National College of Business

Administration and Economics

Lahore

TITLE OF THE THESIS TITLE OF THE

THESIS TITLE OF THE THESIS TITLE OF
THE THESIS

BY

NAME OF THE STUDENT

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
YOUR DISCIPLINE YOUR DISIPLINE YOUR
DISIPLINE

December, 2016
 NATIONAL COLLEGE OF
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND
ECONOMICS

TITLE OF THE THESIS TITLE OF THE

THESIS TITLE OF THE THESIS TITLE OF
THE THESIS

BY
NAME OF THE STUDENT

A dissertation submitted to
School of Business Administration

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
YOUR DISCIPLINE YOUR DISIPLINE YOUR DISIPLINE

December, 2016
In the name of ALLAH,
The Most Beneficial,
The Most Merciful,
 NATIONAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMICS
LAHORE
TITLE OF THE THESIS TITLE OF THE THESIS
TITLE OF THE THESIS TITLE OF THE THESIS

BY
NAME OF THE STUDENT

A dissertation submitted to School of Business Administration, in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN YOUR DISCIPLINE YOUR

DISIPLINE
Dissertation Committee:

_____________________
Chairman

_____________________
Member

_____________________
Member
___________________
Rector
National College of Business
Administration and Economics
 DECLARATION

It is to declare that this research work has not been submitted for
obtaining similar degree from any other university/college.

NAME OF THE STUDENT

December, 2016
 DEDICATED
TO

XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RESEARCH COMPLETION CERTIFICATE

Certified that the research work contained in this thesis entitled

“Title of the thesis Title of the thesis Title of the thesis” has been carried out
and completed by Name of the student under my supervision during his
Ph.D. your discipline your discipline your discipline Programme.

(Dr. xyzxyzxyz)
Supervisor
 SUMMARY
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx.
 LIST OF TABLES
Table No Table Title Page No
1.1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2.1

2.2

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

3.7
3.8

3.9

3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17

3.18
3.19
4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
5.1

5.2
5.3
5.3.1

5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10

5.11

5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16

5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No Figure Title Page No
2.1
3.1
3.2

3.3
3.4
4.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
 ABBREVIATIONS
XYX xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ABCD xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
SUMMARY
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABBREVIATIONS

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Context and Scene Setting
1.2 Problem Area and Research Emphasis
1.3 Key Research Questions and Research Objectives
1.4 Research Methodology
1.5 Key Definitions
1.5.1 xxxxxxxxx
1.5.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1.6 Thesis Organization

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 xxxxxxxxxx
2.1.1 xxxxxxxxx
2.1.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2.1.3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2.1.4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2.1.4.1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2.2.1 xxxxxxxxxxx
2.2.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2.2.2.1 xxxxxxx
2.2.2.2 xxxxxxxxxx
2.2.2.3 xxxxxxxxxx
2.2.2.4 xxxxxxxxxx
2.2.2.5 xxxxxxxxxx

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 xxxxxxxxxx

3.2 xxxxxxxxxx
3.3 xxxxxxxxxx Data Collection
Chapter 4: RESULTS
4.1 xxxxxxxxxx
4.1.1 xxxxxxxxxx
4.1.1.1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4.1.1.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4.1.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4.1.2.1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4.1.2.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4.1.2.3 Integrtiy Awarness Program

Chapter 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.2.1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.2.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.2.3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.2.3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5.5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

REFERENCES
ANNEXURE-A: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ANNEXURE-B: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ANNEXURE-C: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ANNEXURE-D:
ANNEXURE-E:
ANNEXURE-F:
ANNEXURE-G:
ANNEXURE-H:
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT AND SCENE SETTING

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx

1.2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Table 1.1
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sr
 Source:http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/QALI/Others/Pages/-Enrollment.aspx and
http://www.hec.gov.pk/insidehec/divisions/qali/others/Pages/StatisticalInformationUnit.aspx

Considering the significance of the study it is recognized that previously

there have been numerous attempts to examine integrity in HEIs in different
settings within different cultural context; nevertheless these studies carry some
limitations that have encouraged the current study. For instance preceding
studies either used qualitative research methods (e.g., Rossouw and Vuuren,
2003; Macaulay, Newman and Hickey, 2014) or quantitative techniques (e.g.,
Itzkovich and Alt, 2015; Denisova-Schmidt et al., 2016), whereas mixed
method approach; both qualitative and quantitative research, has not been
deployed yet, which the present study adopts. It is expected that the strength of
the present study could be enriched with quantitative approach blended with
analysis of the focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews
(Fowler, 2009).

Second, to best of our knowledge there is not any single framework yet
proposed covering both set of activities; administrative and academic to
measure integrity level by computing HEI integrity index. Most of the relevant
research has either focused on academic misconducts, or administrative
integrity issues in HEIs, whereas our study is coupling both. Furthermore,
relatively, even less is discussed and identified about integrity in HEIs of
Pakistan’s public sector, up to now, no study has had an explicit emphasis on
exploring a framework that could compute HEI integrity index reflecting the
level of integrity in Pakistan’s HEIs. Without having the framework (which is
one of the outcomes of extensive literature review and qualitative research)
there is a potential risk of overlooking factors that may contribute toward
institutional integrity. Thus, there seems to have a need to fill this gap.

Building on the argument given above, it is important to develop a

geographically contextualized holistic approach that fully encapsulates
integrity issues in HEIs. Thus, the key aim of this thesis is to offer a framework
that reveals the level of integrity in HEIs by computing integrity index using
multipronged approach in the context of Pakistan’s public sector higher
education.

1.3 KEY RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

 Keeping in mind the public sector HEIs of Pakistan, the current research
aims to answer some key research questions, for instance (i) what are the most
significant integrity issues?, (ii) what factors influence the integrity of any HEI
the most? (iii) what could be the holistic approach to comprehend integrity of
any HEI? and (iv) how can we measure the integrity level of any HEI? These
questions lead us to the objectives of this study.

An objective of this investigation, among others is to identify critical

factors that assure integrity and its magnitude in HEIs, encompassing
administrative and academic activities. Moreover this thesis contributes in
theoretical and methodological aspects to explore the integrity framework,
customized to HEIs in Pakistan. The argument is that beside commonalities,
the issue of integrity is rather contextualized, thus, any research in the field of
integrity must not overlook such aspect.

Hence, the outcomes of the study focus on guiding investigators, policy-

makers, consultants, and educators in dissemination of the identified critical
factors to compute HEI integrity index that measure the magnitude of integrity
in HEIs and suggest corrective measures accordingly. This study thus
contributes to new knowledge in three (3) areas. First, the results of current
research deliver a better understanding of the integrity issues in HEIs of
Pakistan. Second, specific and most critical factors have been identified that
build up integrity structure of HEI. Third, this study offers a comprehensive,
multipronged and pragmatic mechanism integrity index of any HEI. Comment [DAA1]: Wouldn’t it be better if stated
in bullets?

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To accomplish the research objectives outlined above, a ‘positivism’

paradigm is adopted for our research design. Positivism believes that research
processes in social science could perhaps adapt the same operative mechanism
used by the natural scientists (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 2002). This opinion
encourages the application of the methods of natural sciences to investigate
social reality (Bryman and Bell, 2007). To know about the reality; through
positivism lens, the researchers mainly trust on the use of scientific methods,
for instance experiments or surveys to acquire rigorous and meticulous results
(Neuman, 1997). Bryman and Bell (2007) advocated that it is extremely
possible that the reality could be encapsulated, via the use of research
instruments such as survey questionnaires.
 As this thesis intends to propose a integrity framework to compute HEI
integrity index that represents the level of integrity in any HEI, therefore
primarily the quantitative research approach was proposed. But prior to
empirical examination a qualitative method was used by conducting focus
group discussions (FGDs) and semi-structured interviews to construct a
conceptual framework. Afterward the quantitative research design involves
developing rationale, grounded in the review of prior literature and qualitative Comment [DAA2]: Rationale? Right?

analysis; employing the survey instrument like the questionnaire, to collect

data for testing and analysis; and using statistical techniques and self-designed
formula to compute integrity index. These activities are in line with the
positivist paradigm, as suggested by Bryman and Bell (2007). Based on the
above, the study has been conducted in following steps:

• Thorough literature review present an overview of the prevailing

knowledge in the area of anti-corruption and integrity approach to curb
corruption, in the global context as well as in the context of Pakistan’s
public sector HEIs.

• Collection of data through FGDs and semi-structured interviews with

experienced individuals in the sector, and students to develop a
conceptual framework, whereby relevant variables/ themes are generated
that contribute toward integrity of HEIs.

• Collection of quantitative data from an HEI of Pakistan and calculating

integrity index of selected university using the proposed framework and
integrity scores.
1.5 KEY DEFINITIONS

There are two (2) pivotal words; corruption and integrity, around which
this thesis orbits. Section below provides definitions of these two opposing
concepts, offered by different scholars, and at the close of following section we
present our operational definition that we will carry throughout our study.

1.5.1 Corruption

In a scholarly debate defining corruption is a Herculean and Sisyphean

act; Herculean because doing so involves extremely enormous volume of
historical knowledge, and it is Sisyphean because human perception about
corruption has grown and still evolves over time, therefore today’s acceptable
behavior may be considered deviant or corrupt in the times yet to come. But
scholarly movement to define corruption was never stationary. Most of the
scholars agree that a general “one line fits all” definition of corruption is
perhaps unattainable (Philps, 1997), still the question arises that what exactly is
corruption?

The definition matters because how corruption is defined results in

efforts to fight it. Word ‘corruption’, derived from a Latin term ‘Corruptus’
translated as ‘to break’, has various meanings. Literally, it means a broken
object and conceptually, it means “impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral
principle; inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means” (Wikipedia);
corrupt means crooked; not straight; dishonest or immoral or evasive
(Webster’s dictionary). According to the Oxford English dictionary
“corruption means to destroy by putrid decomposition; to turn from a sound
into an unsound condition; to infect, taint and render morbid”. It means to
destroy the moral purity or chastity; induce to act dishonestly or unfaithfully,
and by the ‘Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon’ “corruption is an act done with an
intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of
others”. In a layman’s terms corruption is a dishonest practice or an
illegitimate exchange of resources; accepting money, or asking favors in return
of doing some legal or illegal job for others.

In early years of the discussion on corruption, the division was among

moralists and revisionists illustrated differences over the outcomes of
corruption. The moralists collectively denounced corruption because they
believed corruption as a curse on the social, economic and political welfare of
society. Instead the revisionists claimed that objectivity must not be
overlooked while studying and defining corruption. Even for revisionists
corruption is not always damaging, in reality it should be considered
unavoidable and essential function of the adjustment process (Leff, 1964;
Bayley, 1966; Nye, 1967; Huntington, 1968). Revisionist view of corruption
was confronted in the mid and late 1970s by scholars of next generation, like
Krueger (1974) and Ackerman (1978). They contended that corruption or
deviant behavior is not a structural phenomenon or necessary element of
adjustment process rather an individual choice that maximizes benefits for the
individuals involved, but ultimately damages society. Moreover, a considerable
amount of scholars advocated that corruption should be studied in the context
of the institutional structures in which they exist.
 Then the debate shifted among public office, market and public interest-
centered definitions in the following years. Although the debate on defining
corruption never fully resolved, but the public office centered approach gained
extensive acceptance in the 1980s and 1990s; among those Joe Nye’s
definition was most popular that says “Corruption is behavior which deviates
from the formal duties of public role (elective or appointive) because of private
gain (personal, close family, private clique), wealth or status gains; or violates
rules against the exercise of certain types of private influence” (Nye, 1967).
International organizations and aid agencies converge on a public-centered
definition, and their working definition of corruption is an abuse/ misuse of
public office/ entrusted power/ for private direct or indirect gain/ benefit that
hampers public interest” (World Bank, 1997; USAID, 1999; NACS, 2002;
UNO, 2004; TI, 2013). In fact the public office-centered approach dominates
the recent literature and our study considers the same approach most workable.

The operational definition of corruption for our study is - corruption is a

deviant behavior that breaks norms and explicit code of conduct, and abuses/
misuses public office/ entrusted power, for private financial or nonfinancial
and direct or indirect gain.

1.5.2 Integrity

Integrity is a simple and extensively used term in our regular discussion

on and about corruption. Though, researchers such as Becker, DeFond,
Jiambalvo and Subramanyam (1998), Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) have
openly admitted the lack of clarity in the meaning of integrity. Mentioning the
wide variety of meanings of integrity, Audi and Murphy (2006) propose that
clarification of what one means by integrity is an initial requirement to further
the discussion.

In Webster’s New World Dictionary ‘integrity’ is defined as: “i. the

quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety; ii.
the quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition; soundness; and iii.
the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and
sincerity”. Thus integrity is the personal characteristic of consistency, honesty,
and trustworthiness (Peterson and Seligman, 2004; Yukl and Van Fleet, 1992).

Some authors (e.g. Trevino, Hartman and Brown, 2000; Worden, 2003;
Lowe, 2006) have picked up on its common theme and mentioned that
integrity is all about wholeness. After noticing the numerous uses of integrity,
Koehn (2005) describes integrity as the “precondition for being human”. The
behavioral view of integrity considers it as a consistency in behavior; the
perceived match between an actor’s words and actions. Simons (1999)
operationalized this concept and named it as behavioral integrity (BI), but
today Simons’ behavioral integrity is a key theme in other debates of integrity
(Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Palanski and Yammarino, 2007; Leroy,
Palanski and Simons, 2012).

An alternative aspect of integrity is unchangeable behavior in the

circumstances full of hardship, enticement, or challenge (Posner, 2001;
Worden, 2003) to control personal desires and wishes. Similarly Worden
(2003) remarks, “the hallmark of integrity is an acted out commitment to
principled behavior in the face of adversity or temptation at great cost to
oneself”. Carter (1996) endorses by saying “we admire those who stand up for
their beliefs when they have something to lose”.

Many authors have coupled integrity to one’s own collection of morals

and values along with acting upon them correspondingly (Yukl and Van Fleet,
1992; Morrison, 2001; Cox, La Caze and Levine, 2003; Koehn, 2005). Lowe
(2006) argues that dimension of integrity, where one has to stand against
adverse conditions, is related to the one’s own inner perception of genuineness
in which s/he owns their individual experiences and acts accordingly. Several
authors have associated integrity to a usual conceptualization of morality in
some respect, therefore in the integrity literature the terms “ethics/ethical” and
“morality/moral” generally refer to actions which are in accordance with
socially acceptable behavior. Prior studies also consider integrity as
synonymous with honesty (Yukl and Van Fleet, 1992; Posner, 2001; Den-
Hartog, Shippers and Koopman, 2002; Newman, 2003; Peterson and Seligman,
2004) or being trustworthy (Trevino, Hartman and Brown, 2000; Den-Hartog
et al., 2002; Paine, 1994). Similarly experts also consider integrity related to
justice (Rawls, 1971; Rossouw and Van Vuuren, 2003), respect (Baccili,
2003), openness (Rawls, 1971; Baccili, 2003; Peterson and Seligman, 2004;
Koehn, 2005), empathy and compassion (Koehn, 2005).

The operational definition of integrity for our study is - integrity is an

honest (Trevino et al., 2000), and ethical conduct (Peterson and Seligman,
2004) that exhibits respect (Baccili, 2003), openness (Peterson and Seligman,
2004) commitment to principles (Worden, 2003), owning set of values and act
accordingly (Koehn, 2005) to maintain justice (Rawls, 1971).
1.6 Thesis Organization

Overall arrangement and content of this thesis is based on the

‘functionalist’. As a quick sight to this thesis; chapter 1 gives a general
introduction of entire study, including our research questions leading to study
objectives, and significance of the investigation. In rest of the five (5) chapters,
we provide an overview of the relevant literature available regarding integrity
approach to handle corruption and misconduct, in general and specific to
higher education institutions (chapter 2) and then describe research
methodology (chapter 3) before describing qualitative data gathering, analysis,
results, on the basis of which we established our conceptual framework
(chapter 4), that could help in computing integrity index in HEIs. Afterward
we explain the quantitative results (chapter 5). Lastly we discuss relevant
implications for practitioners, academicians and policy makers in public sector
higher education institutions, and close the thesis with appropriate conclusions
(chapter 6). Figure 1.1provides a pictorial representation of the organization of
the thesis.
Figure 1.1: Thesis Organization
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 CORRUPTION; A NOTE

Corruption is a fierce and offensive expression. It calls consideration to

undesirable behavior in a manner that resounds instantly and viscerally with
researchers and practitioners alike. In the last ten to fifteen years an enormous
interest of scholars to study corruption has been witnessed. This special focus
is mostly motivated by increasing agreement among scholars, that corruption
has many harmful consequences at individual, institutional and national level
(Elliott, 1997; Rose-Ackerman, 1999; Wei and Wu, 2002; Rose-Ackerman,
2004; Basu, 2006; Toma, 2006; Rose and Peiffer, 2015). The symptoms of
such harmful consequences could be, jeopardized economic growth and
development (Wilhelm, 2002; Svensson, 2005), aggravated poverty (Gundlach
and Paldamd, 2008), income disparities (Li, Xu and Zou, 2000; Gupta,
Davoodi and Alonso-Terme, 2002; Gyimah-Brempong, 2002; Gymiah-
Brempong and de Gyimah-Brempong, 2006; Tebaldi and Mohan , 2010),
dysfunctional institutions (Gould and Amaro-Reyes, 1983; Mauro, 1995;
Gupta and Abed, 2002; Narasaiah, 2005), decline in foreign direct investment
(Wei, 2000; Wei and Wu, 2002; Habib and Zurawicki, 2002; Hakkala,
Norbäck and Svaleryd, 2008; Al-Sadig, 2009), erosion in fiscal stability,
distortion of public expenditure decisions, reduction in the impact of
development assistance, erosion of rule of law (Goudie and Stasavage, 1997;
Elliot, 1997; Gupta, Davoodi, and Alonso-Terme, 1998), worse standard of
living (Schedler, 1999; Seligson, 2002; Rothstein, 2011), boost brain drain;
out-migration (Dimant, Krieger and Meierrieks, 2013; Cooray and Schneider,
2014), and the list is never ending.

Corruption is as old as organized human life (Klitgaard, 1998).

Examples from the earliest human civilizations illustrate the eternal nature of
corruption. For instance according to Llaca (2005) it was Aristotele who used
the term corruption first time to explain cruelty, oligarchy and populism linked
with the collapse of monarchist and democratic governments. Cicero; another
roman philosopher, added the word bribe and rejection of good habits.
European scholars highlighted the widespread corruption in Rome and Greece.
Among others MacMullen (1988) contends that one of the major reasons for
the fall of Roman Empire was corruption. Wilson (1989) mentions that
corruption was prevailing in Athenian democratic state, even corruption were
such a major issue that an institution to investigate; the Council of Areopagus,
was assigned a duty to report corrupt conduct (Everson, 1996).

Ancient world was not limited to Europe, likewise corruption was also
evident beyond European boundaries, so an advisors to the emperor of India
notes down in approximately 2400 years old text The Arthashastra, about the
inexorableness of corruption, and of the need to capture it:

“It is impossible not to taste honey or poison that one may find
at the tip of one’s tongue, so it is impossible for a government
servant not to eat up at least a bit of the King’s revenue. And
there are about forty ways of embezzlement by the government
servant”.

China; another old civilization was not free from corruption.

Lambsdorff, Taube and Schramm (2004) explain that in 300 B.C., the Qin
dynasty disciplinary code specifies severe penalties for corruption. In the 11th
century, Chinese reformer Wang An Shih noticed that corrupt practices can
occur even under laws, and history witnessed that governance by depending
only on the authority of law to regulate public servants is impossible unless
public servants were not rightfully selected (Alatas, 1990). Park (1997)
mentions, that among others, corruption and inadequate reforms were the
reasons for collapse of Qing dynasty in 20th century.

Moving forward, exploitation of authority and fraudulent practices did

not exist in distant past only, and no more remains a problem of developing
countries alone. Rather now, it has emerged as a serious global issue and to
secure their own economic interest the developed countries too are getting
involved in controlling corruption in the developing countries (Basu, 2006).
World Bank reports indicate that approximately more than 1 trillion US dollars
annually are being paid as actual bribes worldwide, in both rich and developing
countries. This amount was computed using economic data of 2001-02, when
the size of world economy was approximately just over 30 trillion US dollars
and this 1 trillion US dollars is bribe money alone, minus the misuse and
misappropriation of public money or pilferages of public assets (Kaufmann,
2005). The estimated 1 trillion US dollars figure roughly equals to 3% of the
world GDP (Svensson, 2005) and just over 3% of world income in 2002
(Rose-Ackerman, 2004).
 Many have contended that state of corruption in China has really
exacerbated since the mid of 1980s (Manion, 2004; Wedeman, 2005-2012).
Despite numerous anti-corruption campaigns, corruption is successfully
flourishing and apparently becoming even more active over time. Furthermore
embezzlement of funds by some of the world leaders such as Mohamed
Suharto of Indonesia embezzled 15 to 35 billion US dollars, Ferdinand Marcos
in the Philippines is accused of 5 to 10 billion US dollars fraud, and Abacha in
Nigeria may have embezzled up to US$ 2 to 5 billion (GCR, 2004). Mobutu
Sese Seko, former President of Zaire, was allegedly involved in embezzlement
of US$ 5 billion, an amount equivalent to total external debt of the country,
when he was removed from power in 1997 (Svensson, 2005). The crackup and
collapse of Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Qwest, Tyco, and WorldCom;
due to a series of fraudulent activities within (Ashforth, Gioia, Robinson and
Trevin˜o, 2008), are some examples of modern day corruption.

