the decision maker. If the Court decides to show deference, then reasonableness is the standard. If the Court decides that no judicial deference is warranted, the standard will be correctness.

If the standard of review is correctness, "a reviewing court will not show deference to the decision maker's reasoning process; it will rather undertake its own analysis of the question."30 Therefore, if the standard of correctness is applied to a decision of academic misconduct, the court can proceed to directly consider how it would have decided the matter if it was in the place of the decision maker.

The reasonableness standard recognizes that "certain questions that come before administrative tribunals do not lend themselves to one specific particular result and may "give rise to a number of possible, reasonable conclusions." Instead of proceeding directly to consider how it would have decided the matter, a reviewing court "is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process".31

Until recently, the leading case used to determine the applicable standard of review was *Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick*. In *Dunsmuir*, the Supreme Court of Canada established indicators to help determine the proper standard of review. This analysis could be described as challenging to navigate. The Supreme Court of Canada has tried to simplify and clarify how to determine the proper standard of review in the case of *Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)* v. *Vavilov,* 2019 SCC 65. In this case, the Supreme Court has held that there is a general presumption that the standard of review is reasonableness to any substantive decision made by a statutory decision maker. However, the presumption of reasonableness is rebutted if (1) the governing legislation indicates that a standard other than reasonableness that should apply, and (2) rule of law principles require that a different standard of review should apply to the decision. In the first instance, the analysis is prescriptive. In the second instance, the analysis is contextual.

While it is currently still too early to fully appreciate the effect that *Vavilov* will have on the practice of academic misconduct at post-secondary institutions, some general principles can be identified. The general presumption of reasonableness as a standard of review will in most cases apply to post-secondary institutions' decisions about academic misconduct. However, what constitutes reasonable remains contextual.

The specialized expertise of a decision maker is a relevant factor in determining whether a decision was reasonable. Arguably, a decision maker in an academic misconduct process has more specialized expertise in academic integrity than someone outside of a post-secondary institution. The application of this specialized knowledge may reveal why particular attention or preference was given to some evidence or issues over others (*Vavilov,* para. 93).

30 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] 1 SCR 190 at para. 50. Retrieved from CanLii https://www. canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc9/2008scc9.html?resultIndex=1

31 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] 1 SCR 190 at para. 48. Retrieved from CanLii https://www. canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc9/2008scc9.html?resultIndex=1

While the institutional context for the decision may attract judicial deference, the court cannot overlook non-transparency or gaps in logic in the process of the decision32. The decision maker must demonstrate in the reasons how the evidence before them was considered and how the outcome is supported by the evidence that was presented.33 However, the reasons do not have to address each argument made by the parties.34 The reasons must demonstrate a connection, or a path of analysis between the evidence and the decision. Reasons that merely set out the submissions made by the parties and then immediately arrive at conclusions will rarely be sufficient to demonstrate a path of analysis. Therefore, extreme care must be taken in how decisions are written. Decision makers are encouraged to consult with their institution's legal support to ensure that the written decision is sufficiently transparent, justified and intelligible. Failure to do so will make any decision, no matter how obvious on its face, appear unreasonable.

On judicial review, courts will rarely substitute their own decision for that of the original decision maker. Rather, courts can offer a variety of remedies to the applicant. Such remedies are meant to cure the underlying defect in natural justice or procedural fairness, such that the decision regarding the allegation of academic misconduct can be seen as 'fair'.

The general remedies available under judicial review are *certiorari* (an order voiding the decision under review), *prohibition* (barring an administrative act on jurisdictional grounds), *mandamus* (compelling an administrative act), and *quo warranto* (challenging the right of a decision maker to exercise its ability to make a decision).

Using the remedies available at judicial review, a student may be able to overturn a decision of the post-secondary institution that affects their standing or attendance at the institution. A student who has been found to have committed academic misconduct on clear evidence may nevertheless have that decision voided by a court if there were procedural defects in how the otherwise sound decision was reached. For example, a student who has been suspended from an institution may be re-admitted if the decision suspending the student was not made strictly in accordance with the enabling legislation.

The costs of judicial review can be high in terms of institutional resources, and time. In addition to the legal costs of defending an application in court, instructors and administrators will have to devote time in preparing the defense. Often, this outlay in resources will have to be made long after the actual events that form the basis of the academic misconduct allegation happened. If an applicant is successful at judicial review, the matter may be sent back to the post-secondary institution for re-adjudication.

32 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov [2019] SCC 65 at para. 95. Retrieved from CanLii https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc65/2019scc65.html

33 *Ibid.* at paras. 125 and 126.

34 *Ibid.* at paras. 127 and 128.

#### **Practical Considerations**

It is critically important to acknowledge that most students and academic leaders will not have a legal background and as a result, creating or participating in processes used to address academic integrity may be intimidating and overwhelming. Failure to support all stakeholders in the process could result in avoidance in addressing allegations of academic misconduct, as well as put students at a disadvantage when defending such allegations.

Students navigating academic misconduct policies, processes and investigations should be given access to knowledgeable support. This support does not necessarily need to have a legal background, but should be well versed in the post-secondary institution's policies, procedures, processes and be connected with key stakeholders. This may be a student advocate or student ombudsperson, or a law students advocacy organization on campus. This is commonly available in one form or another in postsecondary institutions across Canada. Additionally, access to explanatory literature about how the process typically unfolds and the respective rights of the parties can also be very beneficial.

Equally important is for academic leadership to have access to legal counsel as support in creating a fair and robust process for investigating and addressing academic misconduct, as well as to provide guidance in how to properly investigate and assess allegations as they come forward. Given the growing complexity of academic misconduct cases, legal counsel has an important role in ensuring fairness and in training academic leadership and faculty on investigation and decision making principles.

Fear of legal processes or the erroneous belief of the need for an "airtight case" can act to deter faculty from bringing forward allegations of academic misconduct. Additionally, historic processes that were overly arduous or slanted in the favour of students can also limit the number of cases which come to light. It is important to understand that academic misconduct need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard of proof required for conviction in criminal cases. Academic misconduct must only be proven on the balance of probabilities standard of proof, meaning it is more likely than not to have occurred based on the evidence—a lower standard of proof than what is required for criminal charges.

The content in this Chapter highlights the complexity of the law when it comes to academic misconduct decisions and the importance of ensuring that all participants in the process are given access to the necessary support and guidance. It also underscores the need to examine alternate approaches to deal with academic misconduct, apart from just the traditional, highly legal approach taken by most post-secondary institutions. There remains mistrust by academic staff that traditional processes to address academic misconduct, which are often oppositional and adversarial, will lead to an unsatisfactory outcome. Final recourse to the courts is fraught with issues that stem from complex access to justice concerns (i.e., long times to get hearing dates, access to legal counsel etc.). This all speaks to the need to consider alternative dispute resolution, and varying perspectives on the concept of justice, and their place within the current post-secondary framework that responds to academic misconduct. Finally, it is time to examine whether penalty-based sanctioning represents the best outcome or if there are different ways to deter conduct, while setting students up for academic success and integrity going forward.

#### **References**

**Melissa Morrison B.com, LLB** is a mother, wife and practicing lawyer in the Province of Alberta. She currently works as the Student Appeals Officer for the University of Calgary and, as part of her role, she provides advice to internal hearing tribunals on appeals of a variety of decisions, including academic misconduct findings, and also offers guidance on appropriate investigation techniques. With over 17 years in practice, Melissa has gained significant experience in litigation, health and administrative law, as well as student appeals and professional regulatory processes.

**Philip Zachariah MA, JD** has over 15 years of experience in legal practice with post-secondary institutions. He is currently Legal Counsel for the University of Calgary where he provides advice on a wide variety of issues from student appeals to commercial procurement to privacy and data security. Before that, he was the Judicial Officer at the University of Guelph, where he did an MA on the applicability of alternative dispute resolution models to addressing breaches of academic integrity.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **Chapter 29 Building a Culture of Restorative Practice and Restorative Responses to Academic Misconduct**

**Paul Sopcak and Kevin Hood**

**Abstract** The *Universal Declaration of Human Rights'* Article 26 on education and more recently UNESCO's "World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Mission and Action" have called for civic and ethical education alongside academic education in postsecondary settings. Many post-secondary institutions have made fostering civic responsibility, engaged citizenship, and ethical decision making in students a strategic priority. What often remains ambiguous is how these priorities translate into action. A growing body of scholarly literature and research establishes the role Restorative Practice (RP) can play in pursuing these strategic priorities surrounding moral development, emotional intelligence, and engaged citizenship. Specifically, RP has been shown to prevent conflict and misconduct, while empowering marginalized individuals. Restorative practices demonstrate fairness; and foster empathy, compassion and accountability; through experiential learning opportunities. In light of these developments, MacEwan University, in Alberta, Canada, has been actively building a restorative culture. One aspect of this endeavour was the revision of its Academic Integrity Policy and Academic Misconduct Procedures to include the possibility of alternative resolutions to academic misconduct, based on restorative practices and principles. In our chapter, we will (a) provide a brief introduction to restorative practices that makes explicit its connection to universities' civic education mandate, integrity, and specifically, academic integrity; (b) describe the restorative practices model that is being established at MacEwan University; (c) discuss in detail the application of restorative practices to academic misconduct cases, including training of facilitators, as well as successes and challenges experienced in the first year since it became available; and, finally, (d) share feedback

P. Sopcak (B)

Community Standards and Values, and Humanities Department, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB T5J 4S2, Canada

e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© The Author(s) 2022

553

K. Hood Public Safety & Justice Studies Department, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB T5J 4S2, Canada e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
S. E. Eaton and J. Christensen Hughes (eds.), *Academic Integrity in Canada*, Ethics and Integrity in Educational Contexts 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1\_29

regarding its effectiveness received from students, staff, and faculty who participated in restorative resolutions.

