Academic dishonesty in <i>stricto sensu</i> postgraduate programs in accounting

Fróes, Regina Cardoso; Silva, Denise Mendes da

doi:10.1590/1808-057x202113260

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Contabilidade & Finanças

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. contab. finanç. 32 (87) • Sep-Dec 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x202113260 copy

Academic dishonesty in stricto sensu postgraduate programs in accounting

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The aim of this article was to analyze academic dishonesty in stricto sensu postgraduate courses in accounting from the perspective of students, teachers, and teaching institutions. There is a gap in the research on academic dishonesty in stricto sensu postgraduate programs in accounting, especially from the analysis perspective of this study, which considers hypothetical situations classified into five categories of dishonesty: fraud/cheating, helping other students, plagiarism, fabricating information, and self-plagiarism/similarities. The study is important due to the role of stricto sensu postgraduate courses not only in training professionals who work or will work in public and private institutions, but also and primarily in training teachers and researchers. Dishonest behaviors can influence the professional lives of those involved, who are predominantly motivated by opportunistic interests that cause damage to the image of professionals in the area and to society. The data were collected through applying two questionnaires adapted from the studies of Braun and Stallworth (2009) and Oliveira and Chacarolli (2013). Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon statistical tests were used to analyze the data. The findings indicated the existence of an expectations gap between teachers and students regarding academic dishonesty in stricto sensu postgraduate programs in accounting. The significant differences found in perceptions regarding cases of dishonesty underline the difficulty for students and teachers to evaluate what is dishonest or not in situations of fraud/cheating and helping other students to engage in academic dishonesty. The differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions may occur due to a lack of clear rules in the teaching institutions. Therefore, universities could undertake actions to address/prevent dishonest behaviors by establishing internal regulations and promoting discussions involving the whole academic community.

Keywords:
academic dishonesty; penalties; stricto sensu postgraduate programs; accounting

Categories	Academically dishonest behaviors
1. Fraud/cheating	Using notes in an exam; copying another student during a test; using some method to obtain a test before it is applied; copying a peer without authorization during an exam; helping someone else cheat in a test; cheating in some way in an assessment; actively and passively cheating; multiple paper submissions; deception and adulteration (falsifying signatures, letters, and credentials); concealment (benefiting from a mistaken grade or deceiving the teacher, pretending not to have noticed); lies and manipulation; using false information for self-benefit, including emotional appeal; manipulation of rules set by the teacher, using them in your favor, or refusing to apply those rules, as they are detrimental to you; dishonesty through computational access.
2. Helping other students	Receiving unauthorized help in a task; collaborating in an individual task when the teacher asked for it to be done alone; forging participation in a group; working in a group in a segmented way.
3. Plagiarism	Copying material, transforming it into your own work; copying phrases from published material without providing the appropriate reference.
4. Fabricating information	Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography; transforming a paper written by someone else; altering or inventing data from practical classroom reports, from an experiment, or manipulation of data to force a result.
5. Self-plagiarism/similarities	Self-plagiarism: “A case in which a text is identified as having a high degree of similarity with other texts from the same author” (Diniz, 2015Diniz, E. H. (2015). Similaridade e plagiarismo: novos desafios para a gestão de periódicos científicos. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 55(3), 239-239. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020150301 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-7590201503... , p. 239). Self-plagiarism is used as productivism, that is, the author benefits again through recognition of something that was already communicated. Similarity in research is linked to productivism. It is popularly known as “salami research.” Similarity can be treated in two ways: similarities in whole articles, where one article is actually divided into two; and similarity in sections of articles, where material is retrieved from one article to be used in another.

Categories	Situations	Components of the situations (cases)
1. Fraud/cheating	1	1A (gray);
1. Fraud/cheating	1	1B (dishonest)
2. Helping other students	2	2A (dishonest);
2. Helping other students	2	2B (gray)
3. Plagiarism	3 and 4	3A (dishonest);
		3B (honest);
		4B (dishonest)
4. Fabricating information	5	5A (dishonest);
4. Fabricating information	5	5B (honest)
5. Self-plagiarism/similarities	4 and 6	4A (gray);
		6A (gray);
		6B (honest)

	1 Fraud/cheating		2. Helping other students		3. Plagiarism			4. Fabricating information		5. Self-plagiarism/similarities
Situations	1A	1B	2A	2B	3A	3B	4B	5A	5B	4A	6A	6B
Students
Mean	3.49	6.34	4.90	1.13	7.58	1.56	9.65	9.12	0.84	7.11	5.32	0.92
SD	3.06	3.42	3.28	2.73	3.17	2.98	1.65	1.81	2.68	2.95	3.58	2.15
Median	4.00	7.00	5.00	0.00	9.00	0.00	10.00	10.00	0.00	8.00	5.00	0.00
CV %	87.64	53.85	66.85	242.44	41.81	191.55	17.10	19.82	320.43	41.53	67.28	234.50
Teachers
Mean	4.54	7.60	6.44	1.57	8.43	1.17	9.04	9.17	0.63	7.90	7.51	1.57
SD	3.45	2.86	2.73	2.83	2.47	2.64	2.85	2.29	1.79	2.65	2.45	3.13
Median	5.00	8.00	7.00	0.00	10.00	0.00	10.00	10.00	0.00	9.00	8.00	0.00
CV %	76.16	37.69	42.34	179.99	29.34	225.97	31.53	24.99	287.02	33.49	32.66	199.76

