A Typology of Academic Corruption in Higher Education

I would like to begin my discussion with this preamble: in my view, the university and the institution of science is one of the principal institutions whose output can lead to development, the reform of society, and the fight against corruption. Therefore, one of the main and fundamental functions of this institution is to provide a model of healthy and constructive interaction among members of society, to educate the future builders of the country based on ethical teachings and integrity, and to sensitize them to the phenomenon of corruption and the fight against corruption. But when universities have become afflicted with corruption and corruption is spreading within them, remaining silent on this matter would be highly irresponsible. In the last one or two decades, for reasons I will discuss, the trend of corruption in universities has been increasing. Especially in the final years of the 1380s SH and the early years of the 1390s SH, corruption in higher education, as in other institutions, was on the rise. Of course, I would like, in this same preamble and before entering the main discussion, to point out a few important notes. 1- My discussion stems from my concern, commitment, and affection for the institution of science and the university. 2- Certainly, a considerable number of actors in the field of science (professors, students, researchers, and staff, etc.) are hardworking and serve honorably in this institution. 3- Corruption in the higher education system is less than in other institutions. The findings of several studies by my colleagues and me show that the public and stakeholders' perception of the existence of corruption in higher education, on a scale of 0 to 100, has been between 47 and 53. Whereas the perception of corruption in many organizations, institutions, and sectors, such as customs, tax offices, municipalities, political sectors (electoral expenses), etc., is above 75. But even this moderate level of corruption is worrying for the institution of science due to its important role in society. Corruption in the university can lead to the reproduction of corruption in other domains and spread it. In more than a quarter of a century of presence in higher education in various capacities, one of my fundamental concerns has been the integrity of the institution of science, the university assuming its true position, and striving to move on the path of knowledge production. The topics I will refer to are the result of my reflections on corruption in the university system, and conversations with some students, professors, and university staff. My main intention is to raise the issue so as to provide a framework for studying corruption in higher education. I will present my discussion in three areas: 1- A typology of corruption in higher education (the institution of science) 2- The causes of corruption in higher education 3- The consequences of corruption in higher education After this preamble, I will address a definition of corruption. According to the definition of Transparency International, "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, group, organizational, party, factional, etc." is corruption. Also, corruption in higher education can be defined mainly around the violation of educational laws, and the scientific and ethical norms governing educational environments, and the abuse of educational and research power for personal gain, etc. What is exchanged in higher education is mainly "grades, degrees, and forms of knowledge production, etc.," all of which potentially have the ability to be converted into wealth, power, and prestige; therefore, when any actor possessing power abuses their power by violating the norms governing the institution of science in order to gain personal benefits, corruption has occurred. The most important actors in higher education are professors. The power entrusted to them is mainly from the higher education institution. Of course, depending on the structure in which they are situated, their position, role, and personality, the extent of exercising this power varies among professors. Other non-faculty employees of this system (staff), depending on the position they hold, can abuse their administrative power, but part of this power is administrative power, similar to what can be found in other organizations, and part of it has a special characteristic originating from the higher education system, which can provide opportunities for corruption.