**Keywords** Academic integrity · Academic misconduct · Restorative practices · Restorative justice · Citizenship education · Accountability · Canada

#### **Academic Integrity and Post-Secondary's Civic Education Mandate**

Although there will be some variation, when asked what the purpose and objectives of their work are, those with a formalized role related to promoting academic integrity in a post-secondary setting will mention the obvious, minimizing academic misconduct and ensuring the integrity and value of the degrees their institution grants. Perhaps after a pause, they might also mention those objectives that seem more lofty and are more closely related to the moral and civic education of students, such as promoting the values associated with academic integrity (Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006, p. 51). And indeed, post-secondary institutions have increasingly made fostering civic responsibility, engaged citizenship, and ethical decision making in students a priority in institutional strategic planning (Boyte, 2015; Jorgenson & Shultz, 2012; Stephens et al., 2000). This development is reflected in most institutions' mission and vision statements. Besides a long tradition of humanistic pedagogy, this priority finds support in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, as well as UNESCO's (1998) "World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action." How this citizenship education is carried out varies, but integrity education—and ethical decision-making as part of it—is a key factor.

Imagine further that this same academic professional is asked what strategies they use to pursue those goals. In all likelihood, they will with some satisfaction state that traditional approaches to academic integrity that focused on rule compliance, deterrence and punishment, have been shown to be rather ineffective and that their institution has consequently adopted the strategy proposed by Tricia Bertram Gallant (2008) to treat academic integrity as a teaching and learning issue, emphasizing prevention and education over policing and punishment.

However, there seems to be an irreconcilable rift between prevention and education strategies and those governing *responses* to academic misconduct. It is as if there existed a divide and that the values and principles that guide our strategies in preventing misconduct no longer apply once a student crosses over to the dark side of misconduct, for the vast majority of university and college codes, policies, and procedures determining *responses* to academic and non-academic misconduct are quasi-judicial in nature. As such, they are structurally adversarial, with a focus on deterrence effects through engagement in an intimidating, formal and oppositional procedure resulting in punitive sanctions. Academic misconduct is treated first and foremost as a lack and violation of compliance with institutional codes and/or policies. Focusing on deterrence and punitive discipline, the response to academic misconduct follows a logic of escalating severity of punitive measures, which logically culminates in temporary or permanent exclusion from the university or college community (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Bretag et al., 2011a, b; Clark et al., 2012; Stoesz et al., 2019). This is not to say that educational/pedagogical outcomes are necessarily absent from this conventional approach; rather, the quasi-judicial, adversarial, framing of the codes, policies, and procedures is what determines the ground tenor and emphasis (Kara & MacAlister, 2010).

Support for this claim is available in an Australian study by Pitt et al. (2020), which found that students perceived their university's processes for dealing with academic misconduct (specifically contract cheating in this study) as a legal process (p. 9) and being involved in it as "the hardest, most challenging or worst experience of their lives" (p. 5). This perception was shared by students who were ultimately found to have been in violation of the policy and those whose cases were dismissed. Participants in the study further reported the negative impact their involvement in the university procedure had on relationships with family members, peers, and academics (Pitt et al., 2020, pp. 6–9). Faculty members are, of course, not blind to these effects of a quasi-legal approach to academic misconduct, which contributes to the widespread unwillingness to report academic misconduct according to institutional policy and procedure that research has found (e.g., Eaton et al., 2020).

Given this negative perception and impact, the standard, quasi-legal, adversarial process, emphasizing deterrence and punishment, must surely support the goals and objectives identified earlier then. Wachtel (2016), following Braithwaite (1989), argues that the opposite is true. He writes, "…reliance on punishment as a social regulator is problematic because it shames and stigmatizes wrongdoers, pushes them into a negative societal subculture and fails to change their behavior" (Wachtel, 2016, p. 3). James Lang (2013) provides historical and cites experimental evidence pertaining to (academic) misconduct which supports this view and shows that rule compliance models do a fair job, at best, at minimizing misconduct and consequently at protecting the integrity and value of university degrees (see also Bertram Gallant, 2008; and Clark, 2014). It is not surprising, then, that the ubiquity of academic misconduct remains a serious problem for post-secondary institutions (for an overview of the research, see Eaton et al., 2020).

Moreover, since these more pragmatic objectives are directly influenced by the loftier goals, such as promoting the fundamental values of academic integrity (ICAI, 2021), as well as the moral and civic education of our students, it is clear that the punitive, deterrence model also fails when it comes to these higher order, moral objectives. But why is that? Reflecting on the effectiveness of deterrence models in the criminal justice system, David A. Dana (2001) writes:

…deterrence models of human decision-making do not fully describe how most people think in most contexts. People sometimes do not obey the law because their calculations indicate that expected penalties exceed expected gain… Instead, to a significant extent, people obey the law because they have internalized the belief that obeying the law is the right thing to do…And they respect the law because they perceive the law as embodying, as being in tune with, their own conception of what is just and unjust, right and wrong. (p. 777)

Clearly then, one of the reasons for their relative ineffectiveness is that compliance models primarily promote and reward rule following, not the moral reflection that is necessary to internalize the values underlying these rules. While rule-following may be a desirable outcome in regard to the two more pragmatic goals of academic integrity professionals, it is insufficient when it comes to the goal of moral and civic education, and at effecting the cultural shift necessary to address academic misconduct at its roots.

How, then, can this disconnect between academic integrity *prevention* work focused on values-based education, on the one hand, and procedures for*responding* to academic misconduct that are grounded in punitive, fear-based, rule-compliance, on the other, be rectified? Recently, Bertram Gallant (2017) revised her 2008 "teaching and learning approach" to academic integrity, which was entirely focused on *prevention*, by adding a strategy targeting the *response* to misconduct, namely, "leveraging the cheating moment as a teachable moment" (p. 88). Specifically, Bertram Gallant (2017) proposes the wider adoption of her institution's approach to require students who have engaged in academic misconduct to complete academic integrity seminars or courses focused on "activities and assessments that guide them through the experiential learning cycle to reach the learning objectives of developing ethical decision making skills, enhancing meta-cognition, and increasing student understanding of academic and professional integrity standards" (p. 92).

We wholeheartedly agree with Bertram Gallant on the value of such seminars and courses and thereby the extension of pedagogical goals and values to the *response* mechanisms. In fact, recent literature provides preliminary empirical support for their effectiveness (Stoesz & Los, 2019). However, what this approach does not address is the inconsistency in the value structure and guiding principles between prevention efforts on the one hand and response practices on the other, if these seminars are assigned as an "educational component" of an otherwise punitive, quasi-legal, and adversarial process. Unfortunately, in our experience, that is precisely how mandatory academic integrity seminars and tutorials are currently being assigned.

In what follows, we will first briefly define Restorative Practices (RP) and how they relate to Restorative Justice (RJ); we then present a restorative resolution process based on the principles of RP, followed by insights gained from its implementation at our home institution, MacEwan University in Canada; finally, we argue that having an RP approach as the default response to academic misconduct and the currently standard, quasi-legal, punitive approach as a secondary procedure to fall back on when conditions for the former are not met, ensures the *integrity* of an institutional strategy to academic integrity. It ensures that prevention and response remain firmly grounded in the goals, values, and principles pertaining not only to universities' pedagogical missions, but also those related to civic and moral education, as well as community building.

#### **Brief Introduction to Restorative Practices**

Definitions of restorative practices (RP) and restorative justice (RJ) vary, as well as descriptions of how one relates to the other. We adopt the International Institute for Restorative Practices and its founder Ted Wachtel's (2016) approach in considering RJ as a sub-category of RP, that is, as the application of restorative practices in matters pertaining specifically to criminal justice. This is helpful, since it highlights commonalities across disciplines in areas of research and practice that employ the same fundamental principles of RP, such as education, social work, etc. It also aligns with the preventative application of restorative principles to build community and social capital under the larger RP umbrella. Thus, since RJ is seen as one form of RP, the references to, and claims about, RJ presented in this chapter are considered to be representative of RP, in general.

So, what is distinctive about RP and RJ and how do its processes differ from other approaches to address wrongdoing, conflict, and harm? The following is a simple description by one of the most prominent RJ figures, Howard Zehr: "Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible" (Zehr, 2003, p. 40).

Tellingly, Zehr begins his influential *The Little Book of Restorative Justice* with a list of what RJ is *not*. It is telling because it is an indicator of the influence and persistence of some of the myths and misconceptions regarding RJ. We will merely provide a list of the points Zehr makes and send the reader to his short book for elaboration. First, *RJ "is not primarily about forgiveness or reconciliation*" (Zehr, 2003, p. 6). Although these might be byproducts of RJ/RP, they are not a primary goal or objective. Contrary to common belief, RJ/RP focuses first on the needs of the community and the harmed parties and then on those of the responsible party (for various reasons, including the separation from criminal justice proceedings, we will avoid the terms "victim" and "offender," and will instead refer to "harmed" and "responsible parties" throughout the chapter).

Second, *RJ is different from mediation*. Whereas in mediation the goal is to establish a mutually acceptable compromise between conflicting interests that are seen "on a level moral playing field, often with responsibilities shared on all sides" (Zehr, 2003, p. 7), in RJ at least one party must accept responsibility for the harm(s) they caused, if a case is to move forward to a facilitated encounter ("RJ/RP conference").

Third, *reducing recidivism is not a primary goal of RJ.* Although reduced recidivism has been documented in a number of projects and studies (e.g., Rodriguez, 2007), Zehr (2003) stresses that it is "an expected byproduct, but restorative justice is done first of all because it is the right thing to do: victims' needs *should* be addressed, offenders *should* be encouraged to take responsibility, those affected by an offense *should* be involved in the process, regardless of whether offenders 'get it' and reduce their offending" (p. 8).

Fourth, *RJ "is not a particular program or blueprint"* (Zehr, 2003, p. 8). Rather, it is a set of foundational principles that should be applied to institutions and situations in a way that is sensitive to particular contexts and needs. Fifth, although RJ may be applied to minor offenses, it *"is not primarily intended for minor offenses or firsttime offenders"* (Zehr, 2003, p. 8). It is a widespread, seemingly intuitive, response to consider RJ/RP appropriate only to address these less severe cases. However, experience has shown that the processes work particularly well when there is a lot at stake for affected parties and they are invested.

Sixth, RJ "is not a new or North American development" (Zehr, 2003, p. 9). Zehr clarifies that despite the fact that RJ's current expression was first developed in the Mennonite community, many of the principles and practices have a long tradition and remain at play in Indigenous communities around the world. For an insightful analysis of some of the differences between Indigenous law and RJ in a Canadian context, and to assist in a differentiated discussion of the charge of appropriation, see Chartrand and Horn (2018).