Category	Situation	Perception		p-value
Category	Situation	Students (mean)	Teachers (mean)	p-value
1. Fraud/cheating	1A	3.49	4.54	0.063
1. Fraud/cheating	1B	6.34	7.60	0.023*
2. Helping other students	2A	4.90	6.44	0.009*
2. Helping other students	2B	1.13	1.57	0.063
3. Plagiarism	3A	7.58	8.43	0.071
	3B	1.56	1.17	0.886
	4B	9.65	9.04	0.166
4. Fabricating information	5A	9.12	9.17	0.113
4. Fabricating information	5B	0.84	0.63	0.060
5. Self-plagiarism/similarities	4A	7.11	7.90	0.112
	6A	5.32	7.51	0.001*
	6B	0.92	1.57	0.119

Categories	Situation	Perception		p-value	Perception		p-value
Categories	Situation	Students (mean)	Students-teachers (mean)	p-value	Teachers (mean)	Teachers-students (mean)	p-value
1. Fraud/cheating	1A	3.49	4.90	0.000*	4.54	2.29	0.000*
1. Fraud/cheating	1B	6.34	7.06	0.002*	7.60	4.18	0.000*
2. Helping other students	2A	4.96	5.10	0.589	6.47	3.34	0.000*
2. Helping other students	2B	1.29	1.25	0.246	1.60	1.52	0.615
3. Plagiarism	3A	7.22	7.48	0.813	8.43	5.38	0.000*
	3B	1.99	1.65	0.131	1.17	1.17	0.671
	4B	9.51	9.56	0.059	9.04	6.86	0.000*
4. Fabricating information	5A	9.19	8.95	0.300	9.17	7.54	0.000*
4. Fabricating information	5B	1.35	1.13	0.141	0.63	0.67	0.414
5. Self-plagiarism/similarities	4A	6.53	7.58	0.021*	7.90	4.84	0.000*
	6A	5.32	5.81	0.011*	7.51	4.83	0.000*
	6B	0.92	0.93	1.000	1.57	1.17	0.108

Categories	Situation	Perception		p-value	Perception		p-value
Categories	Situation	Students-teachers (mean)	Teachers (mean)	p-value	Teachers-students (mean)	Students (mean)	p-value
1. Fraud/cheating	1A	4.90	4.54	0.452	2.29	3.49	0.033*
1. Fraud/cheating	1B	7.06	7.60	0.626	4.18	6.34	0.000*
2. Helping other students	2A	5.10	6.44	0.009*	3.34	4.90	0.010*
2. Helping other students	2B	1.25	1.57	0.060	1.52	1.13	0.154
3. Plagiarism	3A	7.48	8.43	0.057	5.38	7.58	0.000*
	3B	1.65	1.17	0.907	1.17	1.56	0.703
	4B	9.56	9.04	0.506	6.86	9.65	0.000*
4. Fabricating information	5A	8.95	9.17	0.084	7.54	9.12	0.000*
4. Fabricating information	5B	1.13	0.63	0.238	0.67	0.84	0.100
5. Self-plagiarism/similarities	4A	7.58	7.90	0.552	4.84	7.11	0.000*
	6A	5.81	7.51	0.015*	4.83	5.32	0.426
	6B	0.93	1.57	0.122	1.17	0.92	0.321

Category	Situation	Case	Perception		p-value
Category	Situation	Case	Students (mean)	Teachers (mean)	p-value
1. Fraud/cheating	1A	Gray	3.49	4.54	0.063
1. Fraud/cheating	1B	Dishonest	6.34	7.60	0.023*
2. Helping other students	2A	Dishonest	4.90	6.44	0.009*
2. Helping other students	2B	Gray	1.13	1.57	0.063
3. Plagiarism	3A	Dishonest	7.58	8.43	0.071
	3B	Honest	1.56	1.17	0.886
	4B	Dishonest	9.65	9.04	0.166
4. Fabricating information	5A	Dishonest	9.12	9.17	0.113
4. Fabricating information	5B	Honest	0.84	0.63	0.060
5. Self-plagiarism/similarities	4A	Gray	7.11	7.90	0.112
	6A	Gray	5.32	7.51	0.001*
	6B	Honest	0.92	1.57	0.119

