Abstract
Purpose: the main objective of this study is to analyze the meanings and perceptions of graduate program students (master's and doctoral students) in Business Administration, as well as professors of graduate programs (PPGs) from different institutions, in relation to possible practices of dishonest behavior and plagiarism in the academic context. It highlights the causes, consequences and meanings of possible practices of dishonest behavior and plagiarism in the academic context, using the theoretical framework of possible reasons for plagiarism and dishonest behavior in this context.
Design/methodology/approach: the perceptions of 28 professors and students were analyzed, extracted from semi-structured interviews and questionnaires, and later analyzed using Flores' categorical analysis, where the qualitative data were reduced, categorized, and coded, capturing the relevant meanings.
Findings: the study highlights the phenomenon of academic dishonesty through reports from professors and students, listing four metacategories: meaning and perception of the phenomenon, causes, consequences and forms of combat, which in turn generated seven other categories.
Practical implications: possible causes and implications of plagiarism are discussed, as well as ways to combat or mitigate the impact of these acts in Business Administration teaching programs, fostering the debate about these deleterious practices in the academic context.
Originality/value: the paper highlights evidence of dishonest behavior in the academy, which is sometimes overlooked by several stricto sensu management postgraduate programs.
Publisher
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
Reference35 articles.
1. Aires, J. P., & Pilatti, L. A. (2017). Medidas de combate ao plágio, adotadas por instituições de ensino superior: uma análise da efetividade das ações na área de ensino. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Ciência e Tecnologia, 10(3), 163-184. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3895/rbect.v10n3.7745
2. Alves, A. P. M., De Castro Silva Casarin, H., & Fernandéz-Molina, J. C. (2016). Uso ético da informação e combate ao plágio: olhares para as bibliotecas universitárias brasileiras. Informação e Sociedade, 26 (1), 115-130. Recuperado de https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/uso-ético-da-informação-e-combate-ao-plágio/docview/1801980726/se-2
3. Baran, L., & Jonason, P. K. (2020). Academic dishonesty among university students: The roles of the psychopathy, motivation, and self-efficacy. Plos one, 15(8), e0238141. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/ ornal.pone.0238141
4. Barrett, R., & Cox, A. L. (2005). ‘At least they’re learning something’: The hazy line between collaboration and collusion. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 107-122. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264226
5. Colares, M. L. I. S., Gonçalves, T. O., Colares, A. A., & Leão, J. P. P. (2011). O professor-pesquisador-reflexivo: debate acerca da formação de sua prática. Olhar de Professor, 14(1), 151-156. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5212/OlharProfr.v.14i1.0009.