But students derive their power less from the higher education institution; some students benefit from political power inside and outside the university, and can misuse it to pressure professors and gain personal benefits; some misuse their physical attributes; at the master’s and especially doctoral levels, technical power and the provision of academic-research services become more apparent and can serve as a tool for corrupt exchanges; some, through family connections, find opportunities for favoritism and other forms of corruption; and when students hold important positions outside the university, the possibility of corrupt exchanges with other actors and using that position for personal gain increases. Yet it is clear that within the higher education institution, students have less often been entrusted with power by the institution itself that they can misuse for personal benefit. An Introduction to a Typology of Corruption in Higher Education (The Institution of Science) In higher education, as in many institutions and organizations, forms of administrative and financial corruption can be identified that share similar characteristics with other organizations, such as corruption in tenders, corruption in the procurement of goods, etc. However, my emphasis is on forms of corruption that are primarily specific to the higher education system, even though they are also influenced by other systems. Corruption in the higher education system can be typologized in at least three frameworks. This is my initial idea, and the typologies may overlap with one another. 1- Corrupt interaction among the actors of the institution of science, including the student, professor, and staff. (Actors in the field of science can be defined outside the university framework, such as independent researchers, research institutes, etc.) 2- Corrupt institutional interaction 3- Corruption in scientific productions 1- Typology of corruption within the framework of the actors of the institution of science, including the student, professor, and staff. If we imagine a triangle with a student at one vertex, a professor at another, and a staff member at the third, all these vertices can mutually engage in corrupt action with one another. In this case, at least 6 situations can be envisioned. Corruption from: 1- professor toward student 2- student toward professor 3- professor toward staff 4- student toward staff - 5- staff toward student 6- staff toward professor. Also, members at each vertex can engage in corrupt action among themselves (professor with professor; student with student; staff with staff), and finally, a network of corrupt actors encompassing all three vertices simultaneously can be imagined. Thus, more than 10 types of corrupt interaction among actors can be formulated. Furthermore, this corrupt interaction can be formulated and typologized with other actors in the field of science outside the university, and the influence of various institutions on corrupt interaction among actors can also be discussed. Actors Hassan Mohaddesi, in an article, has addressed the typology of corruption from student to professor (student corruption) and explained 7 types or corrupt strategies as follows: the strategy of bribery or rewarding; the strategy of crisis-making and problem-creation; the strategy of pressure and threat; the strategy of seeking intermediaries; the two-sided strategy of playing the victim/ demonizing; the strategy of discrediting and sanctioning; the strategy of file-building. It seems that Mohaddesi, in this article, has paid less attention to the point that the power students misuse is largely not derived from the higher education system. The power, position, office, and attribute that students may misuse are mostly provided to them from outside the higher education institution, which they exploit in this context due to the student position they occupy. Therefore, it can be said that some of the types of corruption discussed by Mohaddesi may have a general character and can manifest in other organizations as well (not specific to higher education). Also, Hassan Mohaddesi, out of more than 10 types of corrupt interaction, has only addressed one direction of the vertices of the triangle of corrupt relations and has not discussed the other directions and vertices. Some forms of corruption within the framework of professors' actions in relation to students: In general, this corrupt interaction can be categorized into three broad groups: 1- corruption in joint scientific productions 2- economic corruption and exploitation 3- corrupt ethical interactions. Many of these corrupt relationships can also be formulated in line with fostering protégés, cultivating propagandists, educational and research marketing, strengthening one's own team against other teams, and so on. Examples: 1- One of the most common types of corruption in the professor-student relationship is compelling the student to write joint articles, with the professor's name appearing first and the professor absent from the production of the text! These articles are not solely extracted from theses, and some professors, even for classwork, compel students to write articles under the professor's name in order to receive a passing grade. – Of course, proposals are also made by students to professors, especially those holding official positions, to gain support in obtaining privileges in this regard. 2- Compelling the student to author/translate a book and publish it under the professor's name alone, or at most jointly, with the professor's name appearing first. 3- Fabricating a fake CV for the student in exchange for material and non-material services (writing the desired student's name on articles, research reports, issuing research assistant certificates, etc., without any work done by the student in question). This fake CV can then be used for promotion, admission to higher levels, employment, etc. 4- Assistance and recommendation for student recruitment at the doctoral level, study opportunities, receiving awards, etc., in exchange for material and non-material services. 