TARGETS FOR HONESTY: HOW PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SHAPE INTEGRITY IN DUTCH HIGHER EDUCATION
| Author | SJORS OVERMAN,AGNES AKKERMAN,RENÉ TORENVLIED |
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12282 |
doi : 10. 1111/p adm .12282
TARGETS FOR HONESTY: HOW PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS SHAPE INTEGRITY IN DUTCH HIGHER
EDUCATION
SJORS OVERMAN, AGNES AKKERMAN AND RENÉ TORENVLIED
Universities across the world have recently experienced a number of serious cases of academic mis-
conduct. In the public and academic debates, one dominant explanation exists for the fraudulent
behaviour of university staff. Academic misconduct is considered to be the logical behavioural con-
sequence of output-oriented management practices, based on performance incentives. This article
puts this explanation to the test. Based on our analysis of a dataset of employees in Dutch higher
education (N =4,775) from 2010 and 2012, we argue that performance indicators have a positive
impact on higher education professionals’ perception of integrity in their work environment.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, higher education institutions seem to be more prone to academic misconduct,
such as falsication, fabrication, and plagiarism. Instances of severe violations of academic
integrity were reported, and experts assume that these instances are only the tip of an aca-
demic iceberg (Marshall 2000; Fanelli 2009). Conservative estimates of the prevalence of
such violations of integrity among scientists amount to 1–2 per cent of all published arti-
cles (Steneck 2006; Fanelli 2009). Meanwhile, the number of retracted publications has risen
sharply in the last 15 years (Steen et al. 2013). A Science publication, co-authored by a lead-
ing political scientist, was retracted in May 2015 when the data were shown to be fabricated
(Broockman et al. 2015; Carey 2015). A highly esteemed Dutch professor in social psychol-
ogy fabricated his data at the kitchen table, using a vast number of top-level publications,
among others in Science (Budd 2013).1
It is not only individual academics but also large academic institutions that are vulnera-
ble to misconduct. Dutch institutions of higher education, for example, experienced their
fair share of the phenomenon recently. Major public outrage stirred when a huge case of
diploma fraud was discovered at a Dutch university of applied science in 2011.Several pro-
grammes in that university attempted to improve their diploma rate by hiring so-called
‘output-improvement coaches’. These coaches initiated ‘alternative programmes’ with the
specic aim to increase the diploma rate. The coaches allowed inadequate theses to pass,
and granted credits to students for exams they had never taken (NRC.Next 2011). Follow-
ing an ofcial investigation, the Dutch Inspectorate of Education judged that at least 22 per
cent of the diplomas in the scrutinized programmes had been awarded unjustly (Dutch
Inspectorate for Education 2011).
Confronted with such extreme cases of violations of academic integrity, the general
public and academia commonly respond with a singular and dominant reaction on the
systemic level (Sovacool 2008). They consider the relinguishing of academic integrity
norms to be a rational behavioural consequence of output-oriented management prac-
tices in higher education and academic research. Output-oriented management practices
Sjors Overman is at the School of Governance, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Agnes Akkerman is at the Insti-
tute for Management Research, Radboud University,The Netherlands. René Torenvlied is at the Department of Public
Administration, University of Twente,The Netherlands.
Public Administration Vol.94, No. 4, 2016 (1140–1154)
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial