Procedure for Academic Misconduct Investigation and Sanction
1.Scope
This procedure applies to all students registered at DCU as follows:
• Section 1 to 5 are applicable to students registered for taught programmes/modules1
• Section 6 is applicable to students registered for research programmes
• The appendices are applicable to students registered for taught programmes/modules
This procedure should be read in conjunction with DCU’s Academic Integrity Policy and be used as a resource to academic staff dealing with cases of potential breaches of academic integrity. In line with the National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN) Framework for Academic Misconduct Investigation and Case Management (NAIN Framework), it is recognised that there are six stages aligned to the Lifecycle of Academic Misconduct, this procedure adopts these stages and the supporting guidance contained within.
The process for dealing with alleged academic misconduct is outlined in the flowchart in Appendix I.
Breaches of examination regulations are outside the scope of this procedure. If required, please refer to DCU Examination Regulations.
The NAIN Framework outlines nine guiding principles for substantiating suspected cases of academic misconduct:
1. Educate
Ensure all staff and students are aware of the signals that can indicate student academic misconduct.
2. Investigate
One or two signals do not provide enough evidence to substantiate cheating but can provide cause for further investigation. All suspected cases of academic misconduct should be investigated.
3. Use policy
Cases of academic misconduct should be dealt with in accordance with the DCU Academic Integrity Policy and Academic Misconduct Procedures.
4. Balance of probabilities
Decisions as to the commission of academic misconduct should be based on “balance of probability”, not ‘beyond doubt’.
The balance of probabilities principle is based on ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true. This is less demanding than the legal test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
5. Examine
Look carefully at each aspect of the document and other relevant sources of evidence.
6. Collect evidence
Accumulate a range of evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes the firm belief that academic misconduct is not only probable, but highly probable. The level of evidence must support the assessed severity of the case.
7. Use experience
Decide how much weight to give to each piece of evidence, based on common sense, everyday experience, and experience of previous instances of academic misconduct.
8. Ensure natural justice
Allow the learner to have an opportunity to explain and demonstrate how they developed their assignment.
9. Evaluate
Weigh up all the evidence to form an overall picture that provides clear and convincing evidence on the ‘balance of probability’ that cheating has or has not occurred.
Prevention of academic misconduct is far preferable to detection and punishment. Students should be educated on all aspects of academic integrity, from as early as possible in their student lifecycle. DCU’s Academic Integrity Policy details the education and awareness training provided by the University and the responsibility of both academic and students in promoting academic integrity.
The NAIN Framework advises that ‘all cases of suspected academic misconduct should be investigated to assure the integrity of the assessment work completed by student. The purpose of this Stage is to differentiate between cases of academic misconduct and cases whereby the student has a poor understanding of the writing conventions or requirements for the assessment or examination in question. If the decision is that the work represents poor practice rather than academic misconduct, the work should be marked on that basis and feedback given to the student as to how to improve their practice moving forward. If it is alleged that academic misconduct has occurred, an investigation must be conducted and the evidence of the alleged academic misconduct documented.
Potential cases of academic misconduct should be investigated as soon as possible once suspected and the investigation completed in a timely manner.
If the academic staff member to whom the assessment is submitted is satisfied that there is a case to answer, they must complete a report in writing (see Appendix III) to the School Academic Misconduct representative (designated School staff member responsible for managing academic misconduct cases, for example Programme Chair, School Teaching and Learning Convenor).
The report must include:
a) The relevant material (dissertations, essays, code, diagrams, video, audio, web pages, etc.), including a web link for Internet sources.
b) Academic Misconduct: an explanation as to how the student’s submitted work constitutes academic misconduct.
c) Sample Evidence: a brief textual analysis – for example, but not limited to, identical work, or portions of work, from different students; presenting others’ work as the student’s own; absent or misleading references, use of a contract cheating site, and evidence supporting this analysis.
3.1 Local Process
The student's record will be checked for previous instances of academic misconduct. The severity of the alleged academic misconduct will be assessed at School level using the classification detailed in section 4.2 of this document. Depending on the assessed classification the case may either be handled through a local process or referred directly to the University Disciplinary Committee.
An interview will be arranged between the student, member of staff taking the case, and the School Academic Misconduct representative to allow the student concerned to respond to the allegation of academic misconduct. This interview may be conducted electronically or face to face.
The interview panel will involve, at a minimum, the School representative and another academic member of staff (for example, the staff member who identified the alleged misconduct). As part of the interview process, the student will be asked if they have ever had any allegation of academic misconduct upheld before, either in DCU or elsewhere. The allegation of academic misconduct will be explained to the student with the evidence explained. The student will then be given the opportunity to refute the allegation or outline any mitigating circumstances involved in their case.
The student is entitled to have an observer present during the interview. The interview panel must be notified, at least 48 hours in advance of such planned observer attendance, including the name of the observer and their relationship to the student. This observer may not be a legal representative. The role of the observer is as a support and an observer for the student, not an advocate. As such, they will not speak or otherwise intervene in the proceedings.