5- Helping a student obtain a scholarship in exchange for material and non-material services aimed at strengthening team members (sometimes a clique) within the academic department, etc. 6- Appointing a student as a teaching assistant in classes without the student having the necessary qualifications, in exchange for receiving material and non-material services. 7- Issuing letters of introduction and recommendation without the student having the qualifications, to universities abroad, domestically, organizations, etc., in exchange for receiving material and non-material services. 8- Awarding grades in exchange for receiving various types of services. 9- Enticing a student to take on a doctoral dissertation, etc. 10- Extracting privileges from certain students who hold official positions (such as research projects, etc.). 11- Economic exploitation of students in research projects by paying the lowest possible wages. 12- Receiving, and sometimes requesting, customary compulsory gifts at some universities on the day of thesis defense. 13- Reducing class hours. 14- Reducing course content. 15- Unfair grading favoring the opposite sex and violating the rights and grades of the same sex. 16- Sexual abuse. Some forms of corruption within the framework of staff actions in relation to students and professors: 1- Forging/manipulating documents and records for students. 2- Brokering grades for students in exchange for receiving material and non-material privileges. 3- Exerting influence in the publication of books and articles by students and professors. 4- Disbursing grants, etc., to professors out of turn and priority, based on connections. Members of any group can also engage in corrupt actions among themselves, such as reciprocally adding a classmate's name to an article or research project in which they did not participate, fabricating fake CVs, etc., in corrupt interactions among students, or in interactions among professors, exerting influence in article approval and peer review, exerting influence in the approval and publication of books, research, etc., exerting influence in the promotion dossier of fellow professors, forming cliques to direct theses on a rotating basis (supervisor, advisor, examiner, etc.), exerting influence in the selection of exemplary researcher, selection of exemplary research project, etc. Ultimately, a network of corrupt actors encompassing all three vertices simultaneously can also be envisioned, where the student, professor, and staff member, in interaction with one another, have formed a corruption network. The strategic placement of individuals in sensitive positions such as journals, finance, and continuing education, etc., which deal either with money or with the publication of works and issuance of educational certificates, represents systematic, network-based corruption. When corruption takes on a network form, it becomes very dangerous and extremely difficult to contain (which we witness in many organizations, etc.), because within networks, various horizontal and vertical relationships, in both formal and informal forms, are established for the exchange of power (academic-credential-based, etc.), wealth, information, labor, etc., and networks, to protect themselves, draw other individuals from inside and outside the organization into the network; especially superiors and those who could expose the corruption. According to Carvajal, network corruption at the macro level is always linked to a power network. This power network must possess five capabilities: 1- Economic capability; 2. Political capability; 3. Technical capability; 4. Physical capability; 5. Ideology (see: Theoretical Perspectives on Corruption: p. 43). And the final point is that in grand corruption, the network typically encompasses levels from top to bottom. 2- Another typology is based on corrupt interaction between institutions and organizations.Corrupt interaction of the university with other governmental and private institutions and organizations, which occurs in various forms, can be envisioned and discussed, such as receiving privileges for university members or the university itself from institutions, organizations, and companies in exchange for granting degrees in educational courses, etc. (degree selling), or admitting the manager of that organization to doctoral programs, or accepting them as a faculty member/visiting professor, and so on. 3- Typology based on corruption in scholarly productions: At least in five categories of scholarly productions (books, articles published in journals, theses, research, and seminars, etc.), forms of corruption exist as follows. 1- Books 1/1- Joint books: In some joint books, there are names of individuals who have not written even a single sentence of it. For example, a colleague recounted that two books on corruption were published by an organization, which were the result of research and about a decade of studies by him and his colleagues on administrative corruption. He said, look at what names have been added to it and placed at the top as authors, who have not written even a single line! (Corruption in books about corruption!) Moreover, he took the entire amount for authoring the book and did not pay the co-authors' royalties; now these individuals become the leaders of the fight against corruption! 2/1- Book fabrication for promotion; many books are published at the author's expense and ultimately in a real print run of less than 10 copies, with no supervision over their scholarly content and lacking scholarly value. 3/1- Stealing others' works and arranging them in book form under one's own name! 4/1- Student translations and other inappropriate translations, and their imposition on publishing centers by those with academic power for publication. 2- Articles/Journals: 1/2- Joint articles in which, in many cases, professors have no share in their production. 2/2- Buying articles from article-selling agencies! 3/2- Customized review process. Some articles in scholarly-research journals are approved by reviewers in a single day, or are fundamentally not reviewed. 