Very recently Panama Leaks reveals the greatest corruption scandal of

the last and present century. On 3rd April 2016, news channels around the
world started reporting about a shocking data leak of classified documents
concerning the business activities of Mossack Fonseca; a law firm based in
Panama and provider of corporate services. Along with this revelation came
first news stories concerning firms and politicians, based on 150 of the leaked
documents. Soon after, it was confirmed that the leaked data overall comprised
an unprecedented 2.6 terabytes of data, or 11.5 million confidential documents.
The leaked documents provided insights into the uses of more than 214, 000
shell companies during the past 45 years. Of the 214, 000 companies that
appear in Mossack Fonseca’s files, 90 percent were incorporated in just four
tax havens, i. the British Virgin Islands (114, 000 firms), ii. Panama (48, 000
firms), iii. the Bahamas (16, 000 firms), and iv. the Seychelles (15, 000 firms).
The remaining firms were incorporated in Niue (9, 600 firms), Samoa (5, 300
firms), British Anguilla (3, 200 firms), Nevada (1, 300 firms), Hong Kong (450
firms), the UK (150 firms), and a few other countries. Beside tax avoidance
purposes, notably, offshore vehicles appear to be used to hide other value-
enhancing but illegal activities (O’Donovan, Wagner and Zeume, 2016).

Names appeared in panama paper include politicians, government

officials, celebrities from sports, superstars of entertainment realm, and
business persons. Prominent names in the leak include “Malcolm Turnbull
(Prime Minister of Australia), Sigmundur Davio Gunnlaugsson (Former
Prime Minister of Iceland), Salman of Saudi Arabia (King of Saudi Arabia),
Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (former Emir of Qatar), Petro Poroshenko
(President of Ukraine), Nawaz Sharif (Current Prime Minister of Pakistan),
Benazir Bhutto (former Prime Minister of Pakistan), Ian Cameron (Father of
David Cameron; Prime Minister of Britain), Amitabh Bachchan (Bollywood
actor), Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (former Miss World), Jackie Chan
(Hollywood actor), Lionel Messi (Argentinian soccer player), Bobby Fischer
(American former chess grandmaster), Tiger Woods (American professional
golfer), Louise Blouin (Canadian, former businesswoman), Mallika Srinivasan
(Indian businesswoman), Bank Leumi (Israeli bank), Zulfiqar Lakhani
(Pakistani businessman and owner of Lakson Group and Express Media
Group) etc. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people-
_named_in_the_Panama_ Papers#Heads_of_state).

Thus, it is uncontroversial to state that corruption is persistent and global

(Gardiner, 1970). As a fact of the matter, corruption is cross-systemic, cross
temporal and cross-cultural; which means it can occur in any country, at any
time, and under any rule of law or form of government. Therefore developing
countries particularly in a fragile democracy like Pakistan are also badly
plagued with the curse of corruption.

In a broader manner corruption appears in either financial or non-

financial shape, but it can also appear to be non-financial for financial gain and
vice versa. Corruption includes several behavioral actions: fraud, theft, money
laundering of funds, and bribery (Cavill and Sohail, 2007). Likewise quid pro
quo, manipulation of finances, exploitation of authority (Burke et al., 1997),
criminal bribery, flourishing disparity, drowned voices, quenching hope from
public, lack of integrity (Teachout, 2009), distortion of judgment, misuse of
influence, deal of favors (Hellman, 2012), grand or political corruption,
bureaucratic or petty corruption, and legislative corruption (Jain, 2001; Wong
et al., 2012) are different shapes and shades in which corruption can appear.
But what encourages corruption to occur is a question that requires real
attention.

Attempts at answering, what are the causes of corruption progressed into

comprehensive literature pointing at plentiful sets of independent variables.
Some have adopted cultural and anthropological approaches (Banfield, 1958;
Del Monte and Pagagni, 2007; Mocan, 2008), as well as psychological and
criminological explanations (De Graaf and Huberts, 2008). Others have
concentrated on elements of social and economic structure, such as inequality
(Uslaner, 2005), or studied the influence of mixtures of economic and cultural
factors such as capitalism (Sandholtz and Koetzle, 2000). Moreover, a World
Bank’s in-depth study in six countries (Guatemala, Kenya, Latvia, Pakistan,
Philippines, and Tanzania) identified four key corruption drivers; i) state fails
to establish its role as guardian of public interest and public officials believe in
“Clientelism” and focus on attending particular client groups linked to them by
ethnic, geographic, or other ties ii) the rule of law is weak and accountability is
not above board iii) there are obvious flaws in the accountability institutions
and iv) the national leaders don’t have the will and commitment to combat
corruption (Shah and Schacter, 2004). Somewhat similar causes have been
highlighted in the National Corruption Perception Surveys and they are; lack of
accountability, low wages of government employees, and domination of
authority or discretionary authority.

Corruption evidently seems to exist everywhere, afflicting for profit, not

for profit, governmental, and, to the deep disappointment of many, even
religious organizations. Involvement of a number of international organizations
such as the Transparency International, the World Bank and other financial
institutions that are constantly engaged in fight against corruption have given
forums, and have generated public debates on, the issue (Armstrong, 2005).
These organizations have publicized the problem and started anti-corruption
movements in many countries. Pakistan as a developing democracy is severely
plagued with the leprosy of corruption. Following subsection provide an
overview of the magnitude of the problem.

2.1.1 Corruption in Pakistan

Pakistan is located in South “I see corruption as a mortal enemy

Asia with a population of for young democracies and a true
approximately 166 million, and enemy to development”.
remains in a list of lower middle- Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj
income country with GNI per capita of
US$ 981. Corruption is pervasive, systemic and deep-rooted in Pakistan. It has
become a way of life and is devouring the resources and moral values of the
society. The founding father of Pakistan; Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali
Jinnah, considered bribery and corruption as poison and the biggest curses of
all that needed to be dealt with an iron hand. But sadly, even after elapse of 68
years, Pakistan seems to be a classic case of a corruption ridden developing
country, where corruption has become a way of life (Quah, 1999). Severe
adverse effects of prevalent corruption can be seen in the development and
progress of Pakistan. Corruption is actually restricting growth and
development in the country and various indices corroborate the veracity of this
statement.

The data of Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) from Pakistan

shows that governance levels have been poor from 1996-2014, and it lies in the
lower percentiles with negative scores in all the six dimensions of governance
i) Voice and Accountability, ii) Political Stability and Absence of Violence, iii)
Government Effectiveness, iv) Regulatory Quality, v) Rule of Law and vi)
Control of Corruption (WB, 2009). Moreover World Economic Forum's Global
Competitiveness Reports reveal that Pakistan has declined in the rankings from
83rd/122 (GCI, 2006-07) to 101st /134 (GCI, 2008-09) and remained at 101st
position in next 2 years (GCI 2010-2011 and 2012-2013), but in coming year
declined to lower position; 129th /133 (CGI, 2014-2015) and in latest report
Pakistan stands still on 129th position (CGI, 2015-2016).

Furthermore, Yearly Corruption Perception Index (CPI) by

Transparency International from 1995 onwards presents a depressing picture of
corruption trends in Pakistan. Back in 1996, in a 54 nation study, Nigeria
scored as the most corrupt and Pakistan as the second most corrupt nation in
the world and as the most corrupt Asian country out of 13, with the CPI score
of just 1 (with ten being the least corrupt and one being the most corrupt).
Today Pakistan globally ranks at 117th /168 positions with the CPI score of just
3 placing it in line with other highly corrupt countries (CPI, 2015). From the
time of its inclusion in the CPI, Pakistan’s score has always been below 3.0
within the danger zone (except CPI, 2015; where the score reaches to 3 but
still in danger zone). Table 2.1 reveals the consistent poor performance of
Pakistan on the CPI rankings.

Table 2.1
Pakistan’s Score and Rank in Yearly Corruption Perception Index
Sr Year Score
1 1995 2.2
2 1996 1.0
3 1997 2.5
4 1998 2.7
5 1999 2.2
6 2001 2.3
7 2002 2.6
8 2003 2.5
9 2004 2.1
 10 2005 2.1
11 2006 2.2
12 2007 2.4
13 2008 2.5
14 2009 2.4
15 2010 2.3
16 2011 2.5
17 2012 2.7
18 2013 2.8
19 2014 2.9
20 2015 3
* CPI score ranges from 0 (most corrupt) to 10 (least corrupt)

Corruption is the second most problematic factor for companies doing

business in Pakistan. On the Global Integrity Scorecard, Pakistan’s overall
integrity has been rated as ‘Weak’, Legal framework is scored as ‘Very Strong’
but actual implementation is rated as ‘Very Weak’ (Global Integrity Report,
2010). Pakistan also displays all the features of a failing state. As per the
Fragile States Index (2015), Pakistan is ranked at No.13/178 countries with a
high score of 102.9/120 and falls in the ‘High Alert Zone’. The said index
categorizes a country as ‘fragile’, when a state fails to serve its people and is in
dire need of external help to save it from totally crumbling down. Here again
the common element is corruption that has a significant part in making
Pakistan vulnerable to failure as a state by weakening its society and
institutions. Human development in Pakistan is ‘medium’ amongst the
countries worldwide, it stands at the rank of 14th /182 with an HDI of 0.538
(HDR, 2015).

Likewise National Integrity System Report by Transperancy

International exposes Pakistan having strong laws but no rule of law (NIS,
2014). Accountability of public office holders, reformation of the judicial
process, appointments on merit, increase in salaries of public servants, and
curtailing discretionary powers are the suggested measures to reduce
corruption in Pakistan (NCPS, 2013).

2.1.2 Corruption in Higher

Education “A man who has never gone to
school may steel a freight car,
Colleges and universities remain but if he has moral less education
among the most respected institutions in he may steel whole railroad”.
Theodore Roosevelt
society, and it is assumed by default that administrators, faculty, staff, and
students operate with honesty and push away the corrupt intent, but
unfortunately the ground realities are different. Changing economic
circumstances, shifting professional prospects, and increasing institutional
intricacy have formed new stresses to cut corners, understanding the risks, how
corrupt practices occur, and taking action to tackle them embody important
steps in safeguarding the continued non-corrupt higher education enterprise.

Corruption has pervasive but having shadowy nature, and same appears
in case of education sector. The largest survey stalking worldwide public
opinion on corruption; the Global Corruption Barometer (TI, 2013), studied
more than 114 thousand respondents in 107 countries finds that corruption in
education is a rising concern globally and the concern exists at all levels of the
formal education system. The results reveal that 41% of citizen regarded the
education system in their respective country to be corrupt or enormously
corrupt, and it is unfortunate to witness a 6% increase between 2010/2011 and
2013 in the view. Though the data in the report does not provide a
categorization by level of education thus the extent HEIs are viewed as corrupt
cannot be separated out.

Corruption in higher education has not been discussed intensely in

academic circles. What could be the reason? Might be academic institutions
see themselves as somehow beyond the lower instincts of other sections of
society, and society normally believe that universities are somehow superior
institutions, inspired and instilled with the virtues of integrity. Yet, existence of
corruption and unethical conduct, in various manifestations, is a reality of
higher education in many parts of the world. It is time to commence a debate
on the meaning and extent of corruption in higher education, since it appears to
be an expanding, though undesirable fact, especially in developing countries
where socio-economic crises are at their most sever conditions. Furthermore,
corruption in educational institutions, including higher education, appears
intensely damaging, as it weakens public trust in one of the vital and central
societal institutions, and has been gone less examined by researchers for many
decades, however (Hallak and Poisson 2007; Heyneman, 2013). Therefore the
corruption in higher education has become point of emphasis for growing
international concern and attention among governments, educators, students,
and other stakeholders (TI, 2013; Kaunas Conference, 2013).

Corruption in higher education occurs around the globe in developing

and developed countries (Sweeney, Despota and Lindner, 2013). Though there
are plenty instances of large-scale corruption in universities but it is the petty
corruption that infuses into the day-to-day dealings in the classroom and across
the campus, that are more devastating to the society in the long run. Amongst
the major dangers of corruption in HEIs is the message it communicates to the
generation in training; students, and people who facilitate that learning; teacher
and staff. The real harm appears when employees and students start believing
that success in life can be achieved through favoritism, bribery, and fraud
instead of ability, and hard work. The widespread and dominance of such
believe breaks the link between personal effort and anticipated reward which
can consequently limit the return on society’s economic and social investment
in HEIs and has the potential to undermine civil society well into the future
(Chapman and Lindner, 2014).

Majority of the present literature on explaining the corrupt, deviant or

unethical act in an academic setting is focused on students’ misconduct like
cheating and plagiarism, for instance recent survey of 5,799 students by TLS
Online Solutions (2015) indicating that 89% of students believe cheating in
college will lead to cheating later in life and an earlier study by McCabe et al.
(1996) report that 56% of graduate students and 47% of undergraduates
“admitted to engaging in some form of cheating or questionable behavior”.
Startling statistics from the Educational Testing Center show that 80% of the
country's best students cheated to top the exams, 40% cheated on a quiz or a
test, 67% represented someone else's homework as their own, 95% of cheaters
boldly said they were never caught and above 50% of the students surveyed
clearly articulated that they do not consider cheating as a big and serious issue.
Moreover Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes and Armstead (1996) detected twenty
one (21) different types of student cheating (see: annexure A) in a case study
of English College students. Vojak (2006) has noted that cheating “has become
both more prevalent and more socially acceptable”. Chiesl (2007) reported that
students cheat because “Everyone else is doing it; I see others cheating”.
Bisping, Patron and Roskelley (2008) list 31 types of academic misconduct
concerning the students (see annexure B) and most significant misconduct
appears to be cheating. Though it is vital to examine the problem of cheating
and misconduct by students, from the fact, that student dishonesty strongly
associates with future business behaviors (Sims, 1993; Nonis and Swift, 2001),
therefore need of addressing the academic dishonesty problem turns highly
meaningful and demands serious immediate attention (McCabe, Butterfield
and Trevino, 2012).
 In Higher education institutions, possibility of corruption occurrence is
open on both sides; administrative as well as academics. Table 2.2 represents
the scholarly work that describes types of possible corrupt acts or misconducts
and who might be involved in those corrupt acts in any higher education
institution.

Table 2.2
Scholarly Work on Possible Corruption Occurrence in HEIs Comment [DAA3]: This should be in the next
section
Sr Area
Corruption in Procurement,
Manipulation during Admissions, Sham
Example

degrees, Nepotism, cronyism or

Administration: favoritism in hiring and promoting
include staff faculty, sexual harassment to staff and
working for faculty
1 University; Lee and Kaplan (1995), Ledeneva
teaching and (1998), Kelley and Parsons, (2000),
Citations

non-teaching Galitskii and Levin (2004), Vincent-

members Lancrin et al. (2013), Osipian et al.
(2013), Denisova-Schmidt and
Leontyeva (2013), Rumyantseva and
Denisova-Schmidt (2015)
Plagiarism, Falsifying data,
ghostwriting, academic collision,
Example

ignoring corrupt act during exam, sexual

harassment to students and colleagues,
Misuse of university funds, selling
admissions, manipulating accreditations,
Dziech and Weiner (1984), Schneider
Academics: (1986), Fitzgerald et al. (1988), Lee and
includes faculty Kaplan (1995), Kelley & Parsons (2000),
2
members and Townsley & Geist (2000), Cummings and
staff Armenta (2002), DeSouza & Fansler
Citations

(2003), Zaborovskaia et al. (2004),

Rumyantseva (2005), Rimskii (2010),
Morley (2011), Karabag and Berggren
(2012), Oleinik (2012), Osipian (2012),
Titaev (2012), Wilder (2014), Bruton and
Rachal (2015), Rumyantseva and Denisova-
Schmidt (2015)
 Plagiarism, out sourcing of assignments
or term papers/ thesis, gifts or payments

Example
in exchange of grades or preferential
treatment, unauthorized materials during
Academic: exams, providing, fraudulent or
3 includes misleading excuses
Students Bowers (1964), Sivak (2006), Latova
and Latov (2007), Denisova-Schmidt
Citations

(2013), Callahan (2014), Wei et al.

(2014), Denisova-Schmidt (2015),
Denisova-Schmidt et al. (2016)

2.1.3 Defining Corruption in Education Comment [DAA4]: So, where is the definition?

Word corruption sounds too rude to “Abuse of entrusted power for

be used for people associated to private gain” the simplest and
educational institutions, and many defend most accepted definition of
that misconduct by any employee or corruption, opens a gate to the
student of university should not be toughest and most complex
labeled as corruption; therefore it is challenge”. Unknown
pertinent to find what scholars have
counted as corruption while examining and studying it in the educational
sector. Amundsen (2000) emphasizes that any act of embezzlement, bribery,
fraud, extortion, and favoritism in administrative and academic activities of a
university, Tanaka (2001) highlights any unethical and corrupt behavior in
procurement, administration, and classroom, Hallak and Poisson (2007) also
mention corrupt behaviour, but indicate inapt financial allocation of specific
allowances, misuse of funds in construction, maintenance and school repairs,
inappropriate distribution of equipment; furniture, computer etc., selling self-
written books, or promoting textbooks of particular publisher, influencing
teacher appointment, unreasonable or biased teacher behaviour, manipulating
information systems, taking favors for examinations, selling diplomas, and
taking personal advantages during institutional accreditation, as possible
corrupt behaviour.

Moreover Rumyantseva (2005) differentiates between corruption with

and corruption without the involvement of students, and argues that both forms
of corruption carries impact over the students’ attitudes and institutions’
culture; the first one does it directly, and the second indirectly. Osipian (2007)
considers corruption in education as a system of all formal and informal
relations aimed to reach unsanctioned access to material and nonmaterial
assets.

In spite of the presence of several inventive approaches to study

educational corruption, many scholars work with Transparency International’s
definition of corruption “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” and use
it studying both public and private educational institutions (Denisova-Schmidt,
2016; Chapman and Lindner 2014). Denisova-Schmidt, Huber and Leontyeva
(2016) and Denisova-Schmidt, Huber, and Prytula (2016) use the definition
provided by Transparency International but expand it by examining the lack of
integrity. Violations of integrity might be considered in different university
activities: in the university admissions process, in the rules set for students,
faculty and staff, and in the governance of educational institutions (Heyneman,
2004-2013).

2.1.4 How to Curb Corruption?

Though recognizing corrupt

“Fighting corruption is not just
practices is significant, the real
good governance. It's self-defense.
challenge lies in discovering effective
It's patriotism”. Joe Biden
and practical approaches for tackling
the problem. Is it just simply
eliminating causes of corruption, a way out? No! Study of Dong and Torgler
(2013) suggests that greater anti-corruption efforts, higher educational
attainment, historic influence from dogmatic schools, disclosure, more access
to media, higher relative wages of government employees, greater
representation of women in the legislature, fiscal decentralization, and
economic development depresses corruption significantly. Therefore attempts
to combat corruption require the formation or modification of institutional
structures and administrative processes designed at breaking the grip of well-
rooted malpractices. This is very true in universities those manage their
activities under steep hierarchies, with decision-making power firmly held by
individuals at the top. Steep hierarchies tend to work against transparency
because, as institutional structures are having less layers, information becomes
more accessible as well as transparent, permitting easy and quick supervision
of institutional activities.

Creating code of conduct is another globally accepted practice to combat

corruption, but institutions need to be very cautious while creating codes of
conduct to curb unethical and corrupt practices, because codes can backfire if
universities just add rules to eliminate objectionable practices or behaviors, or
to satisfy the external pressures, in a haphazard or disconnected manner. As the
number of codes grows they can interact in unanticipated ways and ultimately
stifle legitimate reform (Chapman and Lindner, 2014). Moreover scholars
insisted to have specific codes for whistleblowing; an act of disclosure by
members of an institution of illegal and immoral acts perpetrated by the
institution and institution members to persons or organizations that may bring
about a change (Rehg, Miceli, Near & Van Scotter, 2008), is increasingly
being recognized as an important tool in the prevention and detection of
corruption and other immoral malpractices (TI, 2010).

Let us read the residual messages from countries of Asian origin those
are lately proven victors against corruption in the most dreadful corrupt
conditions.