Communications with the student and interview records must be retained initially by the relevant academic staff member. If the allegation of academic misconduct is not upheld, all records of the alleged instance must be destroyed/deleted. If the allegation is upheld, the records will not be destroyed/deleted at the end of the academic year and will be retained by the relevant Faculty Office according to the University’s data retention policy. An allegation that is upheld should be notified to the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning for noting at Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee.
The student can waive the interview with the School panel and have the matter referred to the University Disciplinary Committee. The matter must be referred to the University Disciplinary Committee if the student retains legal representation, for example a solicitor.
In the case where a student accepts that there has been an instance of academic misconduct
and accepts the relevant sanction, the interview is not necessary. The normal timeframe given
for student response to an alleged academic integrity breach is five working days.
3.2 Referral to University Disciplinary Committee
Depending on their severity, some cases of alleged academic misconduct may be referred directly to University Disciplinary Committee. Notification of such action must be sent to the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning for noting at Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee (notification of final outcome must also be sent by the School Academic Misconduct representative). All communication with the student will be recorded and copies retained by all relevant parties initially. If the allegation of academic misconduct is not upheld by the Disciplinary Committee all official records of the alleged offence must be destroyed/deleted. If the allegation is upheld by the Disciplinary Committee the records will be retained according to the University’s data retention policy.
There are four factors to be considered when classifying the level of severity of academic misconduct:
-
Category 1 ‘Types of Violations’: consideration of whether the case is considered as basic violations, limited plagiarism, extensive plagiarism, collusion, falsification / fabrication, fraud / impersonation, or contract cheating. A description of each of these concerns is included in Appendix IV.
-
Category 2 ‘Stage’: the student’s current stage on their programme of study i.e. year 1, year 2, year 3 or 4 (not final), final year, Masters year 1, or Masters year 2 or beyond.
-
Category 3 ‘Assessment Weighting’: the weighting of the assessment(s) under consideration with respect to the total module mark.
-
Category 4 ‘Prior breaches’: takes into consideration if a student has had a previous case of academic misconduct upheld locally or by University Disciplinary Committee.
The Academic Misconduct Calculation Sheet (Appendix V) should be used to provide a score based on the considerations listed above. The score will indicate the level of academic misconduct that has occurred. This level is then mapped to sanctions that can be imposed at a local level, as outlined in the Rubric to map classifications of Academic Misconduct to Sanctions (Appendix VI). There are three levels of academic misconduct, these have been adopted from the NAIN Framework and amended to reflect current DCU practices:
-
Level 1 Infringement
Sanctions applied at the local level include mandatory academic integrity training, a formal reprimand, and may include a lower mark or a mark of zero being applied to the assessment component.
-
Level 2 Infringement
Sanctions applied at the local level include mandatory academic integrity training, a formal reprimand, and may include a lower mark or grade of zero being applied to the complete assessment, and a lower mark or a zero mark for the module.
-
Level 3 Infringement
Level 3 infringements are referred to the University Disciplinary Committee.
In any case where a student does not complete the mandatory academic integrity training their mark will be withheld.
The full implication of any penalty must be made clear to the student, including potential impact for progression and/or award.
The University Disciplinary Committee may impose higher sanctions, including suspension from the University for a year or permanent exclusion from the University.
5.1 Faculty Record of Sanction
Where the allegation is upheld at local level, or referred to University Disciplinary Committee, a record of the sanction must be kept at Faculty level. Notification of sanction must be sent to the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning for noting at Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. Any sanction noted at Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee should be notified to Registry, including confirmation of the level of the sanction imposed and what module it refers to. This centrally held information (level of breach and sanction imposed) will feed into the classification of any further instances of suspected academic misconduct.
5.2 Outcome of Local process
Students should be informed promptly in writing of the outcome of the local process.
A student must be informed that if they do not accept the outcome of the local process, they have the right to have the case heard from the beginning by the University Disciplinary Committee. In such cases Registry should be advised so that appropriate revisions to the centrally held flag on the student record can be made.
Allegations of unacceptable academic or research practices such as falsification of data are dealt with under DCU’s Policy for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct.
A judgement as to whether or not academic misconduct has occurred is integral to the examination of research reports submitted for formal assessment (such as at confirmation of a research student on the PhD register, and at award stage). The recommendations of the examiners, in line with Academic Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees by Research and Thesis, reflect the outcome of this evaluation.
In cases where academic misconduct is alleged subsequent to the awarding of credit, DCU may invoke the Policy for the Revocation of University Awards or Credits, or the Policy for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct and may, if the allegations are upheld and the offence serious, revoke the credits or award given.
This procedure will be reviewed by University Standards Committee after the first year of operation and thereafter, every three years of operation. Any updated procedure will be referred to Academic Council for approval.
NAIN (2023), Framework for Academic Misconduct Investigation and Case Management, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), August 2023 (1st edition) https://www.qqi.ie/sites/default/files/2023-09/NAIN%20Framework%20for%20%20Academic%20Misconduct%20Investigation%20and%20Case%20Management%202023.pdf