Seventh, RJ "is neither a panacea nor necessarily a replacement for the legal system" (Zehr, 2003, p. 10). For reasons that will be addressed in a later section on the conditions for a RP/RJ process, to protect harmed parties, and to safeguard basic human rights, a functioning legal system is key, even if RP/RJ processes were to become the primary and default approaches to address harm. This also applies to the context of academic integrity, where the presence of RP options/processes does not render the quasi-legal, adversarial processes obsolete.

A further misconception we wish to address here is that RP/RJ is "soft on crime" and lets offenders off easy. In our experience this misconception is so persistent and widely accepted that it presents a serious obstacle to the implementation of RP/RJ processes. Exploring the harms one is responsible for and then meeting the obligations to repair them through active accountability is far more difficult than passively accepting a punitive sanction. Also, RJ/RP outcomes do not categorically preclude punitive measures.

Now that some of the common myths and misconceptions have been addressed, a look at some of the core principles of RJ/RP is in order. Although accounts vary, the most influential figures of RJ/RP agree on at least four underlying principles, namely "inclusive decision making," "active accountability," "repairing harm," and "rebuilding trust" (Karp, 2019, p. 9; see also Karp & Sacks, 2014). Rather than attempt to paraphrase Karp, we will reproduce his precise definition of RJ here in its entirety:

Restorative Justice is a philosophical approach that embraces the reparation of harm, healing of trauma, reconciliation of interpersonal conflict, reduction of social inequality, and reintegration of people who have been marginalized and outcast. RJ embraces community empowerment and participation, multipartial facilitation, active accountability, and social support. A central practice of restorative justice is a collaborative decision-making process that includes harmed parties, offenders, and others who are seeking to hold offenders accountable by having them: Accept and acknowledge responsibility for their offenses; to the best of their ability, repair the harm they caused to harmed parties and the community; and work to rebuild trust by showing understanding of the harm, addressing personal issues, and building positive social connections. (Karp, 2019, p. 4)

These practices, applied not only in response to misconduct, but also as a proactive community building tool, have been shown to be an effective way of addressing bullying (Acosta et al., 2019), preventing conflict and misconduct by fostering a sense of trust and community, empowering marginalized individuals and communities (Ahlin et al., 2017; Cassel, 2014; Gal, 2016), pursuing and demonstrating fairness, as well as fostering empathy, compassion, and accountability (Kehoe et al., 2018; Winslade, 2018). Needless to say, these are all important aspects of civic and moral education, and minimize academic misconduct.

#### **Restorative Resolutions of Academic Misconduct—MacEwan University's Model**

In light of these insights and the rift we have observed between the desired outcomes regarding the culture of Academic Misconduct at our institution and the seeming inefficacy of a quasi-judicial procedure as the sole and/or default response to misconduct, paired with our institution's commitment to prioritizing prevention and education over policing and punishing, we have introduced a restorative resolution option based on the above RP principles into our procedures for dealing with academic misconduct. Our institution's Student Academic Misconduct Procedure defines Restorative Resolution as: "Any of a number of restorative processes involving the harmed parties, including representatives of the community, in reaching a resolution that repairs harms caused and rebuilds trust between the responsible party, the harmed parties, and the community" (MacEwan University, 2018, p. 1). Currently, roughly 25% of cases that require a formal hearing (severe and repeat misconduct) are resolved restoratively at MacEwan University, with a strong upward trend.

#### *Context*

At MacEwan University, instructing faculty members are the decision makers for suspected incidents of academic misconduct that occur in their courses. Based on policy and procedures that are grounded in procedural fairness (right to be heard, right to fair and impartial decision-making, etc.; Stoesz et al., 2019), faculty members decide on a balance of probabilities whether a given incident is academic misconduct or not and what the appropriate consequence should be. They have a list of consequences to choose from, including educational options. The maximum penalty an instructing faculty member can apply is a mark of zero on the assignment in question. Decisions related to cases of severe academic misconduct (e.g., contract cheating, impersonation, falsification) are made by trained faculty adjudicators after a formal hearing. MacEwan University has a centralized repository of reported incidents, and cases of repeat academic misconduct trigger a formal hearing presided over by faculty members who take on a role of adjudicator for 2–6 years, as part of their service load.

In the formalized sequence of steps listed in the Student Academic Misconduct Procedure document, as well as within resources available on MacEwan University's academic integrity website, faculty members are asked to consider the viability and appropriateness of a restorative resolution attempt prior to proceeding with a standard, quasi-judicial process. The severity of any given incident of academic misconduct, including whether it is a case of repeat misconduct, does not determine whether a restorative resolution attempt is an option. Rather, the following conditions must be met for an academic misconduct case to be considered for a restorative resolution:

If these conditions are not met or the restorative resolution attempt (restorative conference) is unsuccessful (e.g., the responsible party shifts blame or the affected/present parties cannot come to an agreement regarding the appropriate outcome), then the case goes back into the formal, quasi-judicial procedure stream.

#### *Participants*

The student who has engaged in academic misconduct is the responsible party and will be present during the restorative conference. For a first offense, a case will go to a restorative conference only if the faculty member in whose class the incident occurred is willing to participate. Since severe and repeat academic misconduct arguably have a greater impact on the wider university community, restorative conferences that respond to these involve further members as harmed parties. As such, a member of the Student Association of MacEwan University (SAMU) represents the student body as one of the harmed parties/communities, and a trained faculty adjudicator takes part to represent the University's body of faculty members. Although not present in their role as adjudicator, these faculty members have the necessary experience and training in matters pertaining to academic integrity and responses to academic misconduct that will ensure a fair outcome and that standards of academic integrity are maintained.

#### *Pre-conference Meetings*

One of the key elements in any RP response are the individual pre-conference meetings with the harmed and responsible parties. During these meetings, the facilitator assesses to what extent the conditions above are met, explains the procedure in detail, queries whether anyone else should be invited to attend the restorative conference, and can begin anticipating challenges that might occur.

#### *Facilitators*

At MacEwan University, we have adopted the facilitation model developed by the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) and have obtained training and license to, in turn, train and certify restorative conference facilitators. This has allowed us to build a pool of over 50 restorative conference facilitators and has supported consistency and quality facilitation. Faculty members who have completed the training facilitate restorative conferences in partial fulfilment of their service requirements. It is important to note that a facilitator's role in this context is different from that of a mediator or adjudicator. The facilitator guides the parties who have been affected by the incident(s) brought forward through a structured conversation. They ensure that it remains respectful and safe, and that it moves towards a tangible outcome.

#### *Restorative Conferences*

The conferences are highly structured, non-adversarial meetings. They are normally held in a circle formation with a carefully considered seating order, although we managed to successfully shift them to a video-conferencing format in 2020 to meet the COVID-19 public health requirements. All participants sign confidentiality forms prior to the conference and are reminded that no record will be kept of any information shared during the conference, except that which is included in the outcome agreement. A series of questions (Wachtel, 2016, p. 7), which all participants were made aware of prior to the conference, provides the structure. As these questions move the conversation from a focus on the past to one on the present and then the future, they explore the harms caused by the academic misconduct (emotional, material, to the community) and how those harms might be repaired through concrete actions (active accountability) on the part of the responsible party:

#### *Restorative Conference Questions*

(Questions marked with an asterisk\* have been added to or slightly modified from Wachtel's (2016, p. 7)).

To responsible parties:

To harmed parties:

(Wachtel, 2016, p. 7).

Through the structure these questions provide, the restorative conference focuses on the harms resulting from academic misconduct in a collaborative process that holds students accountable and collaboratively explores how harms can be repaired, as well as what needs to be put in place to avoid future misconduct by the student. It provides an opportunity for students who engaged in academic misconduct to listen to the impact of their actions (material, emotional, on the community) in a nonadversarial environment and supports them in taking responsibility for their actions, as well as the resulting obligations.

#### *Outcomes*

After an exploration of the impact a given incident of academic misconduct has had in terms of emotional and material harm, as well as harm to the community, the conversation turns to what an appropriate outcome of the restorative conference might be. Specifically, the parties present discuss what actions the student might take to repair each of the harms caused, what appropriate sanctions might look like, and what might be put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again. This part of the restorative conference is an opportunity not only for the student who engaged in academic misconduct to reflect on their obligations and how to avoid future misconduct, but also for the student body representative and the faculty member(s) to consider whether in the concrete case before them any altered teaching strategies, additional institutional resources, or different forms of peer support might have supported the student in question more fully and minimized the incentive to engage in misconduct. If any of these latter considerations are verbalized, it is done without minimizing or shifting responsibility.

Although these outcomes need not be *identical* to outcomes of adversarial, "model code," disciplinary hearings, they must be *equitable* and *fair*. To protect fairness, as well as the reputation and integrity of the restorative resolution procedure, it must not be (nor run the danger of being perceived as) an "easy way out." Choosing appropriate harmed party representatives of the student and faculty bodies, respectively, and the university community, in general, is critical in this regard. In our experience, the presence of a students' union member with knowledge and experience related to appropriate outcomes, whether through student advocacy activities or prior participation in restorative conferences, as well as a trained faculty adjudicator as representative of the faculty body has proved effective.

In order to set the stage for a fair and equitable outcome, the harmed parties are asked what in their experience the outcome of a "model code" hearing for a comparable case would be. This then forms the point of comparison during the collaborative discussion of an appropriate outcomes. These outcomes often include some punitive measures but mostly focus on constructive actions students take to repair the harm they caused, and if appropriate to the situation, students are also asked to reflect on what they might do to help their peers avoid engaging in academic misconduct.

The facilitator does not provide suggestions regarding the substance of the outcome but does assist in clarifying questions of fact and ensuring that the tasks agreed upon are captured in sufficient detail, including deadlines, as well as consequences should the agreement be breached. Since signing of the outcome agreement is voluntary, it cannot be appealed.

To provide some concrete examples, the outcomes of restorative resolutions of academic misconduct at MacEwan University have included grade reductions with and without transcript notations, in addition to the requirement to successfully complete an online academic integrity tutorial and write a reflective paper. These papers have targeted students' experiences related to engaging in academic misconduct, including the restorative conference; their reflection on the harms of their actions and academic misconduct, in general, as well as on what could have been done differently; and the development of a strategy to avoid misconduct should the student find themselves in a similar situation in the future that includes a list of available supports and resources. Despite the fact that these are common elements of outcome agreements, each will address the specific needs and obligations of the particular case and context.