South Korean Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC);

established in 2002, mention six main functions to curb corruption “ i) to
formulate and coordinate anti-corruption policies by organizing on a regular
basis, ii) to evaluate the levels of integrity in public-sector organizations, iii) to
guard whistle-blowers, protect and offer rewards to whistle-blowers, iv) to
promote cooperation for the fight against corruption by encouraging civil
society involvement and public-private partnership against corruption, v) to
improve the legal and institutional frameworks to remove laws and practices
which encourage corruption, and vi) to inculcate ethical values in society by
promoting public awareness on the risks of corruption, and by enforcing the
code of conduct for public sector employees” (SK-ICAC, 2006).

Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) identified

four tasks that can curtail corruption “i) to receive and investigate complaints
alleging corrupt practices, ii) to investigate malpractices and misconduct by
public officers with an undertone of corruption, iii) to prevent corruption by
examining the practices and procedures in the public service, and iv) to
minimize opportunities for corrupt practices”(CPIB, 2004).

Thailand’s National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) mentions

three steps to control corruption “i) to make recommendations on preventing
corruption to the Cabinet and other government agencies, ii) to enhance the
integrity of the officials and public by organizing contests, meetings and
seminars on fighting corruption among the people and civil servants, and iii)
to foster cooperation among the public by conducting seminars on countering
corruption (ICAC, 1989). NCCC offers a trinity of purpose; enacting laws,
building integrity through education, and developing cooperation. This three-
pronged approach is critical for developing a new public consciousness.

2.1.4.1 Combating Corruption in Higher Education

Approaches to combat corruption in HEIs are not essentially different

from the approaches used in other social and governmental institutions.
However, a number of scholars and practitioners have proposed strategies to
combat corruption with a specific relevance and application in HEI settings
(Poisson and Hallak 2002; Heyneman 2002; Chapman 2005; Hallak and
Poisson 2007). The approaches being advocated, for the most part, call for
rather similar actions. Poisson and Hallak (2002) suggest that an effective
response to corruption needs to involve (a) limiting authority, (b) improving
accountability, (c) realigning incentives, and (d) changing attitudes and
mobilizing political will. Likewise, Heyneman (2002) organizes preventive
measures into four types: (a) structural reforms necessary to reduce the
opportunity for corruption, (b) improvements in adjudication in management to
help anticipate questions of definition and interpretation, (c) measures
necessary to actually prevent corrupt practices, and (d) sanctions required to
demote or punish when infractions occur.

Most of the scholars recommend having a clear code of conduct across

all roles like teaching-non-teaching, and students. And these individuals at the
campus also need to be aware of these codes, so they comprehend what
behaviors represent corrupt practices, especially when proper professional
conduct could contradict to social norms generally accepted outside of the
education workplace. For example, a code of conduct must clarify and sets
limits on accepting gifts in return for professional favor, even though gift
giving may be thought suitable in other social scenarios (Chapman 2005).

A range of viable techniques and tools are available to frame strategic

approaches to corruption. The “audit triangle” focuses upon the strategic power
of auditors to unveil corruption and predict where the most likely slippages
will occur. It focuses on the dynamic interaction among perceived pressures,
perceived opportunities and risk, and the range of available rationalizations.
Similarly, ethics audits or vulnerability assessments enable organizations to
identify critical leverage points to deploy leadership, management, technology,
auditing, and various supports to address corruption (Lewis and Gilman 2005;
Barth et al. 2008; Albrecht et al. 2011).

Moreover international institutions advocated that establishing and

assessing integrity management systems is another approach to curb corruption
in a particular organization. This study is about and around the components
and measurement of an absolutely customized integrity program for public
sector universities in Pakistan. Thus the review in second section will
introduce what is integrity, and integrity structure, and how can it cure
corruption.

2.2 INTEGRITY; AN OVERVIEW

Integrity is a ubiquitous ideal in system and structures, leaders:

politicians, employees desire it from their managers, religious faithful expect it
from clergy, stockholders demand it from corporations, and students wish to
see it in teachers and educational environment, thus everyone seems to want
integrity, but as Carter’s quote alludes to, there appears to be great confusion
about what it is or how to foster it. This fascination with integrity is
increasingly becoming a significant topic in organizational studies, especially
(Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Craig and Gustafson, 1998; Avolio and Howell,
1995; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Parry and Proctor-Thomson, 2002;
Peterson, 2004; Simons, 1999). Integrity is frequently used in management
literature as a normative descriptor. The study of integrity, however, suffers
from three significant problems: too many definitions, too little theory, and too
few rigorous empirical studies. Let us review the scholarly contribution in
understanding integrity.

In Webster’s New World Dictionary “integrity” is defined as: “1. the

quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety; 2.
the quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition; soundness; and 3.
the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and
sincerity”. Integrity is often related to specific moral or ethical behaviors, like
it is sometimes synonymous with honesty (Den Hartog and Koopman, 2002;
Newman, 2003; Peterson and Seligman, 2004; Posner, 2001; Trevino et al.,
2000; Yukl and VanFleet, 1992) or being trustworthy (Paine, 1994; Baccili,
2001; Den Hartog and Koopman, 2002;; Trevino et al., 2000). Integrity is
similarly linked with justice (Baccili, 2003; Bews and Rossouw, 2002; Den
Hartog and Koopman, 2002; Rawls, 1971) or respect (Baccili, 2001). Integrity
can mean openness (Baccili, 2001; Koehn, 2005; Paine, 2005; Peterson and
Seligman, 2004; Rawls, 1971) or empathy and compassion (Koehn, 2005;
Lowe et al., 2004), thus integrity is the personal characteristic of consistency,
honesty, and trustworthiness (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Yukl & Van Fleet,
1992).

Likewise many authors have related integrity to a general

conceptualization of morality in some respect. As a side note, in the integrity
literature the terms ‘‘ethics/ethical’’ and ‘‘morality/moral’’ generally refer to
actions which are in accordance with socially acceptable behavior. An example
would be that “a person of the highest integrity” is a highly ethical or moral
person. Some researchers have operationalized integrity as the absence of
unethical behavior (Craig and Gustafson, 1998; Helton-Fauth et al., 2003;
Posner, 2001), which has the effect of framing integrity as doing what is
acceptable, but not necessarily doing more than the minimum. More
commonly, integrity is associated with better than- expected ethical or moral
behavior and not merely the absence of unethical or immoral actions. For
example, in a qualitative study about manager and company obligations to
employees, Baccili (2001) found that integrity was a frequently cited concept,
and a key component was having a moral and ethical standard. Furthermore,
while assessing the effect of integrity on job performance for U.S. presidents,
Newman (2003) showed that assessments about presidential integrity have
perennially included the word “moral”. Badaracco and Ellsworth (1991) noted
that integrity suggests “a sense of moral soundness and consists of manager’s
personal values, daily actions, and basic organizational aims” and Batson et al.
(2001) stated that displaying moral integrity is “to act in accord with moral
principles as an ultimate goal.”

The use of integrity to denote ‘wholeness’ serves to convey the idea that
integrity is multi-faceted, and tends to be an inclusive term that subsumes other
aspects of integrity, thus integrity as ‘wholeness’ better be taken as a
description of overall person rather than a constitutive element. More
specifically, the idea of integrity as ‘wholeness’ may provide a clue that an
important aspect of integrity is an overall consistency of behavior, thoughts,
and emotions across time and situations; so, the overall person is in view here,
not simply isolated aspects of the person.

One of the principle notions of integrity as behavioral consistency is the

perceived match between an actor’s words and actions. This concept has been
operationalized by Simons (1999), as behavioral integrity (BI), but is also a
major theme in other discussions of integrity (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991;
Paine, 2005; Tracey and Hinkin, 1994; Worden, 2003). One theoretical
component of BI construct is explicit promise keeping (Simon’s, 2002; Bews
and Rossouw, 2002; Posner, 2001). A second theoretical component of
Simons’ BI construct is perceived consistency between espoused values and
actual displayed values; a more subtle concept than explicit promise-keeping.
This aspect of integrity is opposite to the notion of hypocrisy (Cha and
Edmondson, 2006). It is also important to note that when integrity is used in
this manner, it is often assumed, but not explicitly stated, that word and action
consistency remains stable across time and situations.

Many scholars see integrity as an unchanging behavior in the face of

adversity, temptation, or challenge (Duska, 2005; Paine, 2005; Posner, 2001;
Worden, 2003). While conceptually very similar to the word and action
consistency aspect of integrity; BI, the use of integrity in this manner explicitly
involves the presence of adverse situation as a necessary condition for integrity
to occur, whereas only the word and action consistency aspect does not. Paine
(2005) suggests that persons of integrity “stand for something and remain
steadfast when confronted with adversity or temptation”. Worden (2003) also
remarks “the hallmark of integrity is an acted-out commitment to principled
behavior in the face of adversity or temptation at great cost to oneself.”
McFall, 1987 also argued that adversity, temptation, or challenge is a
necessary condition for integrity because integrity must involve a choice
between two courses of action, if there is no choice, then there is no integrity.
Carter (1996) echoes McFall’s position by pointing out that “we admire those
who stand up for their beliefs when they have something to lose”. At the very
least, the presence of adversity or challenge makes integrity become more
salient, thus presence of a situation characterized by adversity, temptation, or
challenge may have an important effect on proving one’s integrity.

Another approach to define integrity is by classifying it in relation to

other virtues. Audi and Murphy (2006) distinguish between two broad
categories of virtues: substantive and adjunctive. Substantive virtues are those
which are morally good in them; for example, honesty and fairness, because
demonstrating honesty or fairness is to act inherently in a morally upright way.
Adjunctive virtues are those which are not morally good or bad in themselves,
but are necessary for achieving moral uprightness; for example, courage and
steadfastness. Put another way, to act with courage does not necessarily mean
to act in a morally upright way, for even the vilest acts can require courage.
Yet demonstrating honesty in a situation where there is the potential for
personal loss also requires courage. In this situation, courage is necessary, but
not sufficient alone, for displaying honesty is also required. So we can say that
integrity is a substantive as well as adjunctive virtue; and that represents the
wholeness.

2.2.1 Integrity; How?

Literature sees rules or codes as major controllers of ethical behavior

(Victor and Cullen 1988; Wimbush and Shepherd 1994; Martin and Cullen
2006; Arnaud and Schminke 2012) and integrity at organization; especially in
bureaucratic public organizations those have hierarchy, a complex division of
labor, collective production, and a heavy reliance on codes (Buchanan 1996;
Weber 1946).

Codes are written expressions of institutional norms and values.

Langlois and Schlegelmilch (1990) explain integrity codes as a statement
setting down institutions’’ principles, ethics, rules of conduct, codes of practice
or institutions’’ philosophy concerning responsibility to employees,
shareholders, consumers, the environment, or any other aspects of society
external to the company. Explicit formal integrity codes, not only advance
positive perception among stakeholders (Valentine and Barnett, 2003) but also
influence the conduct of its members (McCabe et al. 1996). Study of Adams,
Tashchian and Shore (2001) found that employees from institutions having
codes are more ethical than respondents from institutions without codes and
institution with integrity codes extend support and encouragement to
employees facing ethical dilemmas. Moreover, studying 237 MBA students in
Singapore, Chye Koh and Boo (2001) found that enforcement of the code, and
top management support has significantly incremental influence on the positive
conduct of the students.

Integrity code, ideally determines the institutions’ core belief (Adams,

Tashchian and Shore, 2001), and assures its commitment and seriousness
toward rightful conduct (Schwepker, 2001). Other advantages of having
integrity codes include enhanced institutional reputation and image, a sense of
community is developed throughout the institution, and institutions’ can save
themselves from certain penalties if they produce effective and meaningful
codes (McKendall, DeMarr and Jones-Rikkers, 2002). Moreover Transparency
International guides that a concise, well-publicized statement of core integrity
standards can accomplish shared understanding across institution within the
broad community.
 Scholars have identified that integrity codes alone cannot deliver the
desired results, but a parallel compliance mechanism can offer so. Young
(1979) defined compliance as “all behaviour by subjects or actors that conform
to the requirements of behavioural prescriptions.” Compliance has two major
theoretical perspectives i) instrumental and ii) normative; however, the two are
not mutually exclusive (Zaelke, Kaniaru, and Kružíková, 2005). Instrumental
perspective of compliance is entrenched in neo-classical economics, and
considers actors as rational individuals who choose among alternatives, on the
bases of their self-interest and assessment of anticipated costs and benefits of
compliance vs. non-compliance (Becker, 1968; Ehrlich, 1972). Accordingly,
this perspective highlights strong measures, such as enforcement (detection)
and sanction (punishment) as the main actions for obtaining compliance
(Sutinen and Andersen, 1985; Hønneland, 1999;; Sutinen and Kuperan, 1999).
On the other side ‘normative perspective’ of compliance has their root in
sociological and psychological literature, covering human behavior and action
(Carrol, 1987; Jolls et al., 998) in context of the social norms; commonly
accepted rules that prescribe desirable behaviour, and forbid behaviour that is
considered undesirable (Cialdini and Trost, 1998), they live in (Cialdini and
Trost, 1998; Ellickson, 1989; Elster, 2009). This perspective focuses the role of
obligation, responsibility and sense of duty instead of explicit calculations of
costs and benefits (Young, 1979).

Though literature supports the relationship between existence of formal

codes and members conduct (Ferrell and Skinner, 1988; McCabe et al. 1996),
however, previous studies have also found that the existence of integrity codes
make negligible impact on employees’ conduct (Chonko and Hunt, 1985;
Cleek and Leonard, 1998). One reason of such clash between results is that
institutions’ having integrity codes and compliance mechanism but might not
include awareness program for its personnel, to propagate the existence of
codes and get its employees acquainted with their composition (Wotruba,
Chonko, and Loe 2001), which implies that employees’ awareness of the
integrity code as a part of compliance mechanism is likely more important than
just plainly the existence or nonexistence of the code itself (Valentine and
Barnett, 2003). Public servants need to know the basic principles and standards
they are expected to apply to their work and where the boundaries of
acceptable behavior lie.

During in-depth interviews Huberts, Lamboo and Punch (2003)

identified awareness programs, openness and transparency as the strongest
influencers on significant changes in perception and action of government
official toward integrity violations. While proposing a ten-step model to ensure
academic integrity Caldwell (2010) precisely mentioned the need to i) conduct
integrity orientation ii) manage integrity training program for the faculty, iii)
articulation of the purpose of integrity system, iv) explanation and clarification
of the policies, v) development and refinement of integrity curricula, vi)
monitored enforcement and documentation, vii) implementation of a realistic
process for addressing integrity violations, viii) evaluation of outcomes and ix)
commitment to integrity.

Adding more the real question is, where rules end and where value
begins?, which has been a frequent and important theme in the public
administration literature (Finer 1941=1972; Friedrich 1940=1972). The current Comment [DAA5]:

stress on ethics and integrity norms that go beyond “corruption” means that Comment [DAA6]:

this question has again become increasingly relevant (Lasthuizen, Huberts, and
Heres 2011). Over the past two decades, many public organizations have
sought to incorporate more value-based elements in their approach to integrity
management (OECD 2003; Huberts, Maesschalck, and Jurkiewicz 2008).
Following Maesschalck (2004–2005), we distinguish between predominantly
compliance-based or rule-based approaches “emphasizing the importance of
external control on the behavior of public servants” and integrity or value-
based approaches which stress the need for ethical “self-control exercised by
each public servant.” Value-based approaches usually aim at ensuring that
public servants have a higher degree of personal awareness of ethical issues,
such as conflicts of interest, and are less reliant on rules to arrive at morally
defensible positions. Though rules are entrenched in long-established practice
and seems essential for efficient governance (Gilman 1999), but complexity of
issues in modern world cannot simply be resolved by rules and creating more
rules.

Any serious attempts to develop integrity and fight corruption require

sustained political will, institutionalization, and a holistic approach. The
OECD and Transparency International refer to integrity systems that are
imbedded in each country. These systems ideally address everything from
legislatures to human resource systems and to enforcement patterns.
Transparency International publishes periodic updates on the integrity systems
of many countries as well as a yearly assessment of perceptions of corruption
across the globe. The holistic approach demands that leading, managing, and
systems push down to the daily practice at the point of task performance with
management and strong auditing and transparency programs (OECD, 1998,
2009; Huberts and Hoekstra, 2014; Visser, 2014; Schwartz, 2011; Kooistra,
2014; Langseth et al., 1997). These initiatives across countries and over time
have created relative clarity and consistency about how to address integrity in
institutions (OECD, 2016).

The OECD principles for managing integrity along with various United
Nations proposals converge on the process standards that focus upon internal
coherence, consistency, and accountability for public officials and preventing
abuse of power and misusing funds (Transparency International 2000; UN
2004). These are:

• Integrity standards should be clear and public

• Integrity standards should align with laws and legal framework

• Integrity guidance and support should be available for public servants

• Integrity should be available to expose wrongdoing

• Political will should support Integrity standards

• Decisions and processes should be transparent and open to scrutiny

• Relations with the private sector should be regulated and transparent

• Managers as well as policies in all areas such as procurement,

regulation, and client service should promote Integrity standards and
accountability

• Human resource systems should promote and protect Integrity in public

servants

• Laws should be enforced and violations should be prosecuted and

enforced

This approach can be expanded to how business should conduct itself

and its relations with government (UNODC, 2013). It places special emphasis
upon transparent accountability at the leadership level and strong cultures of
integrity and compliance (Greenberg, 2013; Burke et al., 2011). Modern
cognitive psychology reinforces the notion that individuals can develop such
commitments and change their commitments and frames of action in light of
experience, leadership, and culture. Humans can practice and train themselves
to a high level of professional or institutional integrity (Cialdini, 2009;
Solomon, 2007; Damasio, 2012; Baumeister, 1991; Korsgaard, 2009).

National Integrity System (NIS) by Transparency International offers a

way to broadly asses the integrity level in the basic pillars of any state;
legislature, media, judiciary, ombudsman etc. by looking at availability of
rules, their implementation and monitoring. Though there are certain
limitations attached, but NIS reports provide a general appearance of the
quality of integrity in the participant countries and pin point the areas of
concern, and are still considered much valuable and useful.

Hong Kong was a city where institutionalized corruption penetrated

every strata of society. Bribes known as "tea money" were paid for basic
services, from getting a home phone installed to making sure firefighters
showed up when there was a blaze. Considering bribery as a major act of
corruption Hong Kong in 1974 establised an Independent Commission Against
Corruption (ICAC) that developed a set of rules; “gold standard” of anti-
corruption agencies (Batory, 2012) which brought a significant drop over the
years in number of public servants convicted of corruption. Before the
resumption of Chinese sovereignty in 1997 it was observed that instead of
bribery other forms of corruption e.g. money laundering, deferred advantages,
favoritism, and other forms of conflicts of interest, are increasing and youth
were becoming more tolerant of corruption (Scott and Leung 2012). After
realizing that corruption is not simply a crime to be investigated but an
ideology that needs to be eradicated from society, and there are number of acts
of corruption those could not be easily taken care of or prosecuted through a
rule based approach, therefore ICAC in 1998 set in motion an integrity
enhancement program which was designed ‘‘to embed the culture of integrity
through the leadership and commitment of the senior management so that a
sustaining ethical culture can flourish in the public sector’’ (Legislative
Council 2008). In 2006 the government also created a post of Ethical Officer to
continue and make value-based integrity management program embedded as
an integral part of the work of any public sector organization. Deterrence,
prevention and education are three prongs of successful ICAC integrity
management program. Thus integrity approach began to dominate in the 1990s
as a result of three simultaneous developments (Bertram Gallant 2008).
 Approaches to managing Integrity on campuses include proactive and
preventive measures such as policies, procedures, and codes in an attempt to
help deter violations and ultimately change the climate of dishonesty and
misconduct into one of integrity and respect for learning (Hamlin, Barczyk,
Powell, & Frost, 2013) at the institutions.

2.2.2 Integrity in Higher Education

The necessity and mechanisms for maintaining integrity in the academic

environment have intrigued educators and researchers for many decades.
Despite the enormous expenditures of time, energy, money and commitment of
academic institutions to develop effective methods to ensure integrity in
educational institutions, dishonest practices continue and many believe they
are growing at epidemic rates (Kithara, 2009). Although the experience
suggests that magnitude of the rates of corruption in education may be
different, but the trends are similar (Kitahara and Westfall, 2006-2008). It has
been realized that the burden of creating proper ethical culture must be shared
by all stakeholders in the academic process, including instructors; many of
whom retain the conventional view that their responsibility is limited to
conveying the course material to the students, administrators, management;
high-ups and students. Today’s college students have been raised in an era of
societal concerns about integrity. Confronted with media reports of scandal,
dishonesty and corruption by public officials, corporations, and private
citizens, many students may be skeptical when they hear academic
administrator’s present orientation speeches extolling the virtues of integrity.

Literature reviews and meta-analyses related to Integrity in an academic

setting have been conducted periodically over the past 20 years (Jordan, 2001;
McCabe et al., 2012; McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2001; Molnar, Kletke,
& Chongwatpol, 2008; Whitley, 1998). These studies in literature reviews,
assessments of the amount and types of violations, explanatory and predictive
models, and preventive and deterrence strategies, among others, but given
numerous research studies, campus policies, and codes of conduct including
honor codes, integrity violations are pervasive (Honny, Gadbury-Amyot,
Overman, Wilkins, & Petersen, 2010; Minarcik & Bridges, 2015; Stuber-
McEwen,Wiseley, & Hoggatt, 2009) in academic setting.