4/2- Pressure to place a faculty member's name at the top of an article that has been approved and was initially submitted to the journal for review individually or without a faculty member's name. 5/2- Stealing others' articles and changing the author's name. In 2015, the president of Islamic Azad University reported the violation of a faculty member of this university in publishing 250 articles of others under his own name! Shifting the priority of article publication with the orders of power holders, etc. 6/2- Nominal editorial boards of journals that generally play no role in the journals, and their names are merely decorative for the journal and play a role only to the extent of signing minutes of meetings that generally were never held. 2-7. Lobbying to obtain scholarly-research credit for journals and lobbying for the journal to be selected as a top journal, etc., where one can clearly see the traces of editors-in-chief and managing directors, etc., who have influence and power in that specific apparatus, etc., and if it were not for these individuals and powers, it would be highly unlikely that a certain journal would receive a scholarly-research ranking or become a top journal. 3- Theses: 1/3- Buying and selling theses. Buying and selling is done openly on Enghelab Street and elsewhere. Mr. Mohaddesi sent me an email entitled 3/4- Collusion between the awarding party (organization) and the contractor/executor, with the employer receiving a percentage of the contract amount or a portion of the work 4/4- Sham contracts between agencies to attract research funds and divide them among a specific group. 5/4- Collusion between the executor and the supervisor: 1- The supervisor receiving a percentage of the contract 2- The supervisor's own involvement in executing part of the project 3- The involvement of individuals introduced by the supervisor in the project to take a share 6/4- Fabricating fake résumés by including the names of individuals who had no contribution to the research, or who merely signed the contract and did not lift a finger. One student who apparently entered a doctoral program as an exceptional talent had, according to one of the evaluating and interviewing professors, 50 research items on his résumé over two years—an average of one research project every two weeks! 4- Conferences and Symposia: Almost all the issues mentioned regarding articles can be extended to conferences as well. In addition, there are collusions with wealthy individuals and economic enterprises in the form of sponsorship, etc., giving them a platform to promote themselves; inviting powerful figures who have no expertise in the subject under discussion to warm up the seminar atmosphere and establish links between the wealthy, the powerful, and some academics for profit, etc. 2- Causes of Corruption in Higher Education: 1- The education sub-system is connected to other systems, is influenced by them, and influences them. Therefore, based on the theory of contagion, corruption in other sectors and systems affects corruption in higher education. 2- The destructive impact of political issues and the influence of political powers outside higher education, which results in scientific and educational ability not being prioritized in faculty recruitment and sometimes student admissions, etc.; in short, higher education is managed and directed by distancing itself from the norms governing scientific institutions and from outside higher education. 3- The dominance of quantitative thinking over qualitative thinking in the higher education system: for students, graduation GPA, the number of articles for entry into postgraduate programs, the number of research projects, etc.; also for faculty promotion, the number of scientific-research articles, ISI articles, etc.—all quantitative—are taken as the basis. 4- The uncontrolled growth of scientific-research and scientific-promotional journals. In the early 1370s [1990s], there were about 10 scientific-research and scientific-promotional journals in the country; in 1393 [2014/2015], according to Dr. Jafar Mehrad, head of the Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC), 1,319 scientific journal titles were being published. According to a former research deputy of the Ministry of Science, in 2010 we had a growth of 15,000 units in science production! The question that arises here is: if we have truly produced science, why do we not witness its equivalent in the industrial-technological, economic, social, and cultural arenas? 5- The dominance of a credentialist culture over knowledge, experience, and expertise: in the university, in society, in organizations, etc., the main criterion for judgment is often academic credentials, not scientific ability! Of course, such credentials create social prestige and numerous opportunities for individuals. Under these conditions, people will do anything to obtain academic degrees, especially doctorates—the demand of organizations and the supply of universities! Iranian organizations increase the salaries of employed graduates, promote their rank, and sometimes appoint them to higher positions and posts based on the credentials presented. Hence, employees of organizations, especially those who have the potential for promotion to higher positions (other non-meritocratic characteristics that Iranian administrative organizations consider important and deem necessary for promotion!) and lack only one degree, become applicants for academic credentials, and in this regard, they turn to commissioning class assignments, translations, writing theses, articles, etc. 6- The commercialization of higher education: the decline in the economic capacity of universities and their funding on the one hand, and the growth of various types and forms of academic disciplines at postgraduate levels, the growth of various types and forms of universities, campuses in free trade zones, etc., where generally individuals with financial means can study. 