75. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-77407-7_5
8.
Glendinning I, Orim S, King A. Policies and actions of accreditation and quality
assurance bodies to counter corruption in higher education. Washington DC:
CHEA; 2019. Available from: https://www.chea.org/corruption-higher-education
9.
Peytcheva-Forsyth R, Harvey M, Lyubka A. Using a student authentication
and authorship checking system as a catalyst for developing an academic
integrity culture: A Bulgarian case study. J Acad Ethics. 2019;17(3):245–269.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09332-6
15. Garwe E, Thondhlana J. Higher education systems and institutions:
Zimbabwe. In: Teixeira P, Shin J, editors. Encyclopedia of international higher
education systems and institutions. Dordrecht: Springer; 2019. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_479-1
16. Garwe EC, Maganga E. Plagiarism by academics in higher education
institutions: A case study of the Journal of Zimbabwe Studies. Int Res Educ.
2015;3(1):139–151. https://doi.org/10.5296/ire.v3i1.7060
17. Gonye J, Mareva R, Dudu WT, Sibanda J. Academic writing challenges at
universities in Zimbabwe: A case study of Great Zimbabwe University. Int J
English Lit. 2012;3(3):71–83. https://doi.org/10.5897/ijel11.092
18. Chireshe R. Academic dishonesty: Zimbabwe university lecturers’ and students’
views. S Afr J High Educ. 2014;28(1):45–59. https://doi.org/10.20853/28-1-325
19. Díaz-Méndez M, Saren M, Gummesson E. Considering pollution in the
higher education (HE) service ecosystem: The role of students’ evaluation
surveys. The TQM Journal. 2017;29(6):767–782. https://doi.org/10.1108/
tqm-03-2017-0031
20. Macfarlane B, Zhang J, Pun A. Academic integrity: A review of the literature.
Stud High Educ. 2014;39(2):339–358.
21. Uzochukwu M. Corruption in Nigeria: Review, causes, effects and solutions
[webpage on the Internet]. c2015 [cited 2019 Aug 12]. Available from:
https://fbdglobalnews.wordpress.com/2015/..../Corruption-in-Nigeria-reviewcauses-eff
22. Kranacher MJ. Combatting financial fraud in higher education. In: Global
corruption report – Education. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 114–118.
References
23. Attewell P, Thurston D. Educational imposters and fake degrees. Res Soc Strat
Mobil. 2011;29:57–69.
Tauginienė L, Ojsteršek M, Foltýnek T, Marino F, Cosentino M, Gaižauskaitė
I, et al. General guidelines for academic integrity. ENAI report 3A [document
on the Internet]. c2018 [cited 2019 Jul 31]. Available from: http://www.
academicintegrity.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/GLOSSARY_final.pdf
Research Article
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6231
Kalnins V. Latvia’s anti-corruption policy: Problems and prospects. Riga:
Soros Foundation; 2001.
14. Shizha E, Kariwo E. Education and development in Zimbabwe: A social,
political and economic analysis. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2011.
This research was made possible through the work and insights of all
the colleagues at ZIMCHE as well as support from the higher education
institutions, the Government of Zimbabwe and all the stakeholders.
Appreciation is due to the Council on Higher Education (South Africa) for
creating a platform where the research could be presented and critiqued,
thus adding value to the manuscript.
Fishman T, editor. The fundamental values of academic integrity. 2nd
ed. International Center for Academic Integrity, Clemson University;
2014. Available from: https://www.academicintegrity.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf
6.
13. Choruma A. Corruption stalls Zimbabwe’s economic agenda. Financial Gazette.
2017 June 30.
Acknowledgements
3.