#### **Responses to Restorative Resolutions of Academic Misconduct at MacEwan University**

The following "testimonials" capture how the RP procedure described above is perceived by MacEwan students and faculty members who have participated in restorative resolutions of academic misconduct.

Student's Comments on Experience of Participating in a Restorative Resolution of their Academic Misconduct (Anonymized):

For starters the restorative resolution was a relief for me because I wanted to right the wrong that I had done not only to [professor] but to myself and the greater school community. The restorative resolution was a great choice for me because I was so stressed at the time to be persecuted and ridiculed for my mistake, instead in the restorative resolution meeting I was given a chance to state my point clearly without blame and to just talk about mistakes and how to go forward with the resolution. I was glad that I could come clean and work towards a solution that would be a positive to everyone involved. A learning to take away is that I will use the checklist that was made by me (...) to reinforce the research that I have done on the topic of academic integrity.

One thing that stands out for you when you reflect on your experiences of participating in restorative conferences?

Sean Waddingham, President, Students' Association of MacEwan University.

So, one I guess trend that I saw that stood out for me when we worked with students in these restorative resolution conferences was that they learn from their mistakes, that they're remorseful and that students that really take this in, take it seriously, and have a bit of a progression from the time when we first meet with them to the end of the process … There's a lot to be said for how much they start to take responsibility for the mistakes they've made, how much they learn along the way. I noticed they often go from a place of being kind of fearful, trying to figure out what happens next (what do I do about this?), to a place of understanding, where they think okay now I'm equipped with the information on what it means to commit academic misconduct and how I can avoid it, and most importantly why that matters. So, they end up understanding why it's critical to the university that they conduct themselves well in academic matters in the future, and students take that seriously, and I was very happy to see that and have any skepticism remedied by that.

Joanne Loh, Faculty Member (Assistant Professor), Department of Accounting and Finance, MacEwan University.

One really interesting thing that stands out for me is that, I know that the students know that cheating or misconduct is wrong, but a lot of times they do not really know until we go through the process, when we explain the harm that is done, you know, to whether it's the faculty, the university or students as a whole or even to themselves, that they truly understand the harm that has been done. I think people know it's wrong to cheat, but they may not know the extent of how that will impact and with the restorative process, you know, the process itself incorporates that as part of the resolution.

Michelle B., Sessional Instructor, Department of Communication, MacEwan University.

I still reflect back and think that we accomplished something more than we would have if we had just doled out a punishment or a change of grade and not addressed anything. When I look back, I think it was worth it, that maybe I changed, or together we changed the trajectory of what was into something more positive, something my student will remember and reflect back on. I think this process changed her sentiment about her own behaviour, but also about the academic setting, and about why these values are important. There was a lot of reflection on her part that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise, or maybe would have happened, but wouldn't have been reconciled into something that moved us forward.

How do Restorative Resolutions align with your personal or professional values? Michelle R. Andrews, Associate Professor, Department of Public Safety & Justice Studies, MacEwan University.

I make mistakes all the time. I live in a position of privilege where I get to fix it most of the time. I think so often with students, they don't have that opportunity. Sometimes it because they don't know how, sometimes it's because we don't give them that opportunity, but restorative practices which are rooted in that notion of relationship give the opportunity for the person who made the mistake, in this case a student and the person who experienced that mistake, in this case me as a faculty member to come together and talk that through and sort it, sort it out. I also know that that takes time, and restorative practices provide a process to work it through in a way that's unhurried and unforced. I think that's important too. In criminal justice so often, well we call assembly line justice right, we move people through the system, but restorative processes give that space, gives that time to listen, to carefully, carefully listen…to the story, to the narrative…how did we get here? And just as importantly, what are we going to do about it? Where are we going to go from that? In this case, the student was given the opportunity to explain how we got to this place. I think it surprised her. It surprised me as well. But, what I do know as a person, as a professional, as an academic, is that the restorative process that I was involved in was so authentic, was so genuine…almost revolutionary in ways, for both the student and for myself, that it re-affirmed that which I know to be true about restorative processes…is that they can make things right. I was there. I saw it.

Michelle B., Sessional Instructor, Department of Communication, MacEwan University.

For me, this entire process can be summed up in one word or sentiment, which is authenticity. And that is one of my highest values, this pursuit of truth, of what actually is or what actually happened, and being honest about that. Authenticity and honesty and truth were all enabled by this process. Instead of just covering up what happened, or addressing it with a punishment, we were actually able to address the situation. To find out what really happened. To talk through why it happened. To look beyond what had actually happened in the classroom to other factors that were driving those behaviours. To honestly work through that. And then we were able to move forward, with this authenticity in how we actually felt about what had happened and what we could actually do to address it.

#### How do Restorative Resolutions align with MacEwan's Mission and Vision? Sean Waddingham, President, Students' Association of MacEwan University.

[Faculty members] are willing to take the time and sit down with students and work out what may have caused the students' lapse of judgement when it came to academic conduct, or the ways in which they might mitigate this in the future, and really helping them understand what impact is had when misconduct is committed. So, for a university that cares about students and always talks about students first, I think it fits into MacEwan's strategic planning, MacEwan's culture and everything quite nicely.

What differences between a restorative process and a disciplinary process did you perceive?

Tom van Seters, Associate Professor, Department of Music, MacEwan University.

I thought it was great that there was a procedure in place in which both parties are asked a series of questions that prompts them to verbalize the nuances of their experiences, and I think this led to deeper reflections on their respective experiences. I guess another thing that was different was that there was an opportunity to discuss what actions could be taken to repair any harm that was done …There was a more complete sense of resolution, when compared with the more traditional disciplinary process.

#### What made you want to engage in RP?

Michelle R. Andrews, Associate Professor, Department of Public Safety & Justice Studies, MacEwan University.

I was reluctant, and I'll tell you why. It was a timing issue more than anything else. It was the end of term. I was very tired. I was annoyed, as well, because it was not the first time that this had happened with this student, not in a course that I taught, but I coordinate a program and so I am sometimes aware of other issues that students have, and I just wanted it to be over and done with and make the decision, pass it over to the Office of Academic Integrity and be done with it. And then it was one of those moments where you go…ohh, so this is what hypocrisy looks like, and so what I decided was, it's time for you to step up Michelle and to…I actually reframed it is what I did, and so instead of thinking of it as an obligation, I saw it as an opportunity and again, to be fully participatory in a process that I supported, from an intellectual level, and now in a very personal level, that's what got me to that point.

#### Additional Comments:

Sean Waddingham, President, Students' Association of MacEwan University.

I am really impressed by MacEwan's faculty buy-in. There was great reception at the annual adjudicator meeting for academic misconduct adjudication around this kind of idea, and the support from faculty is critical because it's a volunteer-only kind of program, so everyone engaging in a restorative practice has to do so willingly…that includes the student, and includes the faculty as well. So, these faculty members – and in some cases…these incidences of academic misconduct are happening in their own classrooms… – they're willing to come to the restorative conferences and let the student know what impact that has, and that's critical. My experience at MacEwan has made me realize that our professors are available and are willing to talk to students and this is a further example of that. This really stood out to me at one of the sessions I participated in where quite a few professors were affected and nearly all of them came. I think we had six or seven faculty volunteering to be in that room at one time and it's really uplifting and hopeful to see the faculty buy-in because, with a process like this, where students are showing up and faculty are showing up, it's a more long term solution to academic misconduct. It's a real cultural shift, rather than you know, simple punishments on a sporadic basis, so that was great to see…faculty really buy in and care about the process.

#### **Discussion and Conclusion**

The responses from both responsible and harmed parties above are representative of the overwhelmingly positive reception of restorative resolutions of academic misconduct, and they aptly demonstrate the effectiveness of restorative practices to provide a *response* to academic misconduct that is consistent and coherent with a *prevention* approach focusing on teaching and learning as well as ethical decision making skills and meta-cognition (Bertram Gallant, 2008, 2017). What is more, it provides an experiential learning opportunity to all involved that highlights the rootedness of ethical decision-making in relationships and community.

For instance, the contrast could hardly be starker between responses reported in Pitt et al.'s (2020) study of how students experience going through a quasi-legal, disciplinary procedure in response to contract cheating allegations and the MacEwan University student's response to participating in a restorative resolution provided above. Whereas the students in Pitt et al.'s study perceived the process as legalistic, extremely challenging, and as having a strong negative impact on their relationships with their university, professors, peers, and family members, respectively, (Pitt et al., 2020, p. 5–9), the student quoted above who participated in a restorative resolution expressed his thankfulness to having been given the opportunity to "right the wrong that [they] had done not only to [professor] but to [them]self and the greater school community" (MacEwan student, anonymous). Particularly worth noting here is the insight that in violating academic integrity they had also wronged themselves and the school *community*. For this student, the restorative resolution in effect removed the barriers to self-reflection, learning, and growth that stress and stigmatizing shame present, and allowed them to become actively accountable in addressing the harm done, as well as to participate in a future- and solution-oriented collaborative effort, in which the student felt supported by the university community.

Also, the responses of those who participated in restorative resolutions presented above demonstrate the perception that the process was governed by and in turn promoted values that, unbeknownst to them, form part of the *fundamental values of academic integrity* (ICAI, 2021). In particular, participants explicitly associated honesty (authenticity, truth) and responsibility with the process, and the values of trust, fairness, respect, and courage were implicit in many of their responses. Moreover, participants mentioned that the restorative process facilitated a deepened and "memorable" reflection on the underlying causes of the misconduct as well as the resulting harms, and, importantly, on why academic integrity matters. Worth highlighting, also, is the mention that restorative practices led to a "more complete sense of resolution" (see van Seters' comments above) and a "real cultural shift" (see Waddingham's comments above).

Integrity is sometimes described as doing the right thing when no one is looking. What this implies, of course is that true integrity requires the internalization of values and principles. The drastic surge in academic misconduct cases, particularly contract cheating cases, during the COVID-related scramble to move courses and assessments online with limited ability to invigilate has been a sobering experience in that regard. It has made abundantly clear that much work remains to be done when it comes to promoting integrity, rather than mere rule-compliance.