If faculty and administrators seem to ignore or condone academic

dishonesty in the academic setting, Broeckelman-Post (2008) suggests that
students are more likely to engage in dishonest behaviors. Early research by
McCabe and Trevino (1993) found that several factors associated with student
perception were important in affecting the likelihood of students engaging in
academic dishonesty, including student perceptions of i) peer behavior, ii)
faculty understanding and acceptance of policies about integrity, iii) overall
effectiveness of these policies, and iv) severity of the penalties imposed on
those who cheated. Dalton (1985) had proposed that peer values were
influential in creating a peer culture accepted by college students. McCabe et
al. (2002) opined that “peer perceptions concerning academic dishonesty can
be an important influence as students make individual decisions about
cheating.” A later study by McCabe et al. (2006) confirmed peer perceptions
were particularly important for graduate business students in the decision about
whether to cheat.

While there is no map or a linear; step-by-step guide, to

institutionalizing integrity in academic setting, though there are four stages
through which universities can move. These are checkpoints, or benchmarks,
that allow campus officials to measure progress and celebrate successes. Four
stages of institutionalizing academic integrity are i) recognition and
commitment, ii) response generation, iii) implementation, and iv)
institutionalization (Davis et al. 2010; Drinan & Bertram Gallant, 2008; and,
Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2008). Moreover Bertram Gallant (2008) proposed
that any effort to fundamentally change an institution’s approach toward
integrity requires an understanding of its current institutional response to
corrupt acts and integrity.

There has been considerable research on academic misconduct; though

mainly focused on student cheating, beginning with the first large-scale survey
conducted by William Bowers, who in 1963 sent questionnaires to a sample of
students drawn from 99 schools in the USA, and received 5000 responses
(Bowers 1964). Since Bowers’ work, student surveys in the academic integrity
literature have tended to focus on self-reported student cheating and academic
misconduct, and researchers have often aimed to determine the causes of such
behaviour. Many surveys have also explored demographic relationships with
specific types of academic misconduct (e.g. gender, discipline, level of study,
age, nationality). Large-scale surveys on student cheating have since been
undertaken in a range of countries.

In North America, Don McCabe and colleagues have led the way since
1990, having conducted numerous large surveys in both the United States and
Canada (Christensen-Hughes and McCabe 2006; McCabe and Trevino 1993,
1995, 1996; McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield 2001, 2004). The number of
student respondents range from 14,913 (Christensen-Hughes and McCabe
2006) to over 60,000 (over a three-year period; see McCabe 2005). In broad
terms, McCabe’s survey instrument investigates student behaviours related to
tests and examinations. These include copying from another student with or
without their consent or knowledge; using unauthorized notes; obtaining
information about a test from a student who has previously undertaken the
exam; helping someone else cheat; and using false excuses to gain an
advantage (McCabe 2005, 2). Although the survey is also administered to
teaching faculty to ‘assess the overall climate of academic integrity on a
campus’ (McCabe 2005), the main respondents to the survey are undergraduate
students, and a key focus has been to determine the extent of cheating on
campus. While there has been a focus on academic misconduct in many of the
surveys, McCabe has stated that ‘the major objective of my work over the last
15 years has been to help colleges and universities think about strategies to
improve the climate of academic integrity on their campuses’ (McCabe 2005,
9). Particular questions in McCabe’s survey relate to how students are
informed about academic integrity policy and how academic integrity is linked
to integrity in the wider community. These questions are relevant to the survey
reported here. Without exception, the key finding from all of these surveys has
been that breaches of academic integrity are rife in colleges and universities
around the world. In fact, little appears to have changed since Bowers’ first
report in 1964. In that study, 75% of students surveyed admitted to having
engaged in at least one of 13 ‘questionable’ behaviours (such as copying or
using unauthorised notes in an exam). McCabe and Bowers conducted a
follow-up study of the same campuses in 1994 and found that there had been
only a modest increase in the overall proportion of students admitting to these
behaviours, although some specific behaviours had increased dramatically
(McCabe and Bowers 1994). Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke (2005) reported a
similar figure of 72% of Australian students having admitted to cheating.

The issue of sustainable integrity in an academic setting is an issue

worldwide. Let us start this subsection by examining what have been done in
different parts of the world to foster integrity in an educational setting.

2.2.2.1 Australia

National interest in academic integrity, specifically breaches of

academic integrity such as plagiarism, can be traced in Australia back to the
1990s and early years of the new millennium. In the media, “plagiarism”
became the byword for controversy, scandal, and everything that was negative
in the increasingly commercialized and internationalized Australian higher
education sector (Rollison 2001; Giglio 2003; Illing 2003; Lane 2003; Sinclair
2003). In 2001, Marsden completed her honors thesis entitled Who Cheats at
University? (2001) and in 2002, the Cooperative Action by Victorian
Academic Libraries (CAVAL) made headlines across the country with the
release of findings from the Electronic Plagiarism Detection Project. The key
results of the study of 1,925 student essays from six universities in Victoria
were that nearly 14 % of the essays “contained an unacceptable level of
unattributed materials” (O’Connor 2003, ) and 8 % of students had taken large
chunks of text without acknowledgment (as reported by Buckell 2002).
Shortly after the release of the CAVAL report, John Barrie, the founding CEO
of iParadigms; the US Company responsible for developing the text-matching
software Turnitin, made a presentation on the capabilities of the software at the
University of South Australia. As a result of this presentation, key stakeholders
at the University of South Australia formed a committee to organize a
conference on the topic of plagiarism. That conference, convened by Helen
Marsden and entitled as Educational integrity: Plagiarism and other
Perplexities (Marsden et al. 2003), was held in November 2003 and paved the
way for the educational integrity movement in Australia. At the conclusion of
the conference, the Asia Pacific Forum on Educational Integrity (APFEI) was
established, with Helen Marsden as chair and Tracey Bretag as deputy chair.
Key Themes in the Australian Educational Integrity Movement include;
definition matters, text-matching software are urgent need, focus on policy,
academic integrity-a national priority, international collaborations.

2.2.2.2 Japan

The teaching of integrity or morality has in fact long been present in the
Japanese education system, commencing soon after children enter elementary
school. At present, elementary and junior high school students receive 34–35
class hours of moral education training during each school year with traits such
as courage, courtesy, self-moderation, public duty, and respect for culture
(Wheeler, 2016). Examinations are of extreme importance and majority of
subjects, particularly those in the sciences, students’ grades are determined
largely by their scores on end-of-term exams. Class participation, research
assignments, and attendance are of less importance, although it should be noted
that most Japanese universities have strict attendance rules; students must
attend at least two-thirds of any given subject’s class or risk receiving a failing
grade. Due to the importance of the exams, many universities include a section
with their syllabus handbooks distributed to students imploring them to remain
honest and outlining briefly the consequences for those caught cheating on
exams, which can range from failing the course to expulsion (Wheeler, 2009).
In contrast, instruction aimed toward avoiding fraudulent research or
plagiarism is limited. Among some Western scholars that plagiarism is not
considered a major concern in Japan (Dryden 1999). Although this theory is
problematic (Wheeler 2014), few universities have official policies regarding
plagiarism, and punitive action for students discovered to have plagiarized, is
mostly at the individual instructors’ discretion. Moreover, although students
may have received moral training earlier in their educational careers, there is
little evidence of an honor system in place in the universities.

2.2.2.3 Indonesia

Among the myriad forms of academic misconduct, one that has recently
drawn the attention of the Government of Indonesia, especially within the
national education ministry, is plagiarism. Some of the main reasons for giving
special attentions to the cases of plagiarism are the prevalence of violations
(ranging from students to professors), the magnitude of losses (in material and
nonmaterial for the actors, original author, readers, or the institution where the
perpetrator is stationed), and the relatively high probability of being detected
(especially in the form of word-to-word or verbatim plagiarism). The Director
General of Higher Education (DG-HE) detected incidences of applying
shortcuts in producing scientific work by way of plagiarism. The DG-HE
appealed to each college for the strict prevention and control of plagiarism by a
commission or committee. Unfortunately the circular from the DG-HE was
considered ineffective because it did not provide adequate details regarding the
definition and range of academic misconduct. After approximately 11 years,
the government (Minister of National Education) finally passed a law which
specifically regulates sanctions for plagiarism in college.

In August 2010, just 1 day before the commemoration of Independence

Day in Indonesia, the Minister of National Education issued the Ministry of
National Education Regulation (MNER), Article 17 on plagiarism prevention
and control in colleges. The article provides definition, prevention mechanism
and sanctions. Moreover Academic Integrity Campaign is launched to curb
plagiarism. Later, Siaputra (2012) suggested a simple approach entitled
AK.SA.RA. The term AK.SA.RA: originated from the word “aksara” is
derived from Sanskrit with the meaning of “imperishable,” “nontransient,” or
“unalterable” (Crollius 1974; Raju 1985; Hooykas 1964 cited in Rubinstein
2000). Crollius (1974) also suggested that aksara could also be defined as
“precisely as ‘syllable,’ ‘essence and embryo of speech’.” Siaputra (2012) take
this knowledge of the earliest meaning of ‘aksara’ and believe that the use of
AK.SA.RA in the Academic Integrity Campaign will serve as a long-lasting
core of the campaign, being the imperishable essence in its use for developing
a better academic community. In the context of the Academic Integrity
Campaign in Indonesia, the term AK.SA.RA is used as an acronym of
Knowledge.

2.2.2.4 Europe

The combination of changes affecting higher education during the last

decade of the twentieth century and first years of the twenty-first century raises
questions about the security of Higher Education (HE) student assessment in
many parts of Europe. Research was conducted and some innovative
developments into holistic approaches to academic integrity were initiated in
some parts of Europe to try to improve educational standards for deterring
plagiarism and to ensure plagiarism in student work was detected and suitably
managed, notably in the UK (Carroll 2005; Carroll and Appleton 2001;
Macdonald and Carroll 2006; Morris and Carroll 2011; Park 2004; Tennant
and Duggan 2008; Tennant and Rowell 2010), Sweden (Pecorari 2011;
Zeterling and Carroll 2007) and the Netherlands (Pieters et al. 2006; Roes
2005).

The project Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education

Across Europe (IPPHEAE 2010–2013) aimed to explore how academic
integrity was understood and managed in different parts of the EU. The
geographical scope of the research was confined to the then 27 member states
of the EU (Glendinning, 2016). The IPPHEAE survey captured information
about i) whether EU-HEI participants had policies for the wide range of
possible types of misdemeanors that constitute academic misconduct,
especially focusing on student plagiarism, ii) were policies in place; it was
important to get some measure of their nature and efficacy, particularly: i)
level of implementation and responsibilities for action and decisions, ii)
consistency and transparency of policies and procedures, iii) communication
about the policies to all stakeholders, iv) level of knowledge and understanding
of the policies, v) type and range of available sanctions, vi) monitoring and
review of the system, vii) evidence of system being applied as intended and
viii) extent to which system was effective for deterring and detecting cases.
 The main focus of the IPPHEAE research was to explore the
effectiveness of institutional policies for managing academic conduct.
Although the great majority of respondents agreed that their institution had
policies for plagiarism and academic misconduct, but most of the respondents
demonstrated little knowledge about the detail of the policies. Also, as reported
earlier, many of the policies referred to, either at national or institutional level,
were aimed at research and doctoral level studies rather than applying to
bachelor and master’s degree students.

Project results reveal that fundamental disparities were identified that

pose serious impediments to reaching a common European understanding on
policies for academic integrity. Firstly, there is no consensus across Europe
and even within countries or institutions on what constitutes plagiarism.
Sweden was the only EU country that was found to have implemented national
legislation defining policies and procedures for handling cases of misconduct,
including accusations of plagiarism in HEIs (Universitets-och hӧgskolerådet).

2.2.2.5 USA

Since becoming a focus of scholarly activity, academic integrity has

most often been looked upon in the USA as being concerned with student
activities, perceptions, and behavior. It is now recognized that academic
integrity is not just about students. Assessment validity, pedagogical practices,
institutional processes, campus norms, and faculty and administrative staff
conduct all contribute to the climate of integrity on a given campus.
Spearheading efforts to address issues of integrity in their full complexity, the
International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) is another unique feature in
the context of academic integrity in the USA. The ICAI was founded (as the
Center for Academic Integrity) in 1992 in response to alarming research on the
subject conducted by Founding President Donald McCabe.

2.3 The Crux Comment [DAA7]: The section should give some
hint of terms like transparency, accountability and
awareness, reporting, whistleblowing, .etc.

From the above literature it is realized that while discussing establishing

integrity in educational institutions majority of studies overlooked the
administrative sphere of educational institutions; that has indubitably an
important influence on shaping overall integrity of the institution. And in the
academic sphere scholars have mainly shed light on detecting students’
integrity; chiefly in examination process, and has largely overlooked sensing
the teachers’ and systems’ integrity.
 Conclusively, approaches to managing integrity on educational
campuses include proactive and preventive measures such as policies,
procedures, and codes in an attempt to help deter violations and ultimately
change the climate of dishonesty and misconduct to foster integrity and exhibit
respect for learning (Hamlin, Barczyk, Powell, and Frost, 2013). The burden of
creating integrity at education institution must be shared by all stakeholders,
including the instructors; many of whom retain the conventional view that their
responsibility is limited to conveying the course material to the students. If
faculty and administrators seem to ignore or condone dishonesty,
Broeckelman-Post (2008) has suggested that students are more likely to engage
in dishonest behaviors. Moreover early research by McCabe and Trevino
(1993) found that several factors associated with student perception were
important in affecting the likelihood of students engaging in academic
dishonesty, including student perceptions (1) of peer behavior, (2) about
faculty understanding and acceptance of policies about integrity, (3) about the
overall effectiveness of these policies, and (4) about the severity of the
penalties imposed on those who violate these policies.

The discussion above introduces and leads us to broad and generic

components of institutional integrity framework i.e. codes, compliance
mechanism and members’ perception of their institution’s integrity. Thus we
propose the initial framework; that could lead us computing integrity index of
Higher Education Institutions. Final intricate and detailed conceptual
framework; integrity structure is provided after a validation through a
qualitative analysis (see: chapter 4).
Fig 2.1: Initial Conceptual Framework
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Previous chapters provide rationale for this study and acknowledged

the existence of corruption and importance of measuring the Integrity in
Public Sector Higher Education Institutions. Various studies relevant to the
said have been explained. This chapter explains the research design and
methods used for this thesis. Working on general approach used in social
science investigation, this chapter explains the following in this study:

1. Paradigm
2. Research Method
3. Research Process
4. Qualitative Method
5. Quantitative Method
6. Analytical Techniques

3.1 RESEARCH PARADIGMS

A paradigm is defined as the “basic belief system or world view that

guides action” (Guba and Lincoln 1994). Alternatively, Creswell (2009) used
the term “worldviews” for “paradigms”, that states the generic understanding
of the world that influences researchers’ nature and his/her investigation. Any
paradigm covers three fundamental principles; ontology, epistemology and
methodology (see, Annexure C). Ontology educates about the nature of
reality, epistemology highlights the nature of the world, and whereas
methodology focuses acquiring knowledge of the world we investigate (Guba
and Lincoln 1994; Perry et al 1999).

It is pertinent to rationalize the paradigm before selecting research

methods (Guba and Lincoln 1994), therefore, three different research
paradigms: realism, constructivism, and positivism, are explained to justify
adequate selection of paradigm for our study.

3.1.1 Realism

Realism agrees with the ‘real’ world outside every individual, but at the
same time it supposes that such reality cannot be comprehended perfectly, as
the world is too complicated and multiplexed for human intelligence to
understand entirely. Realism defies the conventional opinion of the utter truth
of knowledge (Phillips and Burbules, 2000). It also believes that claims of
knowledge regarding human behavior and actions when studied, cannot be
possibly positive (Creswell 2009), therefore, it is correspondingly called
‘post-positivism’. From the lens of realism, in the current study, there might
exist positive relationships between certain practices and institutional
integrity in the context of HEIs of Pakistan, however, these relationships may
cannot be properly assessed and factually measured, thus realism paradigm is
unfitting for this research.

3.1.2 Constructivism

Constructivism, also called as interpretivism (Guba and Lincoln 1994;

Perry et al. 1999), agrees to seek understanding of the world in which
individuals live and work (Creswell 2009). The focus of constructivism is to
trust the participants’ view of situation understudy, as much as possible
(Creswell 2009). Under this paradigm, composition of the world depends on
the value of individual investigator, and the individual investigator is
perceived as active member of the world under investigation. This paradigm
depends solely on interpretation of individual participants, so cannot be
applied to precisely compute or measure the relationship between variables
such as institutional practices and institutional integrity. Consequently, the
constructivist paradigm is also unsuitable for current research.

3.1.3 Positivism

Positivism believes that it is feasible to find truth in social science

research through replicating those methods used by the natural scientists
(Blaxter et al. 2002). Positivist advocates that, science is a way to get at truth
to sufficiently comprehend the world, so we may predict and control it
(Sachdeva 2009). Positivist view, promotes to study social realities through
the use of research methods applied in natural sciences (Bryman and Bell,
2007). To understand social reality, the researchers primarily depend on the
use of scientific methods; experiments or surveys, to obtain meticulous results
(Neuman 1997).

Observation and measurement are the essence of scientific research,

therefore positivists deem for the empiricism of an idea. The four measures in
social science that could be employed to positivist research are objectivity,
reliability, internal and external validity. In finding the reality ‘objectivity’
requires zero interference; to assure the bias free investigation, either by
individual opinion or essential value systems (Neuman 1997). Reliability
confirms the degree to which the study delivers constant and steady results
whenever it is replicated (Sekeran, 2009). Internal validity assures that
findings of the study really measure the concept that is investigated (Bryman
and Bell, 2007). External validity, also called generalizability, refers to,
whether the findings are expected to have wider applicability of the study
(Blaxter et al. 2002). The positivists attempt to acquire specific quantitative
data and test or compute the relationships using mathematical calculations to
establish objective facts with the aim of representing finding that could be
replicated to a larger population (Sarantakos, 1998). Positivism acknowledges
that world around us is real and the researchers can ascertain these realities to
capture the truth.

The current research intends to explore the variables that contribute in

measuring integrity level in any HEI of a public sector, thus propose a
framework to calculate the HEI integrity index. This thesis contends that
operationalization, implementation and compliance of variables mentioned,
can generate the higher integrity index which reflects higher level of integrity
in any HEI. To achieve this purpose, various theoretical and empirical studies
relevant to the said have been explained. Selective variables derived from the
extensive literature review, focus group discussions and interviews, were used
to develop an integrity framework. Moreover quantitative data were collected
through a large population survey. Subsequently, descriptive and inferential
analyses are used and results are interpreted. Therefore, it appears that the
current study follows the positivist paradigm, which enables the identification
of the relationship between different variables and institutional integrity
through qualitative and quantitative techniques. Here we must know that
combining participants’ observation with a questionnaire does not in fact
combine quantitative and qualitative research, since paradigms are
incommensurable and incompatible, thus the integration is only at superficial
level and within a single paradigm (Braymen and Bell, 2007)

An appropriate research paradigm assists in the decision of selecting

research method for appropriate inquiry (Guba and Lincoln 1994). Having
decided on the positivist paradigm; the use of quantitative research methods
helps to evaluate and understand the best predictors (variables) of outcomes
(institutional integrity), the next step is to explain research process.
3.2 RESEARCH PROCESS

We used mixed method research that combines or associates both

qualitative and quantitative approaches. Mixed method research involves
philosophical approach, where it is more than simply collecting and analyzing
both kinds of data; it also engages the use of qualitative and quantitative
approaches in a way so the forte of a study is greater than either qualitative or
quantitative research (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Further there are
three sub approaches of mixed method research; sequential, concurrent and
transformative, in our study we applied sequential exploratory approach of
mixed method research. Sequential exploratory approach is the one in which
researcher elaborate on or expands on the findings of one method with
another method. In this approach we start with qualitative approach to explore
the area and apply quantitative approach; survey method, so that study results
could be validated and generalized (Creswell and Plano, 2010), we can also
call it ‘Triangulation’: use of quantitative research to corroborate qualitative
research findings or vice versa (Hammersley, 1996).

The research process by Creswell (2010) in Figure 3.1 is adopted for

current study. This section outlines data collection process and selection of
analytical techniques for qualitative and quantitate data. Analysis and
interpretation of data are explained in following chapters. Comment [DAA8]: Give your research plan here

Figure 3.1 Research Process (Cresswell, 2010)

3.3 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION

Firstly we collected the data through seven (7) focus group discussions
and twelve (12) interviews (analysis is available in next chapter). The
involvement of participants in this study was completely voluntary with
assured informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy (De Vaus,
2002). Following these rules, we initially conducted two pilot FGDs; one with
senior faculty members and other with senior students (see Table 3.1 for
profile information).

