A short discussion and guide in relation to some possible shortcomings to consider in disciplinary proceedings.Universities have been around for hundreds of years and for all that time, students have been taught not to cheat on their coursework, plagiarise their essays, and copy other students in their exams. So why is it common for students going through non-academic misconduct processes to feel as though the University is creating the process as they go along?
[Note: when I say “Misconduct processes”, I mean non-academic conduct processes, unless otherwise stated. Additionally, I will use a mixture of “disciplinary”, “misconduct” and “conduct” processes to reflect the differences in terminology used across different institutions – this is discussed further in ‘The Importance of Semantics in Responding to Sexual Violence’.]
There might be a few reasons for this feeling of poor quality amongst students going through these processes, including:
Inappropriate initial expectations by the student(s) (importantly, this is not the student's fault or responsibility - see below)
Lack of support or understanding/transparency for students throughout the process
Inappropriate staffing in relation to training, specific experience and/or capacity
Unrealistic expectations by staff in relation to the ‘neatness’ of the case – linked to an inappropriate starting point for non-academic misconduct processes
A horrible combination of points 1-4
Point 1: Expectations are everything. Expectations should be sought, understand, validated where possible, and sensitively corrected where required. Staff, in particular, have a responsibility to set and/ or manage expectations. If staff are unsure of processes or possibilities, assumptions and personal opinions are not helpful. One of my favourite lines with students sometimes is “I don’t know for sure, but I will find out for you”. This reminds the student of your role (it’s probably not your job to know the specifics), keeping the relationship boundaried; and it makes assurances on processes you do have control over (finding out for them), rather than processes you don’t have control over (e.g. the misconduct process). Inappropriate expectations of the student should not be blamed on the student, but they can’t be ignored. Expectations can still be used to challenge a process that’s not working properly. You should question – why does this student expect to be treated in this way? - and adjust if possible and appropriate.
Point 2: Why would you want to go into something that you didn’t understand? Why would you sign up to being asked intrusive questions in relation to possibly the most traumatic experience of your life? Whatever the reasons, the chance of lack of engagement with the process increases with a lowered understanding in what will happen, and a lack of support through it. There are clear parallels that can be made here with Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA) support through a Criminal Justice Process. Although it may not seem necessary, a lack of engagement from any party involved can significantly damage the efficacy and outcome of a case. A lack of engagement = a lack of evidence and information = an ill-informed decision, potentially affecting the safety of your community.
Point 3: Having the wrong staff involved, or having the correct staffing in terms of roles (e.g. having “Case Workers”, “Investigators” etc.) but not having those staff correctly trained, can lead to the effects of Point 2. Experience in similar areas should not give a false sense of security. Dealing with non-academic misconduct in Universities, particularly sexual misconduct*, is still relatively new, so the chances of hiring, or already having, staff in these areas who are appropriately trained are extremely low. Skills and experiences are of course transferable, but this transfer needs to be explicit, and guided by professionals and experts in these specific areas if available.
[*A note on “sexual violence” Vs “sexual misconduct” in ‘The Importance of Semantics in Responding to Sexual Violence’]
Point 4: This is a biggie, so let’s break it down. We need to start where conduct process evolution should also begin. Has your non-academic conduct process been designed mirroring the academic conduct process? Did you start with plagiarism and tweak until you got sexual misconduct (or somewhere close enough)?
Universities will most likely have watertight academic misconduct policies and processes, and it would be quite rare to come across an academic misconduct case that breaks the system. Would it be unrealistic to hope that non-academic misconduct processes get to this point? Non-academic misconduct may never be as ‘neat’ or predictable so, perhaps. However, just because we're striving for the same kind of outcome, it doesn’t mean we should start from the same place. Often, and rightly so, academic misconduct processes come from a place of ‘quality’ and ‘compliance’ to ensure the value of your degree isn’t undermined by your fellow students cheating, plagiarising, or buying their essays online. So, how might non-academic misconduct differ?
The behaviour in non-academic misconduct (particularly interpersonal non-academic misconduct e.g. sexual violence) often directly negatively impacts at least one other person in relation to at least their wellbeing and occasionally physical health
Recalling an incident of non-academic misconduct can potentially be traumatic - sometimes as traumatic at the misconduct itself
Non-academic misconduct could constitute a criminal offence, and therefore, if investigated and charged by the Criminal Justice Process, the reported (‘alleged’/ ‘offending’) student could be left with a criminal record
Non-academic misconduct could affect the wellbeing and safety of your University community as a whole
This is not to say academic misconduct is not serious, it really is in the University context – it’s just consistently much better dealt with, or at least much more comfortably dealt with, than non-academic misconduct.