If only anecdotally, participants in MacEwan University's restorative resolutions support the RP research literature in their perception that the process promoted an internalization of ethical values and not only constitute a more effective tool for the moral and civic education of our students than compliance and discipline models, but also for effecting the more general cultural shift necessary to address academic misconduct at its roots and as a community issue. They do so by "fostering remorse, not fear" (Sherman & Strang, 2007, p. 12) and by encouraging the "[k]eeping [of] promises versus following orders" (Sherman & Strang, 2007, p. 58).

The increased attention academic integrity has been receiving in Canada (Eaton, 2018) presents an opportunity to explore the implementation of restorative resolutions more broadly. For instance, due to the clear alignment with its institutional values, vision, and mission, and because of the promising early outcomes of the incorporation of a restorative resolution option for academic misconduct cases, MacEwan University has recently modified its non-academic misconduct procedure to include a restorative resolution option and is carefully considering the option of using a restorative justice approach to sexual violence on campus. Although the academic and non-academic misconduct procedures present the restorative resolution as the default approach, there remains work to be done to turn this into reality.

At the close of this chapter, a remark is in place to avoid feeding into the myth that restorative practices are "soft on crime" or wrongdoing. Some might argue that the negative experiences related to compliance and discipline-based procedures described by Pitt et al. are unfortunate, but unavoidable, consequences of students' actions, if universities are to promote and protect academic integrity and the value of their degrees. Because it is such an important point, we reiterate it here: responses to academic misconduct based on the principles of RP do not make the conventional, quasi-legal policies and procedures obsolete. The latter will be appropriate and necessary in some cases. The question that we asked in this chapter, however, is how well these in fact a) promote and protect academic integrity; b) align with the objectives, vision, and mission of postsecondary educational institutions; and c) whether, in light of these considerations, they must necessarily be the sole or default response to academic misconduct.

What we hope to have successfully argued is that having a RP approach as the default response to academic misconduct and the currently standard, quasi-legal, punitive approach as a secondary procedure to fall back on when conditions for the former are not met, ensures the *integrity* of an institutional strategy to academic integrity. It ensures that prevention *and* response remain firmly grounded in the goals, values, and principles pertaining not only to universities' pedagogical missions related to academics, but also those related to civic and moral education, as well as community building. Doing the right thing when no one is looking requires honesty, trust, respect, fairness, responsibility, and courage (ICAI, 2021). These values are to a large degree relational and presuppose a sense of community. Restorative Practices help make these values tangible and concrete within relationships.

#### *Quick Tips:*

• Examine and invite discussion on how well your institution's responses to academic misconduct align with:

#### **References**

Zehr. (2003). *Little book of restorative justice*. Good Books.

**Paul Sopcak** is Coordinator of the Office of Student Conduct, Community Standards and Values at MacEwan University. He holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature and teaches English literature, comparative literature, and philosophy. As an International Institute of Restorative Practices certified trainer, he has trained and certified over 50 Restorative Conference Facilitators at MacEwan University. He is responsible for Academic Integrity and Restorative Practices at MacEwan University and has recently developed restorative resolution policy and procedures in response to academic and non-academic misconduct.

**Garfield Kevin Hood** is an Associate Professor at MacEwan University. He has been a faculty member with the Department of Public Safety and Justice Studies' Correctional Services program since 1991. Kevin was Department Chair from 2011 to 2019. In his professional career, Kevin worked in a variety of roles, including child abuse investigations and social work with youth involved in high risk behaviours. He managed the Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution program for Alberta Children's Services and was senior manager responsible for Crime Prevention and Restorative Justice with Alberta Solicitor General during his time with the Alberta public service. Kevin has worked and taught in the area of restorative practice since 2004. His current research interests in the area of restorative practice focus on community engagement, relational truth and socially engaged art. Kevin has also worked on research projects examining truth and reconciliation processes with Canada's Indigenous peoples.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **Chapter 30 Academic Integrity Through a SoTL Lens and 4M Framework: An Institutional Self-Study**

**Natasha Kenny and Sarah Elaine Eaton**

**Abstract** Institutions are placing increased emphasis on the importance of academic integrity. Suffusing a culture of integrity is complex work. Influencing academic cultures (including the shared norms, values, behaviours and assumptions we hold) requires impact across multiple organization levels, stakeholders, structures and systems. These dimensions can be influenced by working with individual instructors, learners and staff (micro), across departments, faculties, networks and working groups (meso), through to the institution (macro), and disciplinary, national and international levels (mega). Akin to nurturing strong teaching and learning cultures communities and practices, institutions tend to support change at the institutional (vision, policies, structures) and individual levels (targeted programs to develop expertise). Less focus has been placed on how we establish strong networks of support and knowledge-sharing to influence decision-making, action, and change at the meso and mega levels. In this chapter we offer an institutional self-study of academic integrity through a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) lens. Informed by the 4M (micro, meso, macro, mega) framework, we examine how integrity is upheld and enacted at each level. We examine both formal and informal approaches to academic integrity, looking at how a systematic, multi-stakeholder networked approach has helped to establish a culture of integrity at our institution, and make recommendations for others, wishing to do the same.

**Keywords** Academic integrity · Canada · Higher education · SoTL · Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

N. Kenny (B) · S. E. Eaton University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
S. E. Eaton e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### **Introduction**

The purpose of this chapter is to examine academic integrity through a teaching and learning lens, using the University of Calgary as an institutional case study. We begin with a brief background on how and why it is essential to understand—and advocate for—academic integrity as part of the teaching and learning activities in education. We ground our inquiry in workplace learning theory and systems thinking. Then, we present the 4M Framework (Eaton, 2020c; Friberg, 2016; Kalu et al., 2018; Kenny et al., 2016; Miller-Young, 2016; Poole & Simmons, 2013; Simmons, 2016; Williams et al., 2013) as a model to disentangle some of the complexities inherent in systems and organizational theory. The model offers a simplified way to situate academic integrity within broader contexts.

From there, we bring together theory and practice through a conceptual model for supporting academic integrity at the University of Calgary. We expand on our initial simplified model to show how formal and informal networks, local-level leadership and microcultures play a role in institutional advancement of academic integrity. We highlight specific examples from the University of Calgary to show how our institution continues to develop with regards to academic integrity.

We discuss some challenges and limitations of this work, including (a) ensuring its sustainability; (b) how misunderstandings related to the evolution of an academic integrity culture within the university can impact institutional development; and (c) the invisible nature of much of the work. We conclude with concrete recommendations for how to continue to advance this work, advocating for a sustained focus on teaching and learning as being integral to academic integrity over the long term.

#### **Background**

Until about the twenty-first century, academic integrity was often viewed through a punitive lens, with a focus on student academic misconduct, and with students primarily being held responsible for preventing misconduct. Since the turn of the millennium, a shift has occurred to re-focus academic integrity as a multistakeholder responsibility (Carroll, 2007; Eaton, 2021; Macdonald & Carroll, 2006; McCabe et al., 2012; Morris, 2016; Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), 2017). In a multi-stakeholder approach to academic integrity, students, educators, staff, and administrators have designated responsibilities within the learning organization.

This shift towards a shared responsibility model led to changing views from applying policy and sanctions after misconduct had occurred to a stronger focus on education and prevention. Although policy remains an important aspect of academic integrity to address breaches in fair and equitable ways, there is much educators and other members of our educational communities can do to help students build the skills associated with academic integrity, such as citing and referencing, as well as an understanding of ethical-decision making for learning. It has long been recognized that academic integrity in educational contexts is related to ethical conduct in professional life (Austin et al., 2006; Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020; Yıldırım et al., 2019). It is important that students and educators understand that academic integrity is more than rule-compliance, but rather that it serves as a foundation for a lifelong practice of ethical decision-making, action and knowledge creation.

#### *Academic Integrity Through a Teaching and Learning Lens*

Academic integrity has been deemed to be a teaching and learning imperative (Bertram Gallant, 2008). Advocates promote proactive pedagogy and supports to help students learn the skills and expectations to uphold and enact integrity in their learning (Eaton et al., 2017; Eaton et al., 2019a, b; Howard, 1995, 2002; Morris, 2016; Williams et al., 2013). Further, academic integrity is not only the responsibility of students, but requires a commitment from all members of the campus community embedded throughout the organization. This multi-stakeholder approach to integrity ensures that a commitment to upholding ethical standards is shared across the institution (Morris, 2019; TEQSA, 2017).

#### **Theoretical Foundations**

We draw from workplace learning and organizational development theories to frame our discussion of a multi-level, multi-stakeholder approach to academic integrity.

#### *Workplace Learning Theory*

As we consider these multi-level approaches, it is important to explore how learning occurs in an organization. While many calls to action related to academic integrity emphasize increased focus on the training and development of academic staff, graduate students and staff supporting instruction, as well as providing educational programming for students (e.g., Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006b), there are many formal and informal processes which facilitate learning. Jarvis (2010) describes that learning must involve understanding, and that learning can happen through a range of formal education courses, programs and training that are intentionally planned, and through informal learning that occurs through everyday life, is often unplanned, unintended or *incidental*. He further suggests that learning is cyclical and occurs as we individually internalize local and global cultures, and then externally process this learning through social interaction. Importantly learning, "...must always be seen within the wider cultural context" (Jarvis, 2010, p.68).

Although we often privilege the learning that is planned and occurs in formal contexts, research has suggested that much of what we learn about our teaching and learning practices and approaches happens through small, but significant conversations with colleagues, which occur through relationships bound by trust, privacy and intellectual intrigue (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). These significant networks and conversations can have important influence on teaching and learning cultures, especially at the local level (Roxå et al., 2011). Individual learning is impacted by the cultural contexts within an institution (Jarvis, 2010), and these same cultures are influenced by conversational patterns and networks that guide shared sense-making and action (Roxå et al., 2011). In order to ensure learning related to academic integrity is meaningful, we must provide both formal and informal opportunities that are contextually based, that are embedded in practice, and that facilitate on-going reflection and action (Webster-Wright, 2009).

As it relates to professional learning for educators, these informal and formal opportunities may be conceptualized around a cycle of academic integrity that can guide conversation and practice (Fig. 30.1).