Table 3.1
Participant Profile in Pilot FGD
Pilot No of
Participant Date Duration
FGDs Participant
Senior Faculty,
with an ample
experience of
teaching and
December
FGD 1 academic 5
11, 2015
75 mints
administration in
different reputed
institutions of
higher education
Senior students, in
their last year,
December
FGD 2 from diverse fields 8
28, 2016
120 mints
and different
universities

Pilot study was conducted with purpose to generally discuss the

integrity issues in academic setting. The discussion helped us to understand;
i) what are the main issues of integrity in HEIs, ii) what are the most critical
factors that influence the integrity of any HEI?, iii) who should be approached
to understand the integrity aspect in any HEI?. Theses pilot studies helped us
to understand the matter in hand and also helped in re-examining the broad
questions prepared for further FGDs and interviews (see: Annexure D, E, F;
invitation letter, consent form and program and questions guide
respectively). Table 3.2 represents the outcome of the pilot study.
 Table 3.2
Outcomes of Pilot FGD
How to Who to
FGDs Issues Highlighted in HEIs
Tackle? Approach
Administrative issues: favoritism in
A through well-
hiring, less transparent decision making,
defined and well
instead of meaningful a threat-full
explained
performance appraisal mechanism, weak
integrity codes,
or no cross checks on procurement,
Will-full Teachers,
Senior whistle blowing is a sin, integrity codes
dissemination of administrative
Faculty are either absent or not easily accessible,
codes, staff and students
No integrity awareness training,
Compliance
compliance mechanism is not in practice
check,
Academic issues: exam result
Scoring of
manipulation by teachers, selling
integrity.
admissions, cheating and plagiarism
Hiring of teacher, biasness in teacher
toward students, ignoring misconducts of Senior students,
Better hiring,
favorite students, no disclosure of the who have
Valuating student
Senior authenticity of using grading criteria, experienced
opinion,
students favoritism while extending any benefits, academic
Clarity of rules,
no orientation of ethics policy or code, practices at his/
Impartiality.
discourage raising voice against any her university
misconduct

3.3.1 Data Collection from Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

After Pilot study we collected data from focus group discussions

(FGDs). The reason to employ FGDs for the current study was to explore the
area and to delineate and corroborate the themes and variables acquired from
literature that could influence the institutional integrity to validate and
finalize conceptual framework; discussed in next chapter. This rationale of
choosing FGDs was supported by the prior literature. For example, Wilkinson
(1998) suggested that FGDs reflect the process through which meaning is
constructed in everyday life and that extent can be regarded more naturalistic.
FGDs are excellent way to get insight (Sudman and Blair, 1999), moreover
the technique allows researcher to develop an understanding about why and
what people feel the way they do (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Gibbs (1997)
enlightened that FGDs could be employed to extend the boundaries of
understanding regarding research issue. Therefore, in order to explore and
comprehend the area that would help the researcher to design or modify the
conceptual framework, conducting FGDs is a suitable approach for this study.
3.3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Strategy for FGDs

The immediate stakeholders; within the premises of institution, were

identified; students, faculty, administrative staff, top leadership (on duty/
retired). Subsequently, several of those identified were recruited for the FGDs
after receiving their consent. It is suggested that five to eight participants are
sufficient for one FGD (Morgan, 1997); and an FGD of more than eight
members would be difficult to manage (Blackburn and Strokes, 2000).
Furthermore, the use of a purposive sampling strategy is feasible to select
participants for the FGDs, who showed personal interest in the research
subject (Morgan, 1997; Patton, 2002). Based on these arguments, though
eight participants were invited for each FGD but minimum five participants
were finally determined to be included in each FGD through the purposive
sampling strategy.

3.3.3 Conducting the FGDs

The focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in Lahore

Pakistan. Table 3.3 provides the basic information including participants, no
of participants, date and duration of FGDs etc. In each FGD after the
introduction of the research project by the researcher, each participant was
asked broad questions such as, what do you think integrity is? How integrity
relate to corruption? Did you experience, observe or hear about integrity
breach within higher education institutions? What sort of integrity breach
students, teacher, and admin staff could be involved in? What are the factors
responsible to assure the integrity at institutions? Thus the researcher as a
moderated facilitated the FGDs, probed the different areas of integrity in
higher education institutions and intervened to keep discussion focused. At
the end of each FGD, participants were provided with time to share any
relevant information not covered during the discussion. FGDs lasted for an
hour and a half at average, and were tap recorded as well as notes been taken.
Denscombe (2007) advised the use of audio recording and note-taking to fully
capture the data, and overcome any unforeseen situation such as technical
problems with the recorder.
 Table 3.3
Profile Information of FGDs’ Participants
FGD-01 was conducted on February 2016, with Top Management
(Dean, Directors etc.).Total 5; 4 male, 1 female participant joined FGD-
01
01.The discussion lasted for 70 minutes. Further profile details of the
participants are provided hereunder:
Experience in
Code Gender Current Position
years
a P-01 Male Dean 21 years
b P-02 Male Dean 23 years
c P-03 Male Chairperson 15 years
d P-04 Male Director 19 years
e P-05 Female Director 26 years
FGD-02 was conducted on February 2016, with Senior Faculty (having
at above 10 years’ experience).Total 5; 3 male, 2 female participant
02
joined FGD-02. The discussion lasted for 90 minutes. Further profile
details of the participants are provided hereunder:
Experience in
Code Gender Current Position
years
a P-06 Male Professor 19
b P-07 Male Professor 20
c P-08 Male Associate Professor 19
d P-09 Female Associate Professor 21
e P-10 Female Associate Professor 18
FGD-03 was conducted on January 2016, with Young Faculty (having
less or equal to 3 years’ experience).Total 8; 6 male, 2 female participant
03
joined FGD-03.The discussion lasted for 120 minutes. Further profile
details of the participants are provided hereunder:
Experience in
Code Gender Current Position
years
a P-11 Male Lecturer 2
b P-12 Male Lecturer 3
c P-13 Male Lecturer 3
d P-14 Male Lecturer 2
e P-15 Male Lecturer 3
f P-16 Male Teaching Assistant 1
g P-17 Female Lecturer 3
h P-18 Female Lecturer 1
FGD-04 was conducted on February 2016, with Senior Admin Staff
04
(having at least above 5 years’ experience).Total 6; 3 male, 3 female
 participant joined FGD-04.The discussion lasted for 90 minutes. Further
profile details of the participants are provided hereunder:
Experience
Code Gender Current Position
in years
a P-19 Male Controller Exam 13
b P-20 Male Director Planning 15
c P-21 Male Deputy Treasurer 12
d P-22 Female Deputy Registrar 24
e P-23 Female Librarian 19
f P-24 Female PA to VC 11
FGD-05 was conducted on January 2016, with Junior Admin Staff
(having less or equal 3 years’ experience).Total 7; 6 male, 1 female,
05
participants joined FGD-05.The discussion lasted for 90 minutes.
Further profile details of the participants are provided hereunder:
Experience
Code Gender Current Position
in years
a P-25 Male Assistant ORIC 3
P-26 Assistant
b Male
Procurement
2
c P-27 Male Assistant Treasurer 1
d P-28 Male Senior Clark 3
e P-29 Male Clark 2
f P-30 Male Clark 2
g P-31 Female Assistant BIC 1
FGD-06 was conducted on January 2016, with Students of Undergrad
Program. Total 8; 3 male, 5 female, participants joined FGD-06.The
06
discussion lasted for 100 minutes. Further profile details of the
participants are provided hereunder:
Degree/
Code Gender Current Position
Semester
a P-32 Male Student BS (Hons) / 5th
b P-33 Male Student BS (Hons) /7th
c P-34 Male Student BBA (Hons)/5th
d P-35 Female Student BBA (Hons)/5th
e P-36 Female Student BS (Hons) /3rd
f P-37 Female Student BS (Hons) /3rd
g P-38 Female Student BBA (Hons)/7th
h P-39 Female Student BBA (Hons)/7th
07 FGD-07 was conducted on January 2016, with Students of Postgrad
 Program. Total 7; 5 male, 2 female, participants joined FGD-07.The
discussion lasted for 120 minutes. Further profile details of the
participants are provided hereunder:
Degree/
Code Gender Current Position
Semester
a P-40 Male Student MSc / 3rd
b P-41 Male Student MPhil/ 3rd
c P-42 Male Student MPhil/ 3rd
d P-43 Male Student MBA/ 3rd
e P-44 Male Student MBA/ 3rd
f P-45 Female Student MBA/ 3rd
g P-46 Female Student MBA/ 3rd

Though FGDs were adopted in previous studies (e.g., Sudman and

Blair, 1999; Bryman and Bell, 2007), and are a good approach to get a deep
insight into the matter in hand. FGDs provide perspective of wider audience
in a short period of time, although at the cost of in-depth examination of
individual perspectives (Bitsch and Olynk, 2008). Moreover only the results
of FGDs cannot be generalized (Bitsch and Olynk, 2008). Therefore, the
current study also collected data via semi-structured interviews. Procedures
adapted for semi structured interviews are discussed next.

3.3.4 Semi-Structured Interviews

To conduct semi-structured interviews, the researcher develops

interview guide; lists questions, on the issues to be covered in the study. Alike
FGDs, semi-structured interview is a viable approach to acquire perceptions
of relevant stakeholders and professionals, and also more suitable for those
participants who may feel unwilling to speak up in FGDs (Bitsch and Olynk,
2008).

3.3.5 Sampling Strategy for Interviews

Purposive sampling strategy was used to select the participants for the
semi-structured interviews. The purposive sampling allowed the selection of
particular individuals to confirm their relevance to the research topics.
Selection criteria to select the participants for interviews must be recognized
before the sampling (Merriam, 1998), thus the main criterion to select the
participants for the interviews in current study was, that the interviewees must
be directly associated to or with higher education institution in public sector
e.g. faculty, admin staff, students.

3.3.6 Conducting the Semi-Structured Interviews

The target interviewees were students, faculty, admin staff, experts and
senior leadership in public sector higher education, across different
institutions. A list of twenty participants was first compiled. Twenty
participants were then contacted by phone and/or email, with a clear
explanation of the purpose of the current research.

Total twelve participants provided appointment. Date and site for the
interview was mutually decided. A total of twelve face-to-face interviews
were conducted during the months of March and May in 2016. On the
appointment date, the researcher reached at the agreed site well before the
appointment time. After some informal talk; to build initial acquaintance, the
researcher then restated to each interviewee, the overall purpose of the study,
assured the protection of confidentiality of the information and identity of the
participants, and an estimated time to complete the interview, as
recommended by Merriam (1998). As Denscombe (2007) advised the use of
audio recording and note-taking to fully capture the data, and overcome any
unforeseen situation such as technical problems with the recorder, therefore
all interviewees provided their consent to tape-record the interviews, and
researcher took notes as well. At average each interview consumed thirty to
fifty minutes. At the end of each interview, participants were provided with
time to share any relevant information not covered during the interview.
Table 3.4 provides the profile information of our interviewees, date and
duration of interviews etc.

Table 3.4
Profile Information of Semi-Structured Interviews
Sr Code Position Gender Date Duration
01 I-01 Vice Chancellor (Retired) Male April 2016 50 mints
02 I-02 Vice Chancellor (Serving) Male May 2016 30 mints
03 I-03 Faculty Member Male April 2016 50 mints
04 I-04 Faculty Member Female April 2016 30 mints
05 I-05 Administrator Male April 2016 40 mints
06 I-06 Administrator Female April 2016 30 mints
07 I-07 Lower staff (office boy) Male March 2016 30 mints
08 I-08 Student (Undergrad) Female March 2016 30 mints
09 I-09 Student (Undergrad) Male March 2016 30 mints
10 I-10 Student (Postgrad) Male March 2016 30 mints
11 I-11 Student (Postgrad) Female March 2016 30 mints
12 I-12 Student (Recent pass out) Female March 2016 40 mints

3.3.7 Managing and Analyzing the FGDs’ and Semi-Structured

Interviews’ Data

The audio-files of qualitative data were organized in separate folder

and stored in a password-protected manner. As preferable (Bitsch and Harsh,
2004; Gibbs, 2007), to perform proper analysis the data was carefully
transcribed, re-read the transcribed files to correct any error to assure
accuracy by the researcher. After transcribing, database was created to
organize, retrieve, and group data in a meaningful way for analysis using
NVivo; a computer software. Computer-based analysis can be more
consistent, quick, and representable (Weitzman, 2000). NVivo was opted
because of its compatibility with the research design, and it provides tools for
searching, marking up, linking, and reorganizing the data (Richards, 2002). A
project in NVivo was created and data from FGDs and interviews were
linked. A preliminary node: a node is the container in NVivo for codes and
categories, was constructed using the conceptual framework (see: chapter 4).
In addition, a six-step process of managing and analyzing qualitative data, as
proposed by Creswell (2009), was followed. The six-steps are:

Step 1: Seven FGDs and twelve interviews were separately transcribed, but
the final data were linked for the analysis.

Step 2: Transcripts were read to comprehend the general ideas proposed by

the participants.

Step 3: Following Miles and Huberman (1994) the data was coded at two
levels, i, summarizing segments of data into themes, ii, and initial themes
were divided into smaller number of groups; sub themes.

Step 4: Sub themes generated in Step 3, were used to locate main and
broader ideas and place them as a category for the next stage of analysis.
 Step 5: Themes were represented in the qualitative narrative manner/
descriptive manner to identify interconnection among themes (see Chapter 4
for the analysis of qualitative data).

Step 6: Final step in the data analysis involves discussion and explanation to
make sense of each theme in relevance to the entirety of the study (see
Chapter 6 for further discussion).

The findings from literature review and qualitative data analysis (see
Chapter 4) led to the designing of the survey instrument, and then the Comment [DAA9]: Insert a section here that
highlights how the fgds led to development of the
subsequent quantitative data collection, which are discussed next. instrument;

3.4 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION

As the study probed into the institutional documents and perception of

its internal members, therefore institutional data in form of documents was
accessed in steps whereas, data from the members were collected through a
self-administered survey questionnaire. Further details are provided below.

3.4.1 Sample Size Comment [DAA10]: Should be a sub part of the

next section

Determining sample size was not easy in this study. Bryman and Bell Comment [DAA11]:

(2007) advice that while determining sample size researcher must consider
time and cost. Sample size becomes more critical when many variables exist in
a framework or diverse range of respondents is part of the study. Roscoe
(1975) recommended having a sample size ten times larger than the number of
variables in the framework. It is suggested that along with suitable sample size,
its statistical significance or practical significance has to be kept in mind.

Fowler (2009) suggested that the sample size must adequately cover the
major groups. O’Conner (2006) advised that in case of small population (less
than 10,000) a 10 to 30 per cent sample of that population is sufficient; and, for
a large population (over 150,000) as low as 1 per cent sample will suffice the
need. Accordingly, for a total number of 1, 228 employees and 4,993 students
in our case the sample of 250 employees and 500 students can be an
appropriate sample for this study.
.
3.4.2 Sampling Design

Sampling design was not an easy task for the current study. There were
two sets of respondents; employees and students that make the work more
laborious. To perform the task intelligently so that it remains doable and
pragmatic, we applied different sampling design at two different steps. In step
one, we had to select a public sector HEI among twelve in Lahore, Pakistan,
thus used tottery/ fish bowl technique under simple random sampling. Same
technique was applied to select faculties, department within the faculties, and
program within departments, from the drawn university. In step two we
collected data from all individuals present on the data collection day. Comment [DAA12]: We need to discuss this

3.4.3 Data Collection

Due to its secretive nature, corruption is notoriously hard to measure

(Chapman, 2005; Andersson and Heywood 2009; Urra, 2007) and empirical
work attempting to quantify the extent of financial or non-financial corruption
has been limited (Mauro, 1997; Galtung, 2006). There are five main sources
of data collection pertaining to corruption in education: Documents
concerning codes of conduct of an institution, surveys of perceptions, surveys
that collect reports on behavior engaged in or observed by the respondent,
media accounts, and studies of court records. Day and Nancy (1996) indicated
that the self-reported and perceptual measures might, in some cases, represent
more accurate descriptions of an institution. Furthermore Vlachos (2008)
argued that perceptions about institution measured by respondents could be
treated as valid indicators. As the study encapsulate institutional effort and
the perception of its members, therefore we rely on the documents concerning
integrity codes as well as the explicit compliance mechanism of an institution
and respondents’ perception about integrity at their very own institution
Though getting permission is hardly possible to obtain for any studies
covering corruption at universities: no one wants to air their own dirty
laundry in public, but we followed certain steps to reach to the information.

To get access to the codes and compliance mechanism we; firstly

browsed through the website of a selected university, and found very little
pieces of information. Next we sent an email to Mr. Registrar (custodian of the
seal of university), and after receiving no response we called Mr. Registrar,
explained the purpose and placed our demand. He asked us to meet Mr. Deputy
Registrar Admin.
 In a face to face meeting with Mr. Deputy Registrar, we put up the list of
required documents such as (Explicit Integrity Codes for university main
bodies, employees, students etc.). First it took us time to make him understand
that we are not looking for general rulebook for government employees, but
specific and objective codes designed to assure fairness, and honesty in the
action of university system and members. Shockingly there was no
consolidated booklet of integrity codes; instead the information was scattered
and sporadic. We asked him in a friendly tone the reason of such grave status
of affairs, and reply was, “no one ever asked us for these documents and
authorities never felt a need to compile anything of such nature”. After
inquiring about explicit integrity codes, we requested Mr. Deputy Registrar for
documented compliance mechanism that is designed to assure whether
integrity codes are followed in letter and spirit or not. He provided us some
documents that elaborate on the duties of disciplinary committee and students’
affairs, but with a blank face he admitted that there exists no formal or well-
structured integrity compliance mechanism for employees and students. At last
all documents were gathered and content analysis was done on the devised
criteria; mentioned in the measures section.

Moreover to collect the perception of employees and students, the

survey was conducted in two stages. At stage one; two-phase pilot-testing was
conducted. In the first phase; to confirm the face and content validity,
generated items were reviewed by three faculty members who were expert of
the field and familiar with topic of the study. The purpose of this stage was to
confirm that statements in the questionnaire were not vague, unclear or
misleading (Babbie, 2007; Plano Clark and Creswell, 2008; Creswell, 2009;
Sarantakos, 2005). Thus, after review of the experts, many items were revised,
in the survey questionnaire. Major suggestions were the paraphrasing or
rewording of some statements those seemed to be confusing, and the deletion
of some items appeared to be repetitive or excessive. In second phase, a survey
was administered to conduct EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis) for item
reduction and factor structuring. To apply EFA questionnaire was floated
among 150 university employees and 350 university students; 105 and 259
were received respectively. Changes were made based on the analysis (Table
3.10-3.12 and 3.16-3.18); subsequently problematic and confusing items were
also either revised or deleted to develop the final version of the survey. Second
stage includes the overall administration of the survey questionnaire for the
main study.

3.4.4 Measures
 Following the conceptual frame (see: chapter 4), the measurement was
split into two separate portions. In first portion we faced a challenge of
measuring the institutional effort by quantifying its documented integrity codes
and compliance mechanism. In second portion we measured the opinion of
institutional members (employee and students) to quantify their perceptive
image of the institution, regarding its integrity stance.

3.4.4.1Integrity Codes and Compliance Mechanism

To quantify documented integrity codes and explicit compliance

mechanism we rely on quantitative content analysis approach. Quantitative
content analysis is resolutely embedded in the quantitative research strategy;
which aims to produce quantitative accounts of the raw material in term of the
criteria specified (Bryman and Bell, 2007). As Berelson (1952) mentions
“content analysis is a research technique for the objective, systematic and
quantitative description of the manifest content of communication”. Moreover,
Holsti (1969) also reassure “content analysis is any technique for making
inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified
characteristics of messages”.

As a first step we developed a score card (see table 3.5) to quantify

information within the documents in relevance of integrity codes and
compliance mechanism. In this quantification 0 was allotted if the integrity
code or compliance mechanism absolutely non-existent. One (1) point was
allotted to each of the criterion that makes a code comprehensive and
accessible. The criteria are: i) code exists but too much vague;
incomprehensible and incomplete, ii) code exists but vague; sporadic, iii) code
inform the un/acceptable behavior but does not provide details about likely
penalties, iv) code informs the un/acceptable behavior, likely penalties or
rewards, but accessible through personal reference, v) code is comprehensive,
complete, accessible on visit but not available on email request or website, vi)
code is comprehensive, complete, accessible on site and available on website.

Table 3.5
 Code and Compliance Mechanism Score Card
Integrity Codes & Points Earned
Explicit Compliance Mechanism 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

On the basis of quantification we drew a scale (see figure 3.6) for

denoting the strength to each integrity code and components of compliance
mechanism, to quantify their strength.