Tauginienė L. Embedding academic integrity in public universities. J Acad
Ethics. 2016;14(4):327–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9268-4
12. Nyoni T. The curse of corruption in Zimbabwe. Int J Adv Res Publ.
2017;1(5):285–291. Available from: http://www.ijarp.org/published-researchpapers/nov2017/The-Curse-Of-Corruption-In-Zimbabwe.pdf
This article highlights the importance of academic integrity and situates
quality assurance agencies to play a central role in fostering academic
integrity. The case of ZIMCHE showcases how the organisation led by
example and assumed an innovative and transformational leadership
role in fostering academic integrity through use of the higher education
ecosystem approach. Through self-evaluation and incorporating voices
of stakeholders, ZIMCHE was able to change its approach from one that
relied heavily on compliance, to one that showed greater potential of
cultivating a culture of academic integrity. In view of the new higher-level
integrity-based approach, there is need to track and evaluate ZIMCHE’s
progress in this trajectory to academic integrity.
Bretag T. Academic integrity [document on the Internet]. c2018 [cited 2019 Jul
16]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.147
5.
11. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). Zimbabwe country
profile for 2017. Addis Ababa: UNECA; 2018.
Conclusion
2.
Anohina-Naumeca A, Tauginienė L, Odineca T. Academic integrity policies of
Baltic state-financed universities in online public spaces. Int J Educ Integr.
2018;14, Art. #8, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0031-z
10. Martin M, Stella A. External quality assurance in higher education: Making
choices. Paris: UNESCO; 2007.
The move taken by ZIMCHE to self-introspect and submit its activities
for scrutiny by external assessors and stakeholders presents another
example of exemplary leadership. It thus becomes possible for institutions
to acquire good habits that promote transparency and academic integrity
as reported in the literature.47 The fact that ZIMCHE – in spite of already
being in the right direction through employing the ecosystem approach –
was ready to change its approach in line with review recommendations
and literature,48 poises the higher education system to achieve greater
academic integrity levels. This is so, despite the assertion that corruption
in the wider society will necessarily induce academic dishonesty.
1.
4.
24. Brown GM. Degrees of doubt: Legitimate, real and fake qualifications in
a global market. J High Educ Pol Manag. 2006;28(1):71–79. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13600800500440789
25. Chowdhury F. Grade inflation: Causes, consequences and cure. J Educ Learn.
2018;7(6):86–92. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n6p86
26. Zietman AL. Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism: The unholy trinity of
scientific writing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(2):225–227. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.07.004
6
Volume 115| Number 11/12
November/December 2019
Promoting Academic Integrity: Quality assurance agencies
Page 7 of 7
27. Strittmatter C, Bratton VK. Teaching plagiarism prevention to college students:
An ethics-based approach. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 2016.
45. Davis J, Schoorman D, Donaldson L. Towards a stewardship theory of
management. Acad Manage Rev. 1997;22:20–47.
28. Zhang YH. Against plagiarism: A guide for editors and authors. Cham:
Springer International Publishing; 2016.
46. Alfredo K, Hart H. The university and the responsible conduct of research:
Who is responsible for what? Sci Eng Ethics. 2011;17:447–457. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11948-010-9217-3
29. Harvey G. Writing with sources: A guide for Harvard students. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company; 2008.
47. Aluede O, Omoregie EO, Osa-Edoh GI. Academic dishonesty as a
contemporary problem in higher education: How can academic advisers help.
Reading Improvement. 2006;43(2):97–106.
30. Moodie G. Bureaucratic plagiarism. Plagiary. 2006;1:66–69.
31. Walker J. Student plagiarism in universities: What are we doing about it? High
Educ Res Dev. 1998;17(1):89–106.