Building upon the work of authors such as Bertram Gallant (2017), Christensen Hughes and McCabe (2006), McCabe and Pavela (2004), and Morris (2016), this cycle includes the following dimensions:

#### *Organizational Learning Theory and Systems Thinking*

Impacting organizational change and learning is complex. Shifting postsecondary teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices related to academic integrity requires change across multiple organizational levels. The idea of systems thinking is not new. It has existed for decades, or even longer, across a variety of disciplines. General systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968) and ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1981) are two of the foundational theories that were later developed into other fields, including education. Approaching academic integrity from a systems perspective can provide a useful way to talk about this complex topic (Bertram Gallant, 2011; Bertram Gallant & Kalichman, 2011; Drinan & Bertram Gallant, 2008; Eaton, 2020c).

#### **A Model of Integrity: The 4M Framework**

The need for taking a multi-stakeholder, multi-level, systems-approach to fostering academic integrity in higher education has been highlighted by numerous academic integrity scholars (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2008; Bertram Gallant & Kalichman, 2011; Bretag, 2019; Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006a; Eaton, 2021)

#### *Overview of the Model*

Within the field of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), the 4M framework offers such an approach to understanding how the practices of teaching and learning, as well as inquiry around these practices, are connected to the broader educational landscape (Eaton, 2020c; Friberg, 2016; Kalu et al., 2018; Kenny et al., 2016; Miller-Young, 2016; Poole & Simmons, 2013; Simmons, 2016; Williams et al., 2013). The framework consists of four nested organizational levels: micro, meso, macro, and mega. Each level represents a particular lens through which an opportunity, issue or problem of practice can be framed (see Fig. 30.2).

Hannah and Lester (2009) suggest that this multi-level approach to organizational learning occurs when leaders set the conditions for change to emerge through shared learning and knowledge flow. They propose that programs, resources and strategies must be provided to support targeted learning experiences for individual knowledge catalysts at the *micro* level. At the *meso* level, they emphasize the importance of creating learning networks, with embedded knowledge catalysts. Here, both informal (or *emergent*) and formal leaders play a critical role in influencing and championing change, especially at the local level (i.e., within and across university departments and faculties) (Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016; Verwoord & Poole, 2016; Williams et al., 2013; Fields et al., 2019). At the *macro* level, senior leaders influence the vision, policies, resources and infrastructure to support and champion change, as well as to allow for system-wide knowledge flow and diffusion (Hannah & Lester, 2009).

Translating their work through the lens of academic integrity, this work highlights the importance of: (a) establishing institutional policies, standards and procedures that uphold and affirm the importance of academic integrity (*macro*), (b) ensuring that faculties and departments have the appropriate committees, leadership and cultures to translate policies into academic practice and that cross-unit working groups are established to share information and knowledge related to academic integrity within and across faculties and departments (*meso*), and (c) supporting instructors, staff and learners in developing the skills, knowledge and behaviours to model and implement strategies to promote academic integrity in their teaching, learning, research, assessment and academic practices (*micro*). Bertram Gallant and Kalichman (2011) also emphasize the importance of academic integrity at the societal level, where political, society, economic and technological "factors can operate as models of accepted, or at least unacceptable, behaviors" (p.41). Within the context of fostering organizational change in the scholarship, leadership and practice of teaching and learning, Simmons (2016) describes factors at this level as having influence at the *mega* level.

#### *The Meso-Level Gap*

When considering a multi-level approach to change, it is interesting to note that the primary focus for change related to teaching, learning and academic integrity has been put on implementing macro-level vision, policies, and procedures and establishing training and development at the individual or micro-level. Less emphasis has been placed on the importance of influencing change through faculties, departments and working groups *(meso-level)*. Trowler et al. (2005) and Kenny et al. (2016) refer to the importance of addressing this *meso-level gap*, especially as it relates to supporting change in teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices. At the mesolevel individual and collective actions are influenced by the microcultures, norms and structures which surround them (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2015; Trowler et al., 2005). These microcultures are, in turn, influenced by the behaviours, norms, decisions, actions and values of local leaders, as well as those that are established through social networks and working groups (Fields et al., 2019; Kenny et al., 2016; Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016). It is at the meso-level that action or change can either be "blocked or facilitated" by local microcultures (Trowler et al., 2005, p. 435). Christensen Hughes and Mighty (2010) reinforce that local leadership may be "one of the most significant barriers to academic change" (p. 269). Moving forward, local-level norms, cultures, values, behaviours, and political structures must become a critical component in catalysing, supporting and sustaining change in academic integrity.

#### **Bringing Together Theory and Practice: A Conceptual Model for Supporting Academic Integrity at the University of Calgary**

At the core of the model are four key elements for change (High-Impact Professional Learning; Local-level Leadership and microcultures; Scholarship, research and inquiry; and Learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies). Each of these elements is supported through Informal and Formal Processes that occur across multiple organizational levels (Micro, Meso, Macro and Mega). The core of the model highlights that academic integrity is influenced by:

• **High-impact Professional Learning for Individuals and Groups.** Professional learning activities are provided through formal and informal opportunities that are contextual, embedded in practice, and that facilitate on-going reflection and action (Webster-Wright, 2009). These professional learning activities are often focused on the values, and principles of academic integrity, associated policies, and teaching, learning and assessment practices that most directly influence academic integrity.

These core elements are consistently influenced informally through significant conversations, relationships, communities and networks, and formally through policies, committees, programs and resources that influence academic integrity across multiple organizational and societal levels (*micro, meso, macro, mega*) (Hannah & Lester, 2009; Kenny et al., 2016; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009; Simmons, 2016). For example, at the macro level senior leaders, such as Presidents and Provosts and institutional committees, must reiterate the importance of academic integrity by articulating a compelling vision, modelling through action, setting guidelines for success, and providing the necessary structural, organizational, governance, procedural, strategic, and financial resources to catalyse and sustain change (Hannah & Lester, 2009; Kenny et al., 2016). At the meso level integrated networks of knowledge sharing must be established and maintained within and across disciplinary boundaries and local-level leaders must provide visible support for each of these elements (Hannah & Lester, 2009). At the micro level tangible resources and incentives must be provided to ensure individuals are supported, recognized and rewarded for their work in advancing academic integrity as it relates to each element (Hannah & Lester, 2009; Kenny et al., 2016). It is critical to note the importance of ensuring the student voice and leadership are included in decisions and discussions related to academic integrity, especially as policies, procedures and practices are enacted at the macro (institutional) and meso (faculty, department) levels (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2008).

#### **4M Model in Action: A Case Study of the University of Calgary**

In 2019, the University of Calgary launched the Educational Leaders in Residence (ELR) program, designed to create leadership opportunities for faculty members focused on priority areas that aligned with the university's strategic academic and research plans (University Relations Staff, 2019). The roles were situated as two-year part-time secondments to the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning offered in partnership between various Vice-Provosts' portfolios, including the Vice-Provost Teaching and Learning, Graduate Studies and Student Enrolment Services. The first cohort of educational leaders in residence three distinct, but interrelated portfolios: (a) academic integrity; (b) online learning; and (c) graduate supervision and mentorship.

The ELR for academic integrity portfolio included objectives such as further building awareness of academic integrity across the university; advising on and contributing to the development of resources and supports; and developing local, regional, and national partnerships to connect practice and scholarship relating to academic integrity, as well as maintaining an active connection to other ELRs to share learning and further advance through collaboration.

#### *Specific ELR Academic Integrity Projects*

Within the broad terms of reference for the role, the ELR for academic integrity (Eaton) developed a work plan that aligned specific activities with the institutional academic and research strategies. The work plan was reviewed and approved by the Vice Provost Teaching and Learning, as well as the Senior Director for the Taylor Institute of Teaching and Learning (Kenny), with further endorsement from the Vice Provost, Student Experience, as well as the dean and vice dean of the school of education. The work plan reflected a systematic approach to activities to support institutional goals at a variety of levels.

#### **Example #1: Research Project, "Academic Integrity: Faculty Development Needs for Canadian Higher Education"**

One major project subsumed into this role was a major national research project, "Academic Integrity: Faculty Development Needs for Canadian Higher Education" (Eaton et al., 2019). This project involved a partnership with industry through the D2L Innovation Guild, as well as partners from the University of Manitoba, the University of Waterloo, and the University of Guelph. At the time of this writing, data collection was underway at all four universities to understand faculty perceptions and needs related to academic integrity in Canadian higher education. This project is an example of how the various levels of the 4M framework intersect. Through the micro lens, this project benefited the PI (Eaton) individually, as her research program focuses on educational ethics and academic integrity. Through the meso lens, the Senior Director of the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning (Kenny) served as the institutional (macro) representative to the broader steering committee, which operated at a mega level, including partners from various post-secondary institutions, along with D2L as a corporate partner. Because the project included collaborators from multiple universities, as well as industry, it also reached into the mega level.

This was the first research project in Canadian history on academic integrity to actively engage industry partners. From a networked perspective, the relationships built from this project have had a lasting impact, as evidenced by the fact that all the research team members from various universities involved in the project have also contributed unique chapters to this volume (see the individual chapters authored or co-authored by, Crossman, Stoesz, McKenzie, and Garwood). This project not only offered individual researchers an opportunity to collaborate on this particular study, but it also provided an opportunity for individuals to deepen their networked connections and strengthen their own professional learning and relationships beyond the project.

#### **Example #2: Institutional Policy, Procedure, and Statement on Academic Integrity**

In 2019, the University of Calgary launched its first academic misconduct policy and procedure. Prior to that, academic misconduct had been addressed in the university calendar as regulations. From a governance perspective, there is a difference between regulations which are intended to direct student conduct, and policies which articulate responsibilities and institutional expectations for a variety of stakeholders. The policy and procedure took several years to develop, as the process involved a number of drafts which were reviewed by both formal (e.g., councils, committees), as well as informally by student groups, and other stakeholders. Through various revisions, different stakeholders had an opportunity to provide input and feedback, including administrators, faculty, staff, and students. The policy and procedure became effective on July 1, 2019, the same day as the ELR Academic Integrity role was launched.

In the first year of the role, the Educational Leader in Residence for Academic Integrity supported the rollout and implementation of the policy and procedure, as well as offered informal support to faculties and departments at the meso level, by engaging in consultations and significant conversations with those who were responsible for developing unit-level processes for reporting and investigating breaches of academic integrity.