Table 3.6
Scale to Measure the Strength of
Code and Compliance Mechanism
Strength
Code & 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Compliance Non- Very Very
Poor Fair Good Excellent
Existent Poor good

Employees are the internal members of an institution. They maintain a

perception of their institution on the basis of their interaction with authorities
and institutional system, among others. It is not intelligent to solely gauge the
integrity of an institution only on the basis of codes and compliance or vice
versa. Therefore our study included the perception of individuals, employees
and students to compute the integrity index. To record the perceptions, separate
multifactor measures were developed for employees and students. New
measures were developed following Hinkin (1998) guidelines, i) items were
generated, opinion of the experts was incorporated, and exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis was performed.

Figure 3.2: Guideline for the Development of New Measure (Hinkin, 1998)
3.4.4.2 Perceived Leader Integrity (filled by employee) Comment [DAA13]: Now where did this come
from?
 Den Hartog (1997), Craig and Gustafson (1998) and Simon et al. (2007)
offer established and mostly used scales to measure perceived leader integrity.
These scale focus different aspect of leaders’ integrity i.e. Den Hartog (1997)
looks at leaders’ integrity while sharing their power, Craig and Gustafson
(1998) measures general integrity of a leaders in interpersonal relationship
with their subordinates, and Simon et al. (2007) measure observes overall
behavioral aspect of leaders’ integrity. Indeed these measures cover the vital
elements of leaders’ integrity, but they do not cater a need to measure the role
of leaders in establishing integrity in organization through personal character
as well as their intention to inculcate and maintain integrity among the
employees of their organization. Thus to fulfill purpose of this study, we
developed multifactor measure for perceived leader integrity.

The factors are extracted from literature review and triangulated with the
qualitative data gathered through FGDs and interviews. Initially the factors
were finalized i.e. Brown et al. (2005) and Kalshoven et al. (2011) propose that
leaders who stimulate and motivate employees toward are perceived having
high integrity. Moreover ensuring integrity among employees without
partiality (Arnaud and Schminke, 2006), encouraging and supporting
employees to report misconduct, and observing integrity by one’s own self
(Robert et al. 2012) are factors that shape-up the perception of employees
regarding their leaders’ integrity. The participants in focus group discussion
and interviewees also mentioned similar factors. Some excerpts are hereunder:

“Staying neutral is never easy and person with high

integrity can only afford it. Maintaining fairness among your
team members, make you a good leader. I have observed at my
office that some favorites enjoy most of the benefits; they get
more chances to attend fully paid conferences, seminars or
workshops, and they do not only enjoy the benefits but also
their misconducts are covered up or compromised easily and if
I even unintentionally break a rule I can’t get over with it
easily. So what do you expect me to say about such a leader,
who discriminates among his/her team?” (I-04 Impartially
Ensuring Integrity)

“We all want motivation for work, likewise we all need

motivation to do right things and do them rightly. So I feel that
conducting formal or informal talk sessions do portray a very
 positive picture of a boss or an officer, but undoubtedly there
must not be a conflict in what they say and what they do.”
(P-28 Stimulating Employees’ Integrity)

“A true spirited leader will ensure that his/her team

fulfills all requirements to meet high standard of morality, to do
so s/he will explain and then monitor the actions of his/her team
members. This shows commitment and seriousness toward
establishing integrity culture.” (P-14 Stimulating Employees’
Integrity)

“I believe that competence and integrity are somehow

interconnected, because competence requires no veil whereas
incompetence does. So if you have to hide your incompetence,
you got to pay the price. A leader with values never covers-up
incompetence by accepting any favor presented as a gift, and
submit no offering if s/he ever found incompetent. Special
meals; cannot elaborate special meals (a laughter), hard cash,
feedback manipulation etc. are the bartered for gaining an
edge.” (I-01 Interactional Integrity)

“I am not lucky enough to have a leader who encouraged

uncovering the crap. I have worked with many bosses, and
during this long period of time most of the bosses preferred to
broom the crap under the carpet, and I never took them as
person with integrity, because I believe that compromising
misconduct or immoral matters develop a doubt on one’s own
standard of morality.” (I-05 Encouraging Whistleblowing)

“Let me tell you things that influence my perception

whenever I judge my boss 1) does he do what he says or does
he do what he wants us to do 2) is his behavior consistent in
different situations or before different people 3) does he openly
speak about wrong acts, etc.” (P-15 Observing Personal
Integrity)

Thus five factors are recognized; i) impartially ensuring integrity, ii)

stimulating employees integrity, iii) interactional integrity, iv) encouraging
whistleblowing, and v) observing personal integrity. Then items were
generated under each factor to gather the perception of employees about their
leader; immediate boss. A likert scale of 1 being strongly disagree to 7 being
strongly agree is used. There are total 18 items, sample items are “My leader
ensures that employee follow codes of integrity” and “My leader behaves
consistently across situations”. The cronbach’s alpha in pilot study is 0.940.

Table 3.7
Factor Wise Division of Items; Perceived Leader Integrity
Variable Items Dimension
PLI1-My leader cares about his/her subordinates
PLI4-In case of misconduct my leader treats all subordinates in a same
manner
Impartially
PLI7-My leader appraises work performance without biasness or any
Ensuring
favoritism
Integrity
PLI10-My leader ensures that employees follow integrity codes
PLI12-My leader compliments employees who behave according to
integrity guidelines
PLI2-My leader discusses and encourages acting ethically no matter
what.
PLI9-My leader clearly explains integrity related codes of conduct and
Stimulating
consequences of possible unethical behavior
Employees’
PLI11-My leader stimulates the discussion of integrity issues among
Integrity
Perceived employees
PLI13-My leader explains what is expected of me and my colleagues
Leader concerning work performance
Integrity PLI17-My leader never accepts favors (gift, meal, money etc.) to offer
(PLI) a favor (good appraisal, concealing misconduct, nominations etc.) Interactional
PLI18-My leader never asks for unethical favor (feedback Integrity
manipulation, concealing misconduct etc.)
PLI3-My leader assures support in whistle blowing: an act of
reporting misconduct by a fellow employee or superior within your
Encouraging
institution
Whistle-
PLI6-My leader encourages to report his/ her misconduct, if found
blowing
PLI8- My leader allows subordinates to take action against unethical
act or misconduct
PLI5-My leader pursues his/her own success at the expense of
others Observing
PLI14 - My leader always keeps his/her words Personal
PLI15-My leader confirms his/ her own integrity by following codes Integrity
of conduct
PLI16 - My leader behaves consistently across situations

3.4.4.3 Awareness and Perceived Transparency (Employees)

To measure employees’ awareness about integrity codes and how to

report misconduct and their perception regarding transparency within their
institution, an instrument containing 9 items categorized under three (3) factors
(see: table 3.8). Factors are formulated on the bases of qualitative data; focus
group discussions and interviews. Some excerpts are:
 “Many a times we commit misconduct due to our
ignorance about code of conduct. I know that ignorance of law
is no excuse, but if the law is not well propagated then
ignorance is a natural outcome. One way or the other we have
to acquaint our employees with institution’s code of ethics or
conduct, so their ignorance remain no excuse I believe
induction program must include it as a topic of top priority.
Alas! This is not happening yet”. (P-11 Awareness of Code)

“Many of us do not know the rules even; I don’t know

whether any integrity rules exist here, yes we find out the
relevant rules when we need them, but my institution has never
given importance to disseminate integrity rules”. (I-07
Awareness of Code)

“Yes awareness of rule does have an impact on

controlling misconducts, people sometime are not aware of
what constitutes a misconduct or corruption at their respective
job or role.” (P-13 Awareness of Code)

“I think institutions don’t consider it important to share

their integrity codes, which is sad. I believe that all new
inductees must go through an induction program as we see in
corporations, and that induction program must have a full
fledge session on sharing integrity codes of the institution”.
(P-16 Awareness of Code)

“Yes integrity awareness sessions are a good idea, but I

personally think that integrity expectation should be reinforced
as often as possible”. (I-01 Awareness of Code)

“To report misconduct ‘How’ is an important question.

Answering ‘How’ must include the steps to be taken while
reporting misconduct, and it also inform the complainant about
comprehensive policy including protection and reward for a
person who shows such courage in the best interest of the
institution”. (P-07 Awareness of Reporting Mechanism)
 “Transparency; the open the better, no secrets no
hidings, documents should be accessible, processes must be
translucent”. (P-17 Transparency)

A likert scale of 1 being strongly disagree to 7 being strongly agree is

used. There are total 9 items, sample items are “I know, how to report
unethical conduct of faculty, staff and student, properly in my institution” and
“Information about unethical occurrence, how it is handled, and what is the
verdict, is published (without disclosing the accused) on website”. The
cronbach’s alpha in pilot study is 0.897

Table 3.8
Factor Wise Division of Items; Awareness and Perceived Transparency
Variable Items Dimension
APT1-I and my colleagues are well aware of
potential violations of integrity codes and their
likely penalties
APT2-All new incumbents attend integrity Awareness of
orientation program, to be informed about Integrity
instituion’s fundamental codes of conduct Codes
APT4-My institution often holds discussions
(formal, informal) on integrity expectations from
its employees
Awareness APT3-I know, how to report unethical conduct of
and faculty, staff and student, properly
APT5-I know whistle blowing policy, procedure
Perceived and reward associated to it
Awareness of
Reporting a
Transparency APT6-If reported unethical conduct in my
Misconduct
immediate working environment does not receive
(APT) adequate attention, I know how to raise the matter
elsewhere in the institution
APT7-Adequate checks are carried out to detect
violations and unethical conduct
APT8-Information about unethical occurrence,
how it is handled, and what is the verdict, is
Transparency
published (without disclosing the accused) on
website
APT9-Integrity codes (rules, policies, procedures)
are easily accessible to everyone

3.4.4.4 Perceived Administrative Justice (filled by employee)

As per our knowledge, available measures of administrative justice are

not holistic in nature and do not cover the vital area of administrative justice in
an education sector. Secondly we did not find any established set of items that
precisely measure the perception of university employees regarding level of
integrity and purity of justice in administrative system of their institution.
Therefore a new measure comprised of 20 items, categorized in 7 factors is
developed to fulfill the purpose of survey for our study (see: Table 3.9 ).

Some excerpts are:

“Discrimination is one of the most disliked things in a

country, institutions or even in families. Even if one has
benefited from the discrimination s/he never admits it because
inside us we all know that discrimination is opposing to
fairness. So if a university claims having high integrity, then
employees must have positive perception about its
administrative processes”. (P-24)

“I think all HRM functions; hiring, performance

appraisal, rewards etc. must have fairness in them, and if
institutions do have no parity among these HRM functions,
their administrative processes will be perceived positively”.
(P-26 Rightful Hiring, Selection Process, Performance
Appraisal)

“If I witness that my institution gives special respect,

honor, or value to people who are very honest to their work, so
what I receive is a signal, that honesty is considered as an
important element. But just imagine the other scenario; you see
an honest person and s/he is never given even an encouraging
pat or in worse scenario people with low ethical standing are
obliged by authorities, now what signal does it give?: Honest
goes down to the drain”. (I-06 Integrity Valued)

“In my experience; spread over to 2 decades, I have

never seen that a reported wrong doer in the institutions where
I served have brought to justice. Every one compromises on
integrity. Don’t you listen to your politicians? What they say
“stop blaming us, otherwise we have plenty of provable
allegations against you”, what does it mean, it means keep
doing corruption and don’t disturb us when we do the same
(laughter). So as an institution you have to establish
accountability system and never compromise unethical act”.
(I-03 Accountability)
 “Can you believe that after 6 years of serving at an
institution, I got courage to blow a whistle and did not know
how to do it rightly. My closest colleagues asked me not to get
into it, but putting their advice aside I took the matter to my
immediate boss; controller of examinations, he plainly refused
to take any action rather asked me to go to the vice chancellor.
I gathered courage and uttered out the concern before the vice
chancellor, who initially took no interest and tried to make me
realize that such matters should be broomed under the carpet.
But at my insisting he directed me to report the matter in form
of formal written compliant and submit to the registrar. You
know what happened then? Somehow that complaint leaked and
the guy turned against me and I became victim to their dreadful
behavior. This all was the result of no proper and purposeful
reporting mechanism”. (I-06 Reporting Mechanism)

“Any institution that does not maintain impartiality

among employees cannot claim to have integrity”. (P-31
Ensuring Parity)

A likert scale of 1 being strongly disagree to 7 being strongly agree is

used. There are total 20 items, sample items are “Teachers, staff or any
resourceful insider/outsiders have no influence in hiring” and “Annual
confidential report (ACR) or performance appraisal is not used as threat tool”.
The cronbach’s alpha in pilot study is 0.951

Table 3.9
Factor Wise Division of Items; Perceived Administrative Justice
Variable Items Dimension
PAdJ1-Teachers, staff or any resourceful
insider/outsiders have no influence in hiring
PAdJ2-Favoritism is not evident in any of the
Rightful
recruitment decisions made here
Hiring
PAdJ3-All appointments in this institution are
based on merit (i.e. the best person for the job is
selected regardless of any influence or pressure)
PAdJ4-A rigorous selection process is used to
select new recruits Selection
PAdJ5-All applicants are treated with dignity Process
Perceived during the hiring process
Administrative PAdJ6-My institution attempts to conduct
Integrity in
performance appraisal in best possible way
Justice PAdJ7-I am satisfied with the way my institution
Performance
(PAdJ) Appraisal
provides me with feedback
 PAdJ9-Annual confidential report (ACR) or
performance appraisal is not used as threat tool
PAdJ8-At my institution integrity is valued and
only competent people are considered for promotion
PAdJ13-I fully trust that top authorities (VC,
Syndicate members, Deans, Chairpersons, Integrity
Directors) are committed to maintain integrity Valued
across the board
PAdJ14-Successful people in my institution are the
one who stick to the integrity code
PAdJ15-Strict policy and practice regarding bribery
and embezzlement exist in my institution
PAdJ18-My institution has fully functioning
accountability system that monitors working
conduct regularly and takes serious notices of any Accountability
misconduct by anyone impartially
PAdJ20-I have witnessed incidences where
misconduct is reported and the individual or group
is brought to justice
PAdJ10-There is an effective system in place for
making complaints about unfair treatment Reporting
PAdJ12-Whistle blowers are encouraged, protected Mechanism
and rewarded in my institution
PAdJ11-Opportunities (nomination in workshops-
seminars-conferences-funded training programs) are
extended impartially to all employees
PAdJ16-My institution fulfills what it commits to
its employees Ensuring
PAdJ17-Enquiry against any unethical conduct is Parity
handled impartially and seriously
PAdJ19-Many a times I do not report the
misconduct due to a fear of getting covertly
victimized

Content validity of all the scales is confirmed through opinion of the

field experts. Then dimension wise items are grouped together and exploratory
factor analysis is run on data from a pilot study consisting 105 responses; 61
males and 44 female employees of universities. The item loading was
appropriate of all variables except two dimension; rightful hiring and selection
process, consisting 5 item of Perceived Administrative Justice loaded in an
inappropriate factor. It was realized that due to social desirability bias, no one
would raise a finger or display a negative perception on hiring system through
which they themselves have been hired. Thus 5 items from Perceived
Administrative Justice have been deleted. Moreover all items of the
instrument; for employees, were translated in national language; Urdu, to
extend ease of understanding to the respondents who do not have English
comprehension skill. Firstly the translation is been done by the researcher, and
then the services of a language expert were hired. Annexure G contains the
final translated version of all the measures used in this study to capture the
perception of employees.

Table 3.10
KMO and Bartlett's Test (EFA-Employees’ Perception)
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .859
Approx. Chi-Square 1824.151
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 105
Sig. .000

Table 3.11
Total Variance Explained (EFA-Employees’ Perception)
Extraction Sum sof Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues
Component

Loadings Loadings

% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative

Total Total Total
Variance % % Variance %
Variance

1 9.093 60.619 60.619 9.093 60.619 60.619 4.609 30.727 30.727

2 2.081 13.872 74.491 2.081 13.872 74.491 4.228 28.187 58.914

3 1.088 7.256 81.747 1.088 7.256 81.747 3.425 22.833 81.747

4 .692 4.616 86.363

5 .402 2.679 89.042

6 .358 2.384 91.425

7 .274 1.825 93.250

8 .255 1.699 94.949

9 .189 1.260 96.208

10 .176 1.176 97.384

11 .131 .872 98.256

12 .086 .570 98.826

13 .082 .548 99.374

14 .063 .420 99.794

15 .031 .206 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 Figure 3.3: Scree Plot (Employees)

Table 3.12
Rotated Component Matrixa (EFA-Employees’ Perception)
Component
1 2 3
Perceived Leader Integrity- Impartially Ensuring .911
Integrity
Perceived Leader Integrity- Stimulating Employees’ .859
Integrity
Perceived Leader Integrity- Interactional Integrity .869

Perceived Leader Integrity- Encouraging Whistle- .782

blowing
Perceived Leader Integrity- Observing Personal .814
Integrity
Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of .820
Integrity Codes
Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of .781
Reporting a misconduct
Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Transparency .784
Perceived Administrative Justice- Rightful Hiring .690

Perceived Administrative Justice- Selection Process .909

Perceived Administrative Justice- Integrity in .556 .587

Performance Appraisal
Perceived Administrative Justice- Integrity Valued .734

Perceived Administrative Justice- Accountability .812

Perceived Administrative Justice- Reporting .881

Mechanism
Perceived Administrative Justice- Ensuring Parity .542 .713

Reliability .940 .897 .951

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

Alongside collecting the perception of employees about their institution,

what does students perceive of their university is of equal importance and
relevance. Therefore three most scored variables; Teacher Integrity, Awareness
and Perceived Transparency and Perceived Academic Justice are taken, factors
been recognized and items are generated on the bases of qualitative data
analysis. Next section explains the measures.

3.4.4.5 Perceived Teacher Integrity (filled by student)

In any educational institution students interact mostly and directly with

their teachers. In fact teachers are the institution themselves for all the
students, therefore during a course of study all students consider teachers as
their leaders; who directly supervise them. Thus we used the perceived leader
integrity scale, mentioned earlier, with some rewording and alignment for
capturing the perspective of students’ regarding their teachers’ integrity. We
considered the views of participants of FGDs and interviews to validate that
our developed leaders integrity scale would fit in and suffice the need to
measure teachers’ integrity. Some excerpts from FGDs and interviews are
mentioned below:

“Beside gifts, I have seen teachers who are poorly

biased; they company some specific students and reward them
good marks. And it is not about marks only such students are
protected rather their misdeeds are well guarded by those same
teachers. And I am talking about university teachers, who
thought to be mature and neutral but they are not. Moreover to
satisfy personal egos they like students who do flattering and
show unnecessary obedience”. (I-12 Impartially Ensuring
Integrity)

“Gone are the times when teachers were equally worried

about the character building of their student. It is regretful to
mention that teachers do not count even discussing and
motivating students to safeguard themselves against the
challenges of integrity maintenance”. (P-45 Stimulating
Students’ Integrity)

“Exchange of favors is a common practice. I have

observed that teachers offer illegitimate facilitation to students,
just to get a good comment in their feedback. And students keep
offering certain services just to get good grades or certain
leverages. It is sad but it is what it is. Closing our eyes won’t
doom the devil”. (I-10 Interactional Integrity)

“Whenever I went to report a system or teacher problem

to another teacher or chairperson, I was offered to put a lid
over it. And do not blowout the truth. They all save each other’s
back. If teachers have integrity they should encourage and
support students who could come forward and let them know
the lacunas, but it requires high moral ground; do you think
teacher have that”? (I-11 Encouraging Whistleblowing)

“I think teacher role as whole matters a lot. Students

build opinion about their teacher on the bases of dealing with
them during the class as well outside the class. For instance
during the class students observe whether teacher is prepared
for lecture, does s/he encourage questioning, is s/he giving
attention to all etc.” (P-42 Observing Personal Integrity)

“If we consider the ethical standard and integrity of a

teacher as yard stick, then what we say about teachers who use
some of the students as their spies in the classroom to get to
know what others teachers and students are saying about him/
 her. Isn’t it corruption to use students for spying and in return
give them relaxation in assignments or give better grades”? (I-
08 Observing Personal Integrity)

A likert scale of 1 being strongly disagree to 7 being strongly agree is

used. There are total 17 items, sample items are “Teachers at my present
university discuss and encourage acting ethically no matter what” and
“Teachers at my present university explain what is expected of me and my
fellows concerning overall conduct”. The cronbach’s alpha in pilot study is
0.917.