Managing and effectively dealing with non-academic misconduct, however, is not necessarily a case of ensuring ‘quality’ in terms the value of a degree, it is about protecting the University community and therefore setting standards in a different way. It is about putting the focus on the people within the processes, and doing what is correct, regardless of the impact on the reputation* or ‘quality’ of the University. Although, of course, a University dealing appropriately with non-academic misconduct is a high-quality University in my (and probably most people’s) eyes.
[*Slight detour, but very important point: A lot of Universities see it as more reputationally damaging to acknowledge (internally and externally) needing to do work in the area of sexual violence, rather than not addressing the issue correctly and/ or transparently. Even if work is: happening behind closed doors; there’s “senior leadership buy-in”; and there are the correct, trained staff in post, if the University isn’t leading their own narrative through its communications, the University’s position will be assumed to be apathetic. Having an appropriate response to sexual violence and being able to talk about this sensitively and confidently should be seen as a recruitment incentive as much as being able to talk about the Halls of Residences, or the “research-intensive, cutting edge teaching and learning”.]
Now to the second half of Point 4. In addition to the issues of trying to align non-academic with academic misconduct mentioned above, this may also give staff dealing with these conduct processes an unrealistic expectation around the nature of the case. If you take academic misconduct cases, you can generally investigate to an acceptable level, and make a decision on breach of regulation to an acceptable level (on the balance of probabilities). Investigating and being able to make a decision on a non-academic misconduct case will never be as straight-forward. Without going into detail of investigations and panel hearings here, it’s not unrealistic to suggest that starting from the same place, same process, same expectations, and same personnel as academic misconduct processes, will destine non-academic misconduct processes for failure at worst, inefficacy at best.
So what’s the solution? I’m sure it won’t surprise anyone to know that I probably don’t have that, but I do have some suggestions:
A. Conduct should be seen as a process of resolution, rather than compliance
B. Starting from a point of wellbeing, rather than ‘quality assurance’ or ‘academic progress’, should better ensure: fairness; continued engagement with the process; and a better chance of respect for, and learning from, the process (by all parties).
C. Put the focus on the people, as well as the process
Point A: Dealing with non-academic misconduct processes as an issue of resolution, rather than ‘quality’ or ‘compliance’ broadens the possibilities for acceptable completion – including long-term effects of prevention or lack of escalation of unacceptable behaviours. Introducing local resolution processes, alongside your formal investigation of non-academic misconduct, could allow for processes of mediation, restorative justice, and/ or notification and education for reported students – where appropriate. These wider options may take the pressure off formal investigations and outcomes, and ultimately prevent perpetration to protect your community. [See ‘The Possibilities of Local Resolution’]
Point B: Starting from compliance won’t necessarily eliminate the possibility of fairness, engagement and respect etc., but it won’t be as natural an outcome as if it starts from a perspective of wellbeing and resolution. The purpose of an academic misconduct disciplinary process is not necessarily to ensure engagement, especially if the “evidence” (e.g. a plagiarised essay) was the initial notification of there being an academic conduct issue in the first place. Only the fairness for the ‘reported’ party in an academic misconduct case needs to be considered, as appose to potentially multiple other reporting parties and witnesses in non-academic cases. Throughout the process of an academic misconduct case, there is more of a focus on if the reported student knows of the academic regulations, and how to ensure academic quality and value, compared to the process of a non-academic case where the focus is commonly more so on the alleged behaviours, than the learning that could come from being accused of these behaviours. Shifting to a perspective of resolution (Point 1) can also encourage this learning, alongside fairness and engagement.
Point C: Putting the focus on the people is not just about the students involved, as suggested above, but shining a light on the appropriateness of staffing in non-academic misconduct cases. If needed, the team dealing with academic and non-academic cases should be separated. This is not just due to differences in skills and experience required, but due to not wanting the team to be conflicted. No team should have to decide between dealing with 300 complaints about striking lecturers, 20 plagiarised essays, and 4 sexual misconduct allegations.
This is far from a ‘how-to’ guide and nobody can ensure 100% “success” in this area, especially when we’re not even sure how that should look. However, unless Universities can better reflect deeply on, and provide justification for, every aspect of their processes, they can never improve – for the benefit of both the students, and the organisational community.
Comments