One aspect of the policy development work that remained unfinished was the institutional Statement on Intellectual Honesty, which had remained constant in the university calendar for longer than many administrators and faculty members could remember. With nothing to replace it, the statement remained in the calendar during the 2019-2020 academic year, but it became increasingly apparent that this statement reflected outdated ways of thinking about academic integrity and required revision. The ELR provided institutional-level guidance on how the statement might be revised. As with the policy, consultation was undertaken at various levels, led by the Provost and Vice Provost Student Experience, to recraft the statement so that it reflected current approaches and research related to academic integrity.

The process was accelerated during the COVID-19 crisis when members of the university community quickly pivoted to remote teaching and learning. This revised statement was officially written into the 2020–2021 academic calendar as follows:

Academic integrity is the foundation of the development and acquisition of knowledge and is based on values of honesty, trust, responsibility, and respect. We expect members of our community to act with integrity.

Research integrity, ethics, and principles of conduct are key to academic integrity. Members of our campus community are required to abide by our institutional code of conduct and promote academic integrity in upholding the University of Calgary's reputation of excellence. (University of Calgary, 2020–2021 Academic Calendar, n.p.).

This institutional statement served to reshape the narrative away from misconduct and towards integrity and served to anchor conversations around ethical teaching, learning, and assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

#### **Example #3: Integrity Hour: Informal Online Community of Practice**

An informal community of practice for academic integrity had been initiated at the University of Calgary some years earlier to help advance conversations related to academic integrity and misconduct across faculties by another professor, with one or two meetings happening each academic year. Stewardship of the group was passed on to the ELR, Academic Integrity in 2019. Seeing a need to build capacity and knowledge beyond what was happening on our own campus, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis when requests were coming in regularly for assistance both from on-campus faculty and off-campus colleagues, she reconceptualized and redesigned the community of practice to take place in a weekly format, via Zoom (Eaton, 2020b). Integrity Hour was launched in the last week of March 2020 creating an informal network of knowledge sharing and support.

Colleagues within the academic integrity community in Canada were invited to join in to the weekly one-hour meetings. Over the first six months of Integrity Hour (March-August 2020), a total of 255 attendees (including regular participants) joined in over the course of 21 meetings. This included attendees from an average of eight institutions (in addition to the University of Calgary) and four provinces each week.

During the coronavirus pandemic, Integrity Hour provided scholars, administrators and practitioners an informal opportunity to learn with and from one another. Participants repeatedly remarked that the value in this online community of practice was information and resource sharing, particularly around hot topics such as e-proctoring, case management, contract cheating, file sharing and academic labour issues related to academic misconduct during the coronavirus pandemic. Although institutional data regarding academic misconduct were not formally available through official means until much later, through a crowd-sourcing approach to information seeking and sharing, participants were able to engage in meso- and macro-level conversations at their own institutions about what was consistently being reported by colleagues on a regular basis in the community of practice. Integrity Hour continues to serve as a mega-level online community of practice many months later.

#### **Example #4: Webinar Series: Urgent and Emerging Topics in Academic Integrity**

The Educational Leader in Residence for academic integrity developed a webinar series to address topics relating to academic integrity that had been previously under discussed in the literature. Topics such as equity, diversity and inclusion as related to academic integrity and Indigenous perspectives on academic integrity were highlighted. Each webinar served not only to raise awareness, but also to promote public scholarship and community engagement at the macro level.

Each webinar typically attracted more than 100 registrants from a variety of countries. The ELR served as the series convener and host of each session, with guest speakers invited to address particular topics such as equity, diversity, and inclusion as they relate to academic integrity, admissions fraud, and contract cheating.

#### **Example #5: Internal Educational Development**

The ELR for academic integrity provided educational development for colleagues across campus in a variety of ways. This included collaborating with colleagues at the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning to present sessions such as "Academic Integrity for Emerging Academics." In addition, she led departmental discussions and guest lectures upon request and provided individual consultations with academic staff, teaching assistants, department heads and other administrators. This aspect of the work was sometimes planned in advance, but was often conducted in a responsive "just in time" way to address immediate needs as they arose.

The Educational Leader in Residence for Academic Integrity provided support to individuals (micro level), departments and other units on campus (meso level), the institution (macro level) and also involved advocacy and outreach to the broader community (mega level). Some of the work was visible and more formalized, such as webinars and workshops, but much of it was less visible, including informal activities such as individual conversations and consultations with members of the campus community, ad hoc meetings and special projects.

#### **Challenges and Limitations**

The Educational Leader in Residence program is not without its challenges. In this section we highlight three main limitations of this initiative through the lens of the ELR for academic integrity: (a) sustainability; (b) misunderstandings related to the evolution of an academic integrity culture within the university; and (c) the invisible nature of much of the work.

We address the issue of sustainability first. The Educational Leader in Residence Program was initiated as a special two-year initiative. "Soft funding" was provided to allow for part-time secondments. This means that project funds, rather than operating funds, were allocated to the program. Project funding is enough to start an initiative, but not to sustain it over the long term. In terms of the sustainability of the work, specific short-term projects were undertaken for which the scope could be contained within the two-year duration of the role. Longer-term initiatives that would have required more than two years to complete could not be undertaken within this role.

Next, we address the issue of misunderstandings related to the evolution of an academic integrity culture within the university. When an institution commits to developing a culture of academic integrity, one of the outcomes can be an increase in the number of academic misconduct cases reported. Reports of misconduct can increase when systems are in place to facilitate reporting. Also, when members of the campus community are aware of the processes involved with reporting and feel comfortable doing so, then more cases may be reported. The number of cases reported does not equal the total number of cases, so when reporting increases it does not necessarily indicate an increase in the incidence or rates of misconduct. Communicating this message is of the utmost importance when a campus community is actively undertaking a process to develop a stronger culture of academic integrity.

The third limitation is the invisible nature of academic integrity work itself. Although some of the work related to this portfolio is public or visible in nature, there are aspects of it that would be considered less visible. These include individual consultations, attendance at meso-level and macro-level meetings, document review, and so on. Evaluating the work done in the ELR portfolio remains ongoing, however, capturing and communicating the impact of this work in terms of contribution to the institution and beyond, remains complex. Akin to the work of educational developers, this work of connecting individuals, fostering relationships, creating communities and opportunities for collaboration, and sharing knowledge across once disparate networks has been contextualized within social network theory as acting as, "weak ties connecting across disciplines, infusing new ideas about teaching and learning, and enabling the translation of innovations across these academic networks" (Matthews et al., 2015. p. 248). This work is often difficult to track, evaluate and communicate within the context of traditional academic structures and reporting processes, and its impact needs to be made more visible and explicit (Kenny et al., 2017; Matthews et al., 2015; Timmermans, 2014).

#### **Implications and Recommendations**

We conclude by offering concrete recommendations about how to support academic integrity work within the institution at a variety of levels. We then contemplate how what we have learned may have applicability beyond our own institution.

#### *Recommendations*

Based on our experience undertaking this work thus far, we can offer a number of recommendations:

#### **Recommendation #1: Recognize that a Systematic Approach to Addressing Academic Integrity Is Needed**

Institutional leaders must recognize and implement strategies that recognize the importance of addressing academic integrity across multiple levels, by engaging multiple stakeholders, and by establishing and influencing formal and informal activities, policies, processes and practices that impact professional learning and training, local-level leadership and microcultures, learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies, as well as research and scholarship related to academic integrity.

#### **Recommendation #2: Provide Ongoing Training and Support to Various Institutional Stakeholders Across Multiple Levels**

Academic integrity training is essential for academic staff, as well as those working in management and support staff roles. Because of the meso-level gap, those serving as leaders of departments, units, and other groups within an institution may benefit from opportunities designed specifically for those at that level. This might include both formal training, such as courses, but also informal opportunities for growth such as communities of practice.

#### **Recommendation #3: Intentionally create informal and formal networked knowledge-sharing within and across units**

When it comes to matters related to academic integrity, there is a need for informal and formal knowledge sharing within and across units. This may occur through formal governance and committees, as well as informal communities of practice, working groups, scholarly networks and conversations.

#### **Recommendation #4: Recognize academic integrity as legitimate leadership and scholarly contributions**

As long as academic integrity work is done "off the side of one's desk" it will continue to be marginalized or dismissed as administrative work. This can lead to decisionmaking that is neither informed nor evidence-based. Academic integrity work must be recognized as an important aspect of teaching and leadership at various levels of the learning organization.

#### **Conclusions**

Academic integrity work is situated within the broader context of applied ethics in educational contexts. The word integrity comes from the same Latin root, "*integritas*". The word "integrate", meaning to make something whole, is derived from the same root. When we think about academic integrity as something that makes our learning communities whole, we see that it goes beyond student conduct; it extends to teaching and learning, ethical assessment practices, ethical decisionmaking by individuals in a variety of roles, working in different units across the institution. Academic integrity is not just about students; it is about everyone working in a learning ecosystem.

Academic integrity work is inherently messy. The nature of academic integrity work is both systematic and complex. Systematic aspects are articulated through policies, procedures, and regulations, but as are realized in the broader academic culture. In and of themselves, these are insufficient to make our learning communities, and the experiences of those who learn, teach, and work within those communities whole.

We began our chapter by presenting a simplified model of the 4M model (Fig. 30.2). The purpose of this was to provide a basic framework to understand how individuals are situated within units that are part of a learning organization, that then connects to society more broadly. After presenting this foundational framework of how individuals are part of a community, we went on to show how connections, networks, and relationships connect individuals in formal and informal ways (Fig. 30.3). We conclude by emphasizing the importance of taking a systemic approach to addressing academic integrity engaging multiple stakeholders across

**Fig. 30.3** Integrated model for academic integrity through a SoTL lens

multiple levels. We call on academic leaders to consider this systematic approach to addressing academic integrity: (a) by focussing efforts across multiple-levels (i.e., individuals, working groups, departments, faculties, institutions, society); (b) by engaging multiple stakeholders (i.e., students, faculty, teaching assistants, support staff, postdoctoral scholars), and (c) by establishing and influencing formal and informal activities, policies, processes and practices that impact high-impact professional learning, local-level leadership and microcultures, scholarship, research and inquiry related to academic integrity, and learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies.

We have shown how the University of Calgary established the Educational Leader in Residence roles to engage in boundary-spanning work to address complex phenomena within a learning organization. We recognize the need for this work to continue to evolve, for relationships to be nurtured, and networks sustained through ongoing and committed efforts over time.