Table 3.13
Factor Wise Division of Items; Perceived Teacher Integrity
Variable Items Dimension
PTI 1 - Teachers at my present university care about
their students
PTI 4 - Teachers at my present university treat all
Impartially
students in a same manner in case of any misconduct
Ensuring
PTI 7 - Teachers at my present university grade students
Integrity
fairly without biasness or favoritism
PTI 10 - Teachers at my present university compliment
students who behave according to integrity guidelines
PTI 2 - Teachers at my present university discuss and
encourage acting ethically no matter what
PTI 8 - Teachers at my present university clearly explain
integrity related codes of conduct and consequences of
Stimulating
possible unethical behavior
Students’
PTI 9 - Teachers at my present university stimulate the
Perceived Integrity
discussion of integrity issues among students
Teacher PTI 11 - Teachers at my present university explain what
Integrity is expected of me and my fellows concerning overall
conduct
(PTI) PTI 14 - Teachers at my present university never accept
favors (gift, meal, money etc.) to offer any favor (good
grade, concealing misconduct, nomination for internship
etc.) Interactional
PTI 15 - Teachers at my present university never offer Integrity
favor (meal, good grade, nomination for internship etc.)
to ask for favor (positive feedback, concealing
misconduct etc.)
PTI 3 - Teachers at my present university assure support
in whistle blowing; an act of reporting misconduct by a Encouraging
fellow student, staff or teacher within your university Whistle-
PTI 6 - Teachers at my present university encourage to blowing
report their misconduct if found
PTI 5 - Teachers at my present university pursue their Observing
own success at the expense of others Personal
 PTI 12 - Teachers at my present university always keep Integrity
their words
PTI 13 - Teachers at my present university ensure their
integrity by following codes of conduct
PTI 16 - Teachers at my present university behave
consistently across situations
PTI 17 - Teachers at my present university will never ask
student to spy (on other teachers, and students)

3.4.4.6 Awareness and Transparency (filled by student)

To measure students’ awareness about integrity codes and how to report

misconduct and their perception regarding transparency within their institution,
an instrument containing 9 items categorized under three (3) factors (see: table
3.14). Factors are formulated on the bases of qualitative data; focus group
discussions and interviews. Some excerpts are:

“I once caught doing something which was prohibited in

my University. I kept saying that I didn’t know and won’t
commit it again but useless, I was fined. Why? They didn’t
bother to tell the rules; they think we will automatically learn.
Yes we learn by getting penalties. What an irony, a place that
teaches how to go living, is itself ignorant of taking right
actions, they just react”. (P-41 Awareness of Integrity Codes)

“Let’s have a walk of the campus, and just ask students

randomly about integrity codes, and enjoy seeing the startling
expressions”. (P-35 Awareness of Code)

“We should not only be told students integrity codes, but

also of teachers, so at least we could realize who is following
those rules. But why would they tell, they don’t want to be
caught, do they? (Laughter)”. (P-37 Awareness of Code)

“I think institutions think we all know it. How would we

ever know it if not told?” (P-40 Awareness of Code)

“Yes giving all new students a proper and formal

training about the university norms and rules make a complete
sense”. (P-32 Awareness of Code)
 “Sir we don’t know if there any system exists to report
misconduct and even if it exists neither we are informed nor we
are guided”. (P-41 Awareness of Reporting Mechanism)

“It sounds romantic to think that all information relevant

to students is accessible, it has to be like this but it is not like
this Sir”. (P-35 Transparency)

A likert scale of 1 being strongly disagree to 7 being strongly agree is

used. There are total 9 items, sample items are “All new students receive
integrity orientation program, to be informed about university fundamental
codes of conduct” and “I know the plagiarism policy and penalties associated
to it”. The cronbach’s alpha in pilot study is 0.938.

Table 3.14
Factor Wise Division of Items; Awareness and Perceived Transparency
Variable Items Dimension
APT1 - I and my fellows are well aware of potential
violations of integrity codes and their likely penalties
APT2 - All new students receive integrity orientation
program, to be informed about university fundamental Awareness
codes of conduct of Integrity
APT4 - My university often holds discussions (formal, Codes
informal) on integrity expectations from its students
Awareness APT5 - I know the plagiarism policy and penalties
and associated to it
APT3 - I know how to report unethical conduct of a
Perceived teacher, staff or another student Awareness
Transparency APT6 - If reported unethical conduct in my immediate of Reporting
(APT) department does not receive adequate attention, I know a misconduct
how to raise the matter elsewhere in the university
APT7 - Adequate checks are carried out to detect
violations and unethical conduct
APT8 - Information about unethical occurrence, how it
Transparency
is handled, and what is the verdict, is public (without
disclosing the accused) on website
APT9 - Integrity codes (rules, policies, procedures) are
easily accessible

3.4.4.7 Perceived Academic Justice (Students)

A likert scale of 1 being strongly disagree to 7 being strongly agree is

used. There are total 30 items, sample items are “Admission process is
completely fair”, “The way teachers conducts the class shows no bias” and
“Students are informed about the criteria of scoring exam papers; disclosure of
marking sheet”. The cronbach’s alpha in pilot study is 0.930.

“If students believe that merit sustained during

admissions, definitely positive image would survive”.
(P-44 Rightful Admission)

“At the doorsteps you can judge a home, likewise when

students go through the process of admission; from purchasing
prospectus till final selection, at every step they build-up an
image of about their university. How am I treated, is selection
test relevant, is selection impartial etc. are some questions that
pop-up in students brain during admissions”. (P-17 Admission
Process)

“There has to be a system that should compel teachers to

maintain fairness and neutrality in the classroom, and doing so
will send a positive wave among students”. (I-11 Integrity in
Classroom)

“Yes of course, a teacher who openly tells the criteria of

marking the exam papers, and keep everything transparent is
considered to be more honest and fair. Students wish to know
how they are assessed”. (P-36 Student Assessment)

“How can students be happy or positive about their

university if they witness cheating and plagiarism goes
unpunished? Yes they can be happy to get an advantage out of
it, but it challenges the academic integrity of the institution,
doesn’t it?” (P-24 Examinations)

“Apparently students are the sole reason for the

existence of all schools, colleges and universities. But students
have never been consulted or involved in any type of decision
making, I am indeed not asking you to involve them in each and
every thing, but at least we should make them feel that their
views and opinions are respected. For last couple of year
quality enhancement cell started teacher and course feedback
 system, but are you aware of the reality? Students do fill those
feedback performa’s halfheartedly; because they tend to believe
it as useless and infertile exercise”. (I-04 Dealing Students’
Feedback)

“I dream a day, when integrity is rewarded with respect,

honor as well as financial honorarium (laugh), teachers and
students who stand firm with integrity has to be recognized, and
should be presented as role models to young faculty and new
students”. (I-01 Integrity Valued)

Table 3.15
Factor Wise Division of Items; Perceived Academic Justice
Variable Items Dimensions
PAcJ 1 - Admission process is
completely fair
Rightful
PAcJ 2 - Teachers, staff or resourceful
Admissions
insider/outsider have no influence in
admission decision
PAcJ 3 - Student selection process is
comprehensive and thorough
Admission
PAcJ 4 - All students and parents/
Process
guardians are treated respectfully during
the admission process
PAcJ 14 - The way teachers conducts
the class shows no bias
PAcJ 15 - During class discussions
Perceived teachers maintain neutrality and
Administrative integrity
Integrity in Class
Justice PAcJ 19 - Course information is made
(PAdJ) available to students in a user-friendly
form
PAcJ 25 - Students are encouraged to
raise questions during the lecture
PAcJ 5 - My grades compared to other
students' grades on the last exam are fair
PAcJ 8 - Higher cumulative grade point
Student
average (CGPA) represents a skillful
Assessment
student
PAcJ 9 - Students are assessed on clear
and objective criteria
PAcJ 6 - Plagiarism in my university is
taken as serious offence and results in Examinations
grave outcome
PAcJ 7 - Teachers tolerate, ignore, or
do nothing against cheating during the
exam
PAcJ 10 - Students are informed about
the criteria of scoring exam papers;
disclosure of marking sheet
PAcJ 11 - Students’ views and needs
are considered when decisions are made
PAcJ 13 - There is no point
complaining about things around here
because nothing real would be done Dealing Student
PAcJ 22 - Course and teacher Feedback
evaluation by students has serious
consequences
PAcJ 23 - Students feedback is taken as
a valuable tool to correct the problems
PAcJ 17 - There are effective
procedures in place to help students
solve problems
PAcJ 18 - There is an effective system
in place for making complaints about
unfair treatment
PAcJ 28 - My university has fully Accountability
functioning accountability system that and Reporting
monitors academic conduct regularly Mechanism
and takes serious notices of any
misconduct by teachers, or students
PAcJ 30 - In this institution I have
witnessed incidences where misconduct
is reported and the individual or group
is brought to justice
PAcJ 20 - I fully trust that top
authorities in my department (e.g. Dean,
Chairman) will always maintain
Integrity Valued
integrity across the situations
PAcJ 21 - Formal and informal both
approaches are used to nurture integrity
in students
PAcJ 12 - Faculty and staff apologize if
they make mistakes or inconvenience
students
PAcJ 16 - Rules and procedures are Ensuring
applied consistently to all students Parity
PAcJ 24 - Teachers cannot be
challenged rather they are considered
always right no matter what
 PAcJ 26 - My university fulfills her
commitments; mentioned in prospectus
or elsewhere
PAcJ 27 - Inquiry regarding unethical
conduct by faculty, staff or another
student is handled impartially and
seriously
PAcJ 29 - Many a times I do not report
the misconduct due to a fear of getting
covertly victimized

Content validity is confirmed through opinion of the field experts. Then

dimension wise items are grouped to gather and exploratory factor analysis is
run on data from a pilot study consisting 263 responses; 149 males and 114
female students from different universities. The item loading was appropriate
of all variables except two dimension; rightful admissions and admission
process, consisting 4 items of Perceived Academic Justice loaded as a separate
factor. It was realized that due to social desirability bias, no one would raise a
finger or display a negative perception on admission process through which
they themselves have been admitted in the university, thus 4 items from
Perceived Academic Justice have been deleted. Complete final survey
instrument is available as Annexure H.

Table 3.16
KMO and Bartlett's Test (EFA-Students’ Perception)
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .839
Approx. Chi-Square 2348.890
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 136
Sig. .000
 Figure 3.4: Scree Plot (Students)

Table 3.17
Total Variance Explained (EFA-Students’ Perception)
Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings Loadings
Component

% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative

Total Total Total
Variance % Variance % Variance %

1 6.254 36.789 36.789 6.254 36.789 36.789 3.437 20.217 20.217

2 2.402 14.131 50.919 2.402 14.131 50.919 3.388 19.929 40.147

3 2.199 12.937 63.857 2.199 12.937 63.857 2.673 15.724 55.870

4 1.315 7.735 71.591 1.315 7.735 71.591 2.673 15.721 71.591

5 .740 4.352 75.943

6 .615 3.615 79.558

7 .574 3.378 82.937

8 .479 2.817 85.753

9 .398 2.339 88.092

10 .382 2.249 90.341

11 .354 2.084 92.425

12 .293 1.726 94.151

13 .259 1.525 95.676

14 .247 1.453 97.129

15 .211 1.241 98.370

16 .165 .971 99.341

17 .112 .659 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 3.18
Rotated Component Matrixa (EFA-Students’ Perception)
Component
1 2 3 4
Perceived Teacher Integrity- Impartially .798
Ensuring Integrity
Perceived Teacher Integrity- Stimulating .867
Employees’ Integrity
Perceived Teacher Integrity- Interactional .674
Integrity
Perceived Teacher Integrity- Encouraging .797
Whistle- blowing
Perceived Teacher Integrity- Observing .807
Personal Integrity
Awareness and Perceived Transparency- .921
Awareness of Integrity Codes
Awareness and Perceived Transparency- .940
Awareness of Reporting a misconduct
Awareness and Perceived Transparency- .890
Transparency
Perceived Academic Justice- Rightful .774
Admission
Perceived Academic Justice- Admission .658
Process
Perceived Academic Justice- Class .763
Conduct
Perceived Academic Justice- Students .633
Assessment
Perceived Academic Justice- Examinations .607

Perceived Academic Justice- Dealing .699

Students’ Feedback
Perceived Academic Justice- .806
Accountability and Reporting Mechanism
Perceived Academic Justice- Integrity .818
Valued
Perceived Academic Justice- Ensuring .849
Parity
Reliability .917 .938 .930

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
 CHAPTER 4

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The issues relating to research methodology i.e. sampling, data

collection and analysis were addressed in previous Chapter. The results
obtained from qualitative data analysis are presented in this chapter. The
chapter begins by providing the key findings obtained from FGDs and semi
structured interviews, followed by discussion on the major themes relevant to
institutional integrity. Along literature review and findings of qualitative data
analysis are knit-together to rationalize our final conceptual framework to
assess integrity and compute integrity index of a Higher Education Institution
(HEI).

Prior to reporting the key findings obtained from the data analysis of
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and semi-structured interviews, it is
pertinent to mention that all participants of FGDs and interviewees were
directly related to HEIs; like top management, administrative staff, faculty
members, students. All were having good enough experience with university
life, its systems and structures. Therefore browsing through the corridors of
their perceptual brain helped us getting an idea, how they view integrity, its
challenges and solutions in HEIs.

In the following text, people joined FGDs will be named as participants

and coded as P, whereas individuals participated in semi-structured interviews
will be called interviewees and coded as I (see chapter 3).

4.1 KEY FINDINGS OBTAINED FROM QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

Though seven (7) FGDs and twelve (12) semi- structured interviews are
conducted with different individuals at different times and places, transcribed
separately, but finally linked-together for analysis. Exploration of data is
performed in five steps. Firstly, based on the literature review (Chapter 2) it is
believed that there are certain factors of integrity practices, proposed by
different scholars and adopted by many institutions in different countries.
These factors are likely shape-up the integrity framework. Therefore, nodes
were created to search for the patterns of these integrity practices. Then the
search resulted in three (3) broad themes about integrity practices relevant to
higher education institutions. At the third step of analysis, the nodes in each
broad theme were further grouped into major themes. For example, under
Integrity Codes theme, the nodes were grouped into major themes such as
Administrative integrity codes and Academic integrity codes. In the fourth
stage major themes were grouped into sub-themes. For instance, under
Administrative integrity codes theme, the nodes were grouped into sub-themes
such as General integrity code for employees, Integrity code for hiring,
integrity code relevant to whistle blowing etc. After following this grouping
process, the number of broad, major and sub-themes relevant to integrity
practices are generated (see: Table 4.1). In the last step further categories under
each sub-theme were separated (see: Tables 4.2 to 4.?). Next section provides
a detail discussion on themes, sub-themes and categories, under broad themes.

4.1.1 Integrity Codes

Development of integrity codes was one of the most mentioned practices

during the FGDs and interviews. Total nodes extracted are 516. See table 4.1
for further regrouping and division of nodes for themes, sub themes. Moreover
the subthemes have number of categories (see: table 4.2). Themes are briefly
discussed with reference to views of participant and interviews as well as
literature review.

Policies and rules are considered as preventive measure to deter

violations (Hamlin, Barczyk, Powell, & Frost, 2013), as two of the senior
participants mentioned:

“There has to be a yard stick before measuring anything.

Unless we do not know what to stop and what not, how could
we differentiate between right act or a misconduct, therefore
extensive rules and codes are required that clearly tell what act
challenges ones’ integrity. And in case of HEI we need to
develop two yard sticks; one that measures regular
administrative activities, for instance hiring, procurement etc.,
and their ethicality, and second yard stick must measure the
academic behavior of teachers and students and all those
directly related to academic activities.” (P-04)
 Table 4.1
Broad, Major and Sub Themes Extracted from FGDs and Semi-Structured Interviews
Broad
Nodes Major Themes Nodes Sub-themes
Themes
Integrity Code - General (employees)
Integrity Code - Hiring
Integrity Code - Performance Appraisal
Administrative 58
Integrity Code - Whistle Blowing
Integrity Codes 43%
Integrity Code - Conducting and Witnessing in Enquiry
Integrity Code – Resources/ Opportunity Allocation
Integrity Code – University Administrative bodies
Integrity Code – in General (Teacher)
133
Integrity Codes Integrity Code – Class Conduct (Teacher)
25%
Integrity Code – Examination (Teacher)
Integrity Code - General (Student)
Academic 75 Integrity Code - Class Conduct (Student)
Integrity Codes 57% Integrity Code - Examinations (Student)
Integrity Code – Course and Teacher Evaluation (Feedback by Student)
Integrity Code - Whistle Blowing (Student)
Integrity Code –Witnessing (Student)
Integrity Code – University Academic bodies
Central Integrity Assurance Team (CIAT)
57 Departmental representation of CIAT
Administration (ICP)
41% Integrity codes Awareness Program (ICAP)
Integrity
139 Display of Commitment
Compliance
26% Central Integrity Assurance Team (CIAT)
Mechanism (ICP)
82 Departmental representation of CIAT
Academics (ICP)
59% Integrity codes Awareness Program (ICAP)
Display of Commitment
Perceived Individuals’ 76 Perceived Leader Integrity
Integrity 31% Perceived Teacher Integrity
Perceived 244 Awareness & Perceived 70 Awareness and Perceived Transparency (employees)
Integrity 47% Transparency 29% Awareness and Perceived Transparency (students)
98 Perceived Administrative Justice
Perceived Justice
40% Perceived Academic Justice
 “Though many rules have been established, but in my
experience number of rules and codes specific to integrity are
still scarce, say for, we do not have any whistle blowing policy
in our HEIs, there are no integrity guidelines available while
appraising performance of our employees. Until we do not fully
develop explicit codes, it would be difficult to proceed further. I
must say that in an organization rules and policies play a
fundamental role in confining the activities of its members”.
(P-02)

This discussion confirms the importance of integrity codes as well as need of

establishing more integrity codes.

4.1.1.1 Integrity Codes for Administrative Functions

In our FGDs and semi-structured interviews the need to have integrity

codes for administrative activities are highlighted as well. We extracted the
categories table 4.2 from the following views are:

“Purely administrative activities such as employee

hiring, purchasing etc, are expected to be performed with high
integrity in an educational institution. To meet these
expectations, HEIs follow standard procedures prescribed by
Governments, or any relevant body”. (P-21)

“I believe that HEIs should develop more specific codes

to ensure integrity in their internal administrative functions.
Let’s say Annual Confidential Report; who write it? the
immediate boss, and these bosses are never taught how to do it
fairly, even there exist no specific code of doing so, and if there
is its surely be outdated”. (I-05)

“We all know that whistle blowing helps to strengthen

the integrity, but HEIs don’t have such system or mechanism.
And when I say system and mechanism I simply mean proper
write up including where to report misconduct, how institutions
facilitates in safeguarding the whistleblower, what is the benefit
one can earn and if the whistle is being blown due to person
grudge what could be the consequences etc. So what I am
saying is a well formally crafted write up”. (I-01)
 “If I witness corruption in my institution I won’t tell
anyone, because my institution has no special respect for such
people rather such people are taken as odds. And there is no
standing policy or guidelines. Frankly speaking I have seen
many times that an enquiry is convened by a friend of the
accused, because there isn’t any code that guides who can be
an enquiry officer and who cannot. Yes there is a policy that
enquiry officer should have equal or above grade than the
grade of the accused. We call it protocol, I call it corrutppol (a
laughter), don’t check It in dictionary, I mend it”. (I-06)

“If you want your nomination in funded conferences,

trainings, seminars or other activities within city, country or
abroad, you need to be in good books of your bosses. And to be
in good books you must avoid contradicting their views or
wishes, and be respectful to the level that you look buffoon to
others (a sarcastic smile). My dear institutions need to establish
a self-running system for extending opportunity impartially,
and equally among all of its employees, but so far there exist no
such thing in HEIs”. (I-03)

“In public sector HEIs the procurement activity follows

PPRA (public procurement regulatory authority) rules. It
means rules are given importance. Yes we might need more
rules or make our existing rules profound enough to assure
fairness in all administrative activities”. (I-02)

“We all follow set rules in institutions, but real question

is, are those rules followed with integrity or not. I give you an
example, PPRA rules prescribe, when amount of purchases
exceeds certain limit; let’s say Rs 100, 000, Then the institution
needs to announce ‘tender’ and then among the competitors
best three quotations should be picked to choose one vendor for
the purchase. Now I know all institutions follow this procedure,
question is, are those competitors given equal opportunity,
pilferage of information is controlled, and finally selected
quotations are compared with market rate. If a procedure is
followed and something is purchased in Rs. 90, 000 that
 actually costs Rs. 60, 000 in the market, you know what I
mean”. (P-20)

“The depth and breadth of integrity codes reflect the

institutions’ commitment toward corruption and misconducts.
Depth and breadth means, that there has to be sufficient
integrity rules to handle all necessary misconducts, for instance
in my experience there is no whistleblowing codes in public
sector HEIs, there is an absence of integrity codes to be taken
care of while hiring or appraising performance”. (P-22)

“Main University Bodies like Syndicate etc. play a

crucial role. But how the members are selected in such bodies,
and whether there exist general guidelines along with integrity
guidelines for all the members, are things to consider”. (P-03)

On the bases of these views of our participants and interviewees, further

categories were developed; see table 4.