Hypothesis	Comparisons	Results
H₁: students’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding academic dishonesty in stricto sensu postgraduate courses in accounting in Brazil are different.	Teachers versus students	Rejected
H_1a: students are less strict in their assessment of academic dishonesty than teachers, in the students’ view.	Students versus students-teachers	Partially rejected
H_1b: teachers are stricter than students in their assessment of academic dishonesty, in the teachers’ view.	Teachers versus teachers-students	Partially rejected
H_1c: students perceive teachers’ assessments in relation to academic dishonesty as being stricter than they really are.	Students-teachers versus teachers	Rejected
H_1d: teachers perceive students’ assessments in relation to academic dishonesty as being less strict that they really are.	Teachers-students versus students	Partially rejected
H₂: differences in perceptions of academic dishonesty are more likely to occur in gray cases, that is, in situations that are hard to classify as honest or dishonest.	Students versus teachers	Rejected

				Penalties (%)
Category	Situation	Case	Student	NP	RA	RZWA	DC	Total
Students
1. Fraud/cheating	1A	Gray	Catarina	82.56	8.14	5.81	3.49	100.00
			Jonas	74.42	19.77	2.33	3.49	100.00
	1B	Dishonest	Antônia	33.72	23.26	29.07	13.95	100.00
			Anderson	32.56	33.72	27.91	5.81	100.00
2. Helping other students	2A	Dishonest	Rafael	81.40	4.65	11.63	2.33	100.00
2. Helping other students	2B	Gray	Roberta	93.02	3.49	2.33	1.16	100.00
3. Plagiarism	3A	Dishonest	Henrique	12.79	43.02	29.07	15.12	100.00
	3B	Honest	Paula	82.56	15.12	1.16	1.16	100.00
	4B	Dishonest	Angélica	1.16	12.79	23.26	62.79	100.00
4. Fabricating information	5A	Dishonest	João Pedro	1.16	41.86	30.23	26.74	100.00
4. Fabricating information	5B	Honest	Cinthia	95.35	1.16	1.16	2.33	100.00
5. Self-plagiarism/similarities	4A	Gray	André	18.60	47.67	25.58	8.14	100.00
	6A	Gray	Márcia	44.19	23.26	20.93	11.63	100.00
	6B	Honest	Carlos	95.35	3.49	0.00	1.16	100.00
Teachers
1. Fraud/cheating	1A	Gray	Catarina	70.83	12.50	12.50	4.17	100.00
			Jonas	68.75	16.67	12.50	2.08	100.00
	1B	Dishonest	Antônia	31.25	14.58	37.50	16.67	100.00
			Anderson	29.17	25.00	35.42	10.42	100.00
2. Helping other students	2A	Dishonest	Rafael	47.92	18.75	27.08	6.25	100.00
2. Helping other students	2B	Gray	Roberta	95.83	2.08	2.08	0.00	100.00
3. Plagiarism	3A	Dishonest	Henrique	6.25	41.67	27.08	25.00	100.00
	3B	Honest	Paula	91.67	4.17	4.17	0.00	100.00
	4B	Dishonest	Angélica	2.08	12.50	16.67	68.75	100.00
4. Fabricating information	5A	Dishonest	João Pedro	2.08	25.00	20.83	52.08	100.00
4. Fabricating information	5B	Honest	Cinthia	97.92	2.08	0.00	0.00	100.00
5. Self-plagiarism/similarities	4A	Gray	André	8.33	41.67	31.25	18.75	100.00
	6A	Gray	Márcia	12.50	41.67	22.92	22.92	100.00
	6B	Honest	Carlos	87.50	10.42	0.00	2.08	100.00

Teaching institutions	Type of document with information about academic dishonesty
	General statute		PGP regulations		Disciplinary code
	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
State University of West Paraná (UNIOESTE)		x		x		x
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)		x	x		x
Mackenzie Presbiterian University (UPM)	*		*		x
Foundation Institute for Accounting, Actuarial, and Financial Research (FIPECAFI)	*		*		*
Pontifical Catholic University (PUC)**	*		x
University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS)	*		x
State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)	*		x
Federal University of Ceará (UFC)	x		*
Community University of the Chapecó Region (UNOCHAPECÓ)	x		*
University of Brasília (UNB)	x		*
Regional University of Blumenau (FURB)	x		*
Álvares Penteado Foundation School of Commerce (FECAP)	x			x
Capixaba Foundation Institute for Accounting, Economic, and Financial Research (FUCAPE)***	x			x
Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE)	x			x
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)	x			x
Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG)	x			x
Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES)	x			x
Federal University of Paraíba (UFPB)****	x		x
Federal University of Goiás (UFG)	x		x
Federal University of Uberlândia (UFU)	x		x
Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)	x		x
University of São Paulo (USP)*****		x	x
State University of Maringá (UEM)		x	x
Federal University of Paraná (UFPR)		x	x
Federal University of Bahia (UFBA)		x		x
Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC)		x		X
Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS)		x		X
Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG)		x		X
Federal Rural University of Pernambuco (UFRPE)		x		X

Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade, Departamento de Contabilidade e Atuária Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 908 - prédio 3 - sala 118, 05508 - 010 São Paulo - SP - Brasil, Tel.: (55 11) 2648-6320, Tel.: (55 11) 2648-6321, Fax: (55 11) 3813-0120 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: recont@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Email:
regina.froes@unimontes.br