7 - The absence/weakness of meritocracy, especially in the recruitment of faculty members. Certainly, no one has forgotten the still-unsolved puzzle of the scholarships in the previous government. There are many who have been recruited into universities solely based on their connections with the powerful and wealthy and by providing services to them, while a vast number of graduates, some of whom have good scientific abilities, are unemployed or doing other work. 8- Regulations within the Ministry of Science that draw actors into the cycle of corrupt action and sometimes compel them toward corruption. such as the faculty recruitment system, faculty promotion, and the compulsion to publish at least two scientific-research articles per year, the compulsion of students to extract articles from their dissertations and publish them under joint names and with the professor's name, etc. 9- Misinterpretations of upstream documents such as the Vision Document and development plans, whereby in practice, some officials, due to incompetence in achieving goals, claim to be striving to reach the first rank in the region by the year 1404 (2025) by emphasizing quantitative metrics, without regard for real capacities and planning and efforts to improve them.... 10- The transformation of money and wealth into a social value, in contrast to the disregard for professional ethics values, social responsibility, etc. 11- The use of power tools in various forms to obtain degrees and academic promotion. It would be an interesting comparison to examine the volume of works (books, articles, research, and the astronomical figures of research contracts, etc.) of individuals holding executive positions in educational institutions, before their executive tenure and during the period they held executive positions. Also, comparing the number and different forms of scientific output of individuals with executive positions (power) and the output of similar individuals without positions and posts. Or the titles obtained by some university administrators as exemplary researcher, exemplary professor, etc. (hypotheses for research). 12- Unemployment of graduates, which drives some of them into the cycle of corrupt interactions in the realm of science, and leads some others to turn to thesis-writing and article-writing, etc., which is itself a consequence of wrong policies in the field of higher education and other areas. 3- Consequences of Academic Corruption: In a preliminary formulation, the consequences of corruption in higher education can be divided into three categories: individual, organizational, and macro-social. Numerous consequences have been stated for corruption, but interestingly, most of these consequences turn into factors that intensify and repeat corruption in a feedback loop. 1/3- Individual Consequences: Corruption in higher education and the collapse of its stigma primarily targets and victimizes individual ethics. In this situation, individuals seek to climb the ladder of advancement at any cost, and values such as knowledge acquisition, honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, moral courage, etc., decline along this path. Thus, actors in the field of science, instead of knowledge acquisition and knowledge production, turn to rote memorization and the reproduction of low-content texts. Instead of honesty and integrity in scientific communications and productions, they engage in data fabrication and the manipulation of statistics, etc., and to please the holders of power and wealth, they present incorrect analyses based on false information. Instead of trustworthiness, they commit plagiarism, and instead of courage in presenting scientific findings, they hide the findings and do not speak of them. In such a situation, we witness the moral decay and moral disengagement of actors in the field of science. The mechanisms of moral disengagement "routinely" influence the individual's ordinary decisions to increase benefits or gain profit at any cost and to ignore collective interests and the main goals of the university. Such conditions foster the creation and strengthening of an egoistic and profit-seeking ethical climate in the university. An egoistic ethical climate is behavior that focuses maximally on achievements based on self-interest. In such conditions, individuals with high moral disengagement are likely to progress much faster in the university compared to individuals who are committed to ethics or have lower moral disengagement. 2/3- Organizational Consequences: When the organizational climate of the university leans towards a profit-seeking, commercial, and egoism-based organizational climate (preferring individual interests over collective ones), corruption tends to become institutionalized in the university. In such conditions, the organization/institution of science deviates from the principles of integrity and leans towards becoming a corrupt organization. In corrupt organizations where the ethical climate is inclined towards corruption, healthy actors who adhere to the norms governing scientific institutions are also pressured by the unethical climate of the corrupt organization. If they do not go along with the prevailing ethical climate and do not submit to corruption, they are harassed, boycotted, and deprived in various ways. In some situations, the organizational climate exerts such pressure on these individuals that they are inevitably drawn into unethical collusions within the organization. However, the dialectic of the individual and the organization continuously produces and reproduces the ethical climate of the organization. Furthermore, corruption diverts educational and research budgets and credits from their main path, thereby causing a decline in educational and research quality. Distrust in the higher education system increases.

Educational costs have risen, and a significant portion of them is being borne by the people. The damage that corruption inflicts on social trust indirectly reduces the university's influence in social spheres and also leads to a decline in motivation and the growth of original and applied scientific output. 3/3 - Macro-Social Consequences: A survey of leaders in developing countries has shown that 60 percent of them consider corruption to be the main obstacle to development in their countries (Farajpour, 1383: 305). Specifically, corruption in higher education prevents talented and deserving individuals from entering higher education, thus hindering the participation of the competent in the country's growth and development process, placing important positions in the hands of unqualified graduates, and the presence of incompetent individuals in key posts, thereby slowing socio-economic development.

.

---

.

A Typology of Academic Corruption in Higher Education

Author: Davoud Hosseini (Researcher in the field of administrative integrity studies and anti-corruption - University Lecturer)

.

---

.