#### **References**

*Journal for Academic Development, 20*(3), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015. 1065495

**Natasha Kenny** holds a PhD in Land Resource Science and is Senior Director of the University of Calgary's Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning (TI). In her role, Natasha leads and collaborates with colleagues across the TI and university to strengthen teaching and learning practices, cultures and communities. In 2018, she was awarded the Educational Developers Caucus of Canada Distinguished Educational Development Career Award for helping to advance the field of educational development locally and nationally. Her research interests relate to educational leadership, well-being in higher education, organizational learning and change, and the scholarship and practice of educational development, and the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL).

**Sarah Elaine Eaton PhD,** is an Associate Professor in the Werklund School of Education and the inaugural Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary. She is also the Editor-in-Chief of the *International Journal for Educational Integrity*. Her research focuses on ethics and integrity in higher education and she has led research teams and the local and national levels. Eaton advocates for pro-active and multi-stakeholder approaches to upholding and enacting integrity throughout the academy.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## **Chapter 31 Conclusions and Future Directions for Academic Integrity in Canada**

**Sarah Elaine Eaton and Julia Christensen Hughes**

**Abstract** In the conclusion to this edited volume, we highlight key themes from the book, making reference to the particular chapters that address them. We discuss the symbolic importance of the work by situating previous work and celebrating milestones related to academic integrity in Canada. We acknowledge the limitations of the book and offer recommendations for future directions for research, practice, and policy.

We chose the title of this volume, "Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge" (Eaton & Christensen Hughes, eds., 2022) intentionally. Contributors from across the country have shared new perspectives on enduring problems, but do so in a way that has been uniquely and exclusively Canadian. Contributors also bring new insights on important and essential topics, such as Indigenous perspectives on academic integrity (see Lindstrom, 2022; Poitras Pratt & Gladue, 2022) that until now, have not been part of the broader discourse.

#### **Symbolic Importance of this Volume: Situating Previous Work and Celebrating Milestones**

This book began with the idea of marking the fifteenth anniversary of the seminal articles by Julia Christensen Hughes and Donald (Don) McCabe (2006a, b) and demonstrating how far Canada has come since this work was published. Despite Christensen Hughes and McCabe's work receiving extensive media attention and even an award from the *Canadian Journal of Higher Education* for the year it was

S. E. Eaton (B)

University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
J. Christensen Hughes Yorkville University, Toronto, ON M4Y 1W9, Canada

© The Author(s) 2022 S. E. Eaton and J. Christensen Hughes (eds.), *Academic Integrity in Canada*, Ethics and Integrity in Educational Contexts 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1\_31

593

published (see Christensen Hughes & Eaton, 2022b), it remained, for many years, the only major study on the topic in Canada.

As research on educational integrity was flourishing in other countries, Canada lagged behind (see Eaton & Edino, 2018). Canadians working in the field of academic integrity often found themselves turning to research and guidance from other countries and attempting to apply those findings to our own context. Although transferring findings from elsewhere can be helpful to an extent, such applications are limited in many ways. Even in the widely referenced *Handbook of Academic Integrity* (Bretag, ed., 2016), a volume spanning more than 1000 pages, there was one chapter that included a focus on Canada, and even then it was done in comparison with another country (see Foeger & Zimmerman, 2016). Although there were other contributors to the handbook who were Canadian (see: Christensen Hughes & Bertram Gallant, 2016; Newton & Lang, 2016; Rogerson & Basanta, 2016), there were no chapters exclusively about Canada.

This book showcases how far Canadians have come in terms of their contributions to the field in the fifteen years since Christensen Hughes & McCabe (2006a, b) published their work. It also highlights unique aspects of the Canadian higher education context. In doing so, it demonstrates how far we have come in the five years since the internationally acclaimed *Handbook on Academic Integrity was published* (Bretag, 2016).

#### **The Significance of Contributions in This Volume**

In this volume, contributors share empirical findings (see deMontigny, 2022; Garwood, 2022; Hamilton & Wolsky, 2022; McNeill, 2022; Packalen & Rowbotham, 2022; Peters et al., 2022; Rossi, 2022), as well as conceptual and other forms of scholarly expertise and insights (see Christensen Hughes, 2022; Christensen Hughes & Eaton, 2022a, b; Crossman, 2022; Eaton & Christensen Hughes, 2022; Foxe et al., 2022; Hunter & Kier, 2022, Miron, 2022; Teymouri et al., 2022, Watson Hamilton, 2022) and perspectives from leadership and professional practice (see Kenny & Eaton, 2022; Morrison & Zachariah, 2022; Morrow, 2022; Penaluna & Ross, 2022; Thacker & McKenzie, 2022). Of particular note are the chapters that broaden understanding of academic integrity beyond the questionable behaviours of students, to include that of faculty, administrators and the history and cultures of institutions of higher learning, as well as those that extend the dialogue around the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) (see Bens, 2022; Kenny & Eaton, 2022; Hamilton & Wolsky, 2022), signalling that academic integrity inquiry can fit within SoTL when the focus is on learning and teaching.

This book builds on previous scholarship in the field, but also brings new insights on topics that have previously received limited or no treatment in the literature. For example, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time Indigenous voices have been included in scholarly discourse on academic integrity (Lindstrom, 2022; Poitras Pratt & Gladue, 2022). Similarly, although restorative practices have been discussed as one approach to addressing breaches of integrity, Sopcak and Hood's (2022) chapter brings new depth to the discussion. We also know that academic integrity at the K-12 level has received inadequate treatment, which Stoesz (2022) addresses in her chapter.

Brenna Clark Gray (2022) addresses questions around the ethics of educational technology, signalling that educators, policy makers and others must pay attention to the ways in which technology will continue to shape education and the ethical complexities that will no doubt bring. Eaton (2022a) presents a historical account of contract cheating in Canada going back more than half a century. These contributions are essential, given the dramatic shift to on-line learning and assessment, as well as the increasingly brazen behaviour of contract cheating companies that have flourished in Canada, becoming billion dollar businesses.

#### *Limitations and Future Directions*

As with any book, ours is not without its limitations. We recognize that although Indigenous contributors have begun an important dialogue about the need to decolonize and Indigenize academic integrity and approaches to educational ethics broadly, the voices of Indigenous scholars included in this volume are from Western Canada. We know that First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples are not a singular monolithic group. We recognize the need to extend the dialogue about how to decolonize ethics and integrity in educational contexts further and engage with others from historically marginalized groups; we see the chapters in this book by Poitras Pratt and Gladue (2022) and Lindstrom (2022) as a starting point, not an end.

As contributors were in the early stages of drafting their chapters in 2020, we heard news of George Floyd's murder in Minneapolis (see Hill et al., 2020) and subsequent news stories of continued racism against Black people and other persons of colour. These occurrences are not limited to the United States, and also happen in Canada and elsewhere. During this time period, the Alberta Council on Academic Integrity (2020) released its Statement Against Racism in Matters Relating to Academic Integrity and others began advancing the dialogue about equity, diversity and inclusion as they relate specifically to academic integrity (see Boisvert et al., 2020; Eaton, 2020; Parnther, 2020); we have yet to fully address the ways in which minoritized students are overrepresented in the reporting of misconduct behaviours or sanctioned differently from White peers. These are important topics that must continue to be addressed through research, policy, practice, and advocacy.

We recognize the invaluable role that higher education professionals play in contributing to cultures of integrity and to the learning supports for students. We are delighted to have chapters that include perspectives from those working in academic integrity offices, student affairs, the library, academic writing centres, quality assurance and other non-academic units within learning institutions (see, for example, Bens, 2022; Foxe et al., 2022; Garwood, 2022; Gray, 2022; Morrow, 2022; Penaluna & Ross, 2022; Sopcak & Hood, 2022; Rossi, 2022; and Thacker & McKenzie, 2022). We know that the voices of higher education professionals and practitioners deserve to be further elevated and amplified and we encourage more knowledge sharing from those who work in non-academic units.

Although the contributors to this volume represent many provinces of Canada, we recognize that not all regions are represented, such as those from the northern territories or the Atlantic provinces. This is both a limitation and an opportunity. As work on ethics and integrity in Canadian educational contexts continues to develop, it is essential to extend the dialogue to all regions of the country.

We acknowledge topics that we have not fully addressed in this volume that merit further inquiry such as engaging students as partners in academic integrity, as well as the ways machine learning and artificial intelligence are rapidly changing how we learn and teach. These omissions are also opportunities and there is no doubt in our minds that Canadians will continue to contribute to the knowledge base of ethics and integrity in educational contexts over time.

#### **Concluding Remarks**

Canadians are no longer obliged to rely on research from other countries to try and understand academic ethics and integrity in our own country. This volume provides a robust compendium of evidence of research, scholarship, and professional practice about academic integrity in Canada that not only showcases new and original thinking, but provides a base for future research, as well as policy and practice development. The chapters also contribute to the growing body of global scholarship on educational integrity, and provide substantive content that may be relevant to readers in other countries.

#### **References**

Watson Hamilton, J. (2022). The distinctive nature of academic integrity in graduate legal education. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), *Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge*. Springer.

**Sarah Elaine Eaton Ph.D.,** is an Associate Professor in the Werklund School of Education and the inaugural Educational Leader in Residence, Academic Integrity, University of Calgary. She is also the Editor-in-Chief of the *International Journal for Educational Integrity* and the author of *Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topics in Academic Integrity* (Eaton, 2021b). Her research focuses on ethics and integrity in higher education and she has led numerous research teams and the local and national levels. Eaton advocates for pro-active and multi-stakeholder approaches to upholding and enacting integrity throughout the academy.

**Julia Christensen Hughes Ph.D.,** has long advocated for ensuring the highest standards of academic integrity in higher education—in teaching, research and administrative practice. Her article, Academic Misconduct within Higher Education in Canada, with the late Don McCabe (published in 2006, in the *Canadian Journal of Higher Education*), received the Sheffield Award for research excellence (2007), from the Canadian Society for Studies in Higher Education. As former and founding Dean of the Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics (2009-2019) at the University of Guelph, Julia was a champion of business ethics, corporate social responsibility and the need for business schools to be aligned with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's). In her new role as President of Yorkville University, Julia is looking forward to supporting and strengthening the institution's long-standing commitment to integrity.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.