48. Willis AJ. Arthur Roy Clapham, 24 May 1904 – 18 December 1990.
Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. 1994;39:72–80. https://
doi.org/10.1098/rsbm.1994.0005
32. Velliaris DM, Willis CR, Pierce JM. International student perceptions of ethics
in a business pathway course. In: Ribeiro FM, Culum B Politis Y, editors. New
voices in higher education research and scholarship. Hershey, PA: IGI Global;
2015. p. 234–253. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-7244-4.ch012
49. Aldrich H, Hodgson G, Hull D, Knudsen T, Mokyr J, Vanberg V. In defense
of generalized Darwinism. J Evol Econ. 2008;18:577–596. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00191-008-0110-z
33. Sutton A, Taylor D. Confusion about collusion: Working together and academic
integrity. Assess Eval High Educ. 2011;36:831–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2010.488797
50. Lindeman RL. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology. 1942;23: p.
399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1930126
51. Banoun A, Dufour L, Andiappan M. Evolution of a service ecosystem:
Longitudinal evidence from multiple shared services centers based on the
economies of worth framework. J Bus Res. 2016;69(8):2990–2998. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.032
34. Hallak J, Poisson M. Corrupt schools, corrupt universities. What can be
done? Paris: UNESCO/IIEP; 2007.
35. US Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Recognition of
accrediting organizations: Policy and procedures. Washington DC: CHEA; 2010.
52. Berbegal-Mirabent J, Ribeiro-Soriano DE. Behind league tables and ranking
systems: A critical perspective of how university quality is measured. J Serv
Theor Pract. 2015;25(3):242–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-04-2013-0059
36. Bennet A, Bennet DH, Lewis J. Leading with the future in mind: Knowledge
and emergent leadership. In: Thought leaders: The passion for knowledge.
Frost, WV: MQI Press; 2015.
53. Gallant TB. Leveraging institutional integrity for the betterment of education.
In: Bretag T, editor. Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer;
2015. p. 979–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_52
37. Davenport TH, Volpel SC. The rise of knowledge towards attention
management. J Knowl Manag. 2001;5(3):212–221.
54. Kotter JP. What leaders really do? Harvard Bus Rev. 2001;79(11):85–96.
38. McKenzie A. Academic integrity across the Canadian landscape. Can
Perspect Academic Integrity. 2018;1(2):40–45. https://doi.org/10.11575/
cpai.v1i2.54599
55. Fogal RE. Designing and managing the fundraising program. In: Herman RD,
editor. The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley; 2005. p. 419–435.
39. Anechiarico F. End-runs and hairy eyeballs: The costs of corruption control in
market democracies. Conn J Int Law. 1999;14:379.
56. Hamilton ML, Pinnegar S. Intimate scholarship in research: An example
from self-study of teaching and teacher education practices methodology.
Learning Landscapes. 2014;8(1):153–171. http://www.learninglandscapes.
ca/images/documents/ll-no15/mlhamilton.pdf
40. Cruz CC, Gómez-Mejia LR, Becerra M. Perceptions of benevolence and the
design of agency contracts: CEO-TMT Relationships in family firms. Acad
Manage J. 2010;53:69–89. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48036975
57. Samaras AP, Roberts L. Flying solo: Teachers take charge of their learning
through self-study research. J Staff Develop. 2011;32(5):42–45.
41. Ferguson K, Masur S, Olson L, Ramirez J, Robyn E, Schmaling K. Enhancing
the culture of research ethics on university campuses. J Acad Ethics.
2007;5:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-007-9033-9
42. True G, Alexander LB, Richman KA. Misbehaviors of front-line research
personnel and the integrity of community-based research. J Empirical Res
Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(2):3–12. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.3
58. Labosky VK. The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings.
In: Loughran JJ, Hamilton ML, LaBoskey VK, Russell T, editors. International
handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic; 2004. p. 817–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-40206545-3_21
43. Segal L. Battling corruption in America’s public schools. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press; 2004.
59. Mitchell C, Weber S. Reinventing ourselves as teachers: Beyond nostalgia.
London: Routledge; 2003.
44. Shapiro S. Agency theory. Annu Rev Sociol. 2005;31:263–285.
60. De Saint-Exupéry A. The wisdom of the sands. New York: Harcourt; 1950.
Research Article
https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6231
7
Volume 115| Number 11/12
November/December 2019