Table 4.2
Categories of Integrity Codes for Administrative Functions
Sr Sub-Theme Categories
Appropriate Language
Respectful communication
1 Integrity Code - General (employees)
Walking the talk
Non-politicizing behavior
Selection test design and secrecy
2 Integrity Code - Hiring Interview panel and its confidentiality
Guidelines for panel members
Integrity scoring in Performa
3 Integrity Code - Performance Appraisal
Guideline for appraiser
How and to whom
Integrity Code - Whistle Blowing
4 Whistle blower protection and reward
(employee)
Malicious whistleblowing
Selection inquiry panel
Guideline for inquiry officer
Integrity Code - Conducting and
5 Witnessing in inquiry
Witnessing in an Enquiry
Protection and reward
Fallacious witnessing
6 Integrity Code – Resources/ Opportunity Allocation of physical resources
 Allocation Nominations; scholarships, training workshops,
conferences etc.
Selection of member
7 Integrity Code – University bodies
Roles and Responsibilities

4.1.1.2 Integrity Codes for Academic Functions

Policies have primary role in influencing the behavior of individuals and

organizations, so to enable institutions to foster integrity and curb corruption,
thus effective academic integrity codes are a must (Brimble and Stevenson-
Clarke 2005; Devlin 2006; East 2009; Gullifer and Tyson 2014). Specific to
academic integrity codes, some views of our interviewees are:

“Teacher and students are expected to act fairly and

reasonably in all academic conducts, but it requires specific
rules that guide them. For last decay plagiarism has been given
a focus by higher education commission of Pakistan, teachers
are asked to follow guidelines provided by quality enhancement
cell (QEC), students’ feedback has been formally encouraged.
Student teacher ratio, employer feedback, making course
outlines and many other initiatives are witnessed, and I think
these all activities are to shape-up the behavior of teachers and
students”. (P-24)

“No argument, yes integrity codes specific to academic

activities was always needed, and still the requirement of
establishing new codes is there. We must recognize the
improvement in the development of integrity policies; for
example zero tolerance plagiarism policy, but we also should
not neglect the urgent need of many rules to be codified; like
policy to raise voice against misconduct, a policy to make
grading fair and unblemished”. (I-02)

“I think examinations are one of the sensitive areas in

academic setting. Teacher can give access to some of their
favorites; I have a very recent example of a student who showed
me the list of questions going to appear in the exam next day,
and it happened. Unofficially I probed into the matter and
realized that Mr. teacher; a visiting faculty, sends the quizzes
and exams to class representative (CR) and Mr. CR used to
share it with his close fellows. One step forward I tried to find
any code that, guides a teacher about integrity expected of him,
clearly mentions’ the gravity of the misconduct and the
consequences, alas I couldn’t find anything of such nature.
Though we all say it is wrong and everyone knows that exam
paper is a secret thing, but I say why not put it into a proper
integrity code”. (P-19)

Two of the participants in one same FGD produced a healthy debate:

“Integrity codes are designed to assure morality and

ethical conduct, so no one can deny its importance, yes some
people argue on the extent and detailing of codes that how
many behaviors would it cover? For instance a student
carrying laptop of a teacher into the class and settling up a
stage for him/her, shouldn’t we leave it to personal character
rather codifying it?” (P-03)

“Leaving to personal character means we are giving

space to individuals to practice their own view of ethics and
integrity. But I believe that Institutions have or must have its
own rock solid texture of integrity, and individuals who join the
institution must mold themselves accordingly, as a statement in
a movie says ‘our way or the highway’”. (P-05)

“You mean lots of detailing, so when we talk about

academic integrity codes, we need to have plenty of codes to
deal plenty of things such as how a student should speak, what
should a student look like, what words are prohibited to use by
students or faculty, how to sit in a classroom, how a teacher
should scold, what act of teacher will be considered favoritism
and what not, and the list is too long”. (P-03)

“Precisely that’s what I meant, when we are unable to

put these filters in our tertiary education, then why not now, we
have to train them for tomorrow, how can we just let them jump
into market without basic principles and values. And how can
we let teacher just do what they like unless we don’t put filters
to their acts as well. I have witnessed a teacher slapping a last
 year student of undergrad degree, we all observe students
behaving inappropriately, so how to mend it? The first step is
developing detail integrity codes”. (P-05)

Scholars and experts believe that rules and codes are major control
mechanism of ethical behavior (Victor and Cullen 1988; Wimbush and
Shepherd 1994; Martin and Cullen 2006; Arnaud and Schminke 2012), and in
case of public institutions the role of rules and codes become more important
(Buchanan 1996).

Table 4.3
Categories of Integrity Codes for Academic Functions
Sr Sub-Theme Categories
Appropriate Language
1 Integrity Code – in General (teacher/students) Respectful communication
Walking the talk
Non-politicizing behavior
Adequacy of communication
Dress and demeanor
Integrity Code - Class Conduct Use of mobile
2
(teacher/student) Asking and replying question
Even treatment
Handling Misbehavior
3 Integrity Code – Student Feedback Why and How
Secrecy of exam papers (teacher)
Explicit marking criteria (teacher)
Integrity Code – Exam/ Quiz
4 Invigilation (teacher)
(teacher/student)
Proper conduct (students)
Appeal (student); how and to whom
Explanation and consequences
Integrity Code-Cheating and Plagiarism
5 Teacher responsibilities
(teacher/student)
Student responsibilities
How and to Whom
6 Integrity Code - Whistle Blowing (student) Whistle blower protection and reward
Penalties for Malicious whistleblowing
Integrity Code – Reporting Misconduct and Guidelines for witness
7 Protection and reward
Witnessing an Inquiry (student)
Penalties for fallacious witnessing
Integrity Code – University bodies Selection of member
8
(Academics) Roles and responsibilities
4.1.2 Integrity Compliance Mechanism (ICM)

During the FGDs and interviews, it was mentioned that rules alone are
useless if their compliance is not assured, and it requires a full fledge
compliance mechanism that includes function such as monitoring, and
awareness trainings. The theme related to “Integrity Compliance Mechanism”
has total number of 139 nodes, which is around 26% of total nodes. The nodes
for ICP are further regrouped into major and sub-themes and furthermore the
subthemes have number of categories (see: table 4.4). Following section
provides a discussion with reference to views of participant and interviews.
“As you know that we all claim to have rules, acts, and
codes, but we are speechless when they are not implemented. I
could see one reason beside the will, and that is no proper
compliance system containing elements to assure whether codes
have been implemented or not, such compliance system should
be independent and above the influence of fellow colleagues”.
(P-01)
“I have been serving in many HEIs during my service. In
last decade the trend of professional trainings for university
teachers received some attention, due to Higher Education
Common (HEC) initiatives like Learning Innovation Division
(LID); thanks they have at least realized that teachers do not
only need to know their subject but also need to know how to
teach it, anyway, so I endorse the LID, but the serious concern
is that such trainings whether funded by HEC or university
does themselves, have no topic related to integrity or ethics in
teaching or in educational institution. I think they believe they
have ‘integrity’ already (smirk), but dear, they are living in
fools’ paradise”. (I-01)
“Just visit the websites of HEIs, you won’t find any
symbol or logo or statement that displays their commitment to
encourage integrity within their institution. Continues
hammering is important to permanently engrave something in
minds. So to engrave ‘live with integrity’ you have to hammer it
on eyes and ears through boards and signs and talk and
discussion respectively”. (P-08)
 Morris (2015) advocated that along design, implementation of academic
integrity policy is vital in affecting institutional change, and the views of our
participants and interviewees endorse it.

Table 4.4
Categories of Integrity Compliance Mechanism
for Administrative and Academic Functions
Sr Sub-theme Categories
System and structure
1 Integrity Assurance Team (IAT) Selection of members
Roles and Responsibilities
System and structure
2 Departmental representation of IAT Selection of representative
Roles and Responsibilities
System and Structure
Integrity codes Awareness Program
3 Training Curriculum
(IcAP)
Trainer selection
Website and Social Media
Prospectus, flyers, official booklets,
4 Display of Commitment and Addresses, Speeches, Comments
of high ups mentioning integrity as a
must need

4.1.3 Perceived Integrity

Once organizations fulfill their responsibility of developing codes and

establishing compliance mechanism, it is important that organizational
members; student, faculty and staff in our study, must see and believe it
happening. Therefore assessing the perception of organizational members
toward any system of an organization tells the strength of implementation and
pragmatic use of that system. Leaders, transparency, knowledge and justice are
the main themes that mold ones perception. Similar thoughts are presented by
some of our participants:

“Consider it logically; when I see my boss working

honestly, information policies and procedures is readily
available, I am taught and trained on organizational rules, and
fairness is evident in organizational decisions, it would
 definitely leave a strong impression on my set of beliefs toward
institution.” (P-10)

“If students are treated fairly by their teachers, they are

made aware of university norms, and they witness a serious but
impartial action against any misconduct, they tend to say good
words about their university, but that’s a cool picture, the
reality is somehow different (sad expression)”. (P-07)

Next section will provide the opinion of participants of FGDs and

interviewees about the importance of different aspects that shape-up the
perception of employee and students toward their institution which ultimately
counts to overall integrity of an institution.

4.1.3.1 Perceived Individuals’ Integrity

Individuals at a supervisory positions influence their members, because

when members perceive an alignment between words and deeds of their
supervisor or group of supervisors they tend be influenced (Simons, 2002).
Such alignment also known as Behavioral Integrity (BI) greatly affects
organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, performance and intent to
quit (Simons and McLean Parks 2000; Davis and Rothstein 2006; Dineen et al.
2006; Simons 2008). Same beliefe is shared by one of our interviewee;

“In fact it’s the individuals who have some authority;

legitimate or moral, who can stand by the principles and
through their conduct make others follow a right path. All
rules, systems, structures are dependent of the individuals who
are responsible for others to follow the rules and systems, yes I
am referring to managers, supervisors, chairperson, directors,
thus all immediate bosses and leaders”. (P-18)

In our studies we have two clear categories of individuals at supervisory

positions, one deals in administrative activities, whether academic
administration of general, we call them all leaders, and other directly deal with
pure academic activities, we call them teachers.
4.1.3.1.1 Perceived Leader Integrity

Perceived leader integrity results in positive workplace outcomes (Craig

and Gustafson 1998; Zhu et al. 2004; Davis and Rothstein 2006; Leroy et al., in
press; Palanski and Yammarino 2009) by stopping ethical meltdowns (Sims and
Brinkman 2003). Our interviewees and percipients also shared similar thoughts.

“Leader is very important? If leader is fair and having

integrity, s/he can question the subordinates, can document the
unethical act, can forcefully make others to do ethical act.
Leader is having power and control and capable to transfer
integrity”. (P-06)

“Fair person follows the rules and nicely performs

responsibilities. Every position has responsibilities to perform;
a person who is performing those responsibilities nicely is a
man of integrity”. (P-09)

“A fair and genuine leader is confident, having courage,

and does not compromise on fundamental principles”. (P-25)

“In my view when talking about the integrity of leader,

what comes to my mind is that leader tends to work in groups
with harmony; s/he has capability to have a view point,
advocate it and provoke others to stand by it. I think this way
we can assess the integrity of a leader”. (P-12)

4.1.3.1.2 Perceived Teacher Integrity

When implementing integrity interventions in educational settings,

teachers have pivotal role in doing so (Hagermoser Sanetti, Fallon and
Collier‐Meek, 2013) because student take them as their leader.

“To me leaders’ activities determine their integrity, like

does his acts match with rules, and basic set of values. So if we
consider teacher as a leader, then does s/he join and leave the
class in time, does s/he prepare well, and try to engage the
attention of students by a well versed prepared topic assures
teachers integrity”. (P-08)
 “Yes we know many teachers who send someone else for
roll call and that’s it. And if teacher is not capable of teaching
but pretending to be capable to save his job, is another act of
dishonesty. For example refined communication is considered
as one of fundamental skills in teacher, and he doesn’t carry
that, how can he justify his capability as a teacher. A well
versed person in his subject might not be a good teacher”.
(I-04)

“Teacher has to have updated content to teach, s/he has

to be technically sound, but also be familiar with education
itself, the philosophy of education, the role of a teacher, the
adequate behaviors of a teacher etc. So teacher as a leader
conveys his content that makes students understand technical
and social aspects of it”. (P-17)

“Beside gifts, I have seen teachers who are poorly

biased; they company some specific students and reward them
good marks. And I am talking about university teachers, who
thought to be mature and neutral but they are not. To satisfy
personal egos they like students who do flattering and show
unnecessary obedience”. (I-12)

“If we consider the ethical standard and integrity of a

teacher as yard stick, then what we say about teachers who use
some of the students as their spies in the classroom to get to
know what others teachers and students are saying about him/
her. Isn’t it corruption to use students for spying and in return
give them relaxation in assignments or give better grades?”
(I-08)

Table 4.5
Categories of Perceived Individuals’ Integrity
Sr Sub-theme Categories
Impartially Ensuring Integrity
Stimulating Employees’ Integrity
Perceived Leader
1 Interactional Integrity
Integrity
Encouraging Whistle- blowing
Observing Personal Integrity
2 Perceived Teacher Impartially Ensuring Integrity
 Integrity Stimulating Students’ Integrity
Interactional Integrity
Encouraging Whistle- blowing
Observing Personal Integrity

4.1.3.2 Awareness & Perceived Transparency

Implementation of a realistic process for addressing violations, require

refinement and then reinforcement of the ethics curriculum (Cardwell, 2010).

4.1.3.2.1 Awareness & Perceived Transparency (Employees)

“Many of us do not know the rules even; I don’t know

whether any integrity rules exist here, yes we find out the
relevant rules when we need them, but my institution has never
given importance to disseminate integrity rules”. (I-07)

“Yes awareness of rule does have an impact on

controlling misconducts, people sometime are not aware of
what constitutes a misconduct or corruption at their respective
job or role”. (P-13)

“I think institutions don’t consider it important to share

their integrity codes, which is sad. I believe that all new
inductees must go through an induction program as we see in
corporations, and that induction program must have a full
fledge session on sharing integrity codes of the institution”.
(P-16)

“Yes integrity awareness sessions are a good idea, but I

personally think that integrity expectation should be reinforced
as often as possible”. (I-01)

4.1.3.2.2 Awareness & Transparency (Students)

Table 4.6
Categories of Awareness and Perceived Transparency
Sr Sub-theme Categories
1 A&PT employees Awareness of Integrity Codes
 Awareness of Reporting a misconduct
Transparency
Awareness of Integrity Codes
2 A&PT students Awareness of Reporting a misconduct
Transparency

4.1.3.3 Perceived Justice

As Greenberg (1990) and Colquitt (2001) mentioned that perceived
justice refers to anyone's subjective perceptions of the fairness of allocations,
such as hiring, promotion etc. thus organizational justice consists of several
sub-dimensions, referring to the allocation of outcomes such as promotion
opportunities or rewards (i.e., distributive justice), the process by which the
allocations were made (i.e., procedural justice), and the received relational
treatment during the dissemination of information about the process (i.e.,
interactional justice). According to Leventhal (1980), fair procedures are those
that are applied consistently, are based on prevailing ethical standards, and are
unbiased, accurate, correctable, and representative of all individuals concerned,
same is expressed by our participant:

“Justice is prerequisite to all good. Who can deny it?

Justice breathes energy and motivation into faculty, staff and
students. Human are not blind, if justice prevails, significant
majority will admit it, and their perception will reveal it”.
(P-24)

4.1.3.3.1 Perceived Administrative Justice

Perceived justice as whole and specifically in administrative activities

has established reputation as predicting a wide range of organizational
outcomes such as counterproductive work behavior (Cohen-Charash and
Spector, 2001), ethical and unethical conduct (Fox, Spector and Miles, 2001;
Spector and Fox 2002), workplace deviance (Holtz and Harold, 2013), job
involvement, and turnover intention (Khan, Abbas, Gul and Raja, 2015). Let’s
read some of the opinions shared by our FGDs’ participants and interviewees.

“I being employee of the university always looked

forward to have judicious system that assures fairness to all
employees. When I joined university as lecturer long time back,
 one of my uncles advised me to be very humble to my boss
especially near the performance appraisal, because it’s his
personal liking that counts most. It is indeed sad to tell that
after many years there isn’t any significant change in our
public sector HEIs. Teachers still has to pay a good amount of
effort to make his/her bosses happy. “Junbund na Junbund, Gul
Muhamamd” nothing has been changed”. (P-02)

“Without having proper functioning accountability

mechanism, no institution can claim to have integrity in their
system. Because if accountability mechanism exists there would
be proper monitoring of conduct and a well-established
reporting mechanism would have been existed which display
integrity as a valuable asset for an institution. Then employees
would carry a positive opinion about their own institution”.
(P-22)

4.1.3.3.2 Perceived Academic Justice

“What integrity are you talking about sir, we see students
cheating and teachers take it so lightly. In universities where
your own teachers are invigilators as well as examiners, so they
show certain leniency toward students, while caught cheating.
And in last 3 years I have never seen any sign of worry among
teachers or high authorities regarding such malpractices”.
(I-09)
“If students put in more effort in making teachers happy
than acquiring knowledge, what product do we imagine? If
university system doesn’t permit student to plead his case
against any injustice to him/her, what morality are we talking
about. I tell you real story here, one of a student had to face the
grudge of a teacher in final results. He asked for paper
rechecking, and who did the rechecking, a close friend of the
same teacher. Is this you call justice?” (I-11)
“It is common understanding among all students that
teacher is always right. Though with the passage of time such
supremacy is challenged at some points but still the old norm
prevails”. (I-10)
 “If majority of the students perceive unjust, then there is
some problem with the university”. (P-33)
“Justice is synonym to fairness, so even if students’
feedback is not fairly treated, then the institution cannot claim
to have justice in their academic processes”. (P-46)
“In and outside classroom, the justice must prevail. So if
you claim to have fairness in assessment and examinations and
do not have fairness in accountability, your institution can
never be perceived having integrity within its system. So either
justice exists or doesn’t, partial justice or justice partially is no
justice at all. And this wholeness of integrity depends on the
wholeness of justice in the academic system”. (P-43)

Table 4.7
Categories of Perceived Justice
Sr Sub-theme Categories
Integrity in Hiring
Integrity in Performance Appraisal
Perceived
Integrity Valued
1 Administrative
Accountability
Justice
Reporting Mechanism
Ensuring Parity
Integrity in Admissions
Integrity in Class
Integrity in Student Assessment
Perceived Integrity in Examinations
2
Academic Justice Student Feed Back
Accountability
Integrity Valued
Ensuring Parity

On the basis of above views by scholars and our partisans in FGDs and
interviewees we reached to our final conceptual framework (see figure4..) that
could lead us to compute integrity index of any higher education institution.
Figure 4.1: Integrity Framework
 CHAPTER 5

QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS FINDINGS

This chapter contains the results obtained by quantitative data. There are
three sections in this chapter; section 1 provides descriptive, section 2 offers
inferential analysis, and section 3 explains the process of computing integrity
index and its results using quantitative data.

5.1 DESCRIPTIVE OF INTEGRITY CODES AND INTEGRITY

COMPLIANCE

Our data contains institution and individual level information; consisting

explicit codes and compliance mechanism; gathered from the documents of the
institution, whereas data concerning perception of internal members;
employees and students, regarding integrity mechanism, is gathered through
survey questionnaires.

The data including integrity codes related to university main bodies

(administrative; syndicate, finance and planning, purchase committee,
disciplinary committee, and academic; academic council, board of advance
studies & research, faculty board and board of studies), employees; teaching
and non-teaching, and students, discloses a dismal condition. Table 5.1 unveils,
that majority of codes are in poor condition, which indicates; either they are
not comprehensively written or not easily accessible. As whistleblowing is
considered one of the important element to ensure good governance and
integrity, but surprisingly we found no codes regarding that. Integrity codes
pertaining to BASR (Board of Advanced Studies & Research) are the only
codes earned the ‘Good’ status.

While probing into documents for the integrity compliance mechanism;

commitment display, monitoring, and awareness, we come across startling
results. Only mission statement of the university contains a word ‘Integrity’
whereas no other statement; vice chancellors, deans’, chairpersons’ messages
etc., do not even contain a word i.e. integrity, honesty, ethics, morality, values
etc., which shows ‘Integrity’ as their least priority. There exists a disciplinary
committee of generic nature for students, QEC (Quality Enhancement Cell)
members pay visits during exams, and they have system to make committees
on case-to-case bases, however proper central or departmental integrity
assurance teams and monitoring system are absent. Though QEC provides
information on exam conduct (only), but area of formal awareness programs to
make employees and students conscious toward integrity in all their actions, is
completely inattentive. Please see Table 5.2 that depicts the strength of
integrity codes and compliance mechanism.

Table 5.1
Descriptive of Integrity Codes and Integrity Compliance Mechanism
Integrity Code Mean Dimensions Mean Status
Syndicate 3.00 Fair
University Bodies; Finance & Panning 3.00 Fair
2.75
Administrative Purchase Committee 2.00 Poor
Disciplinary Committee 3.00 Fair
Academic Council 3.00 Fair
University Bodies; BASR 4.00 Good
2.75
Academic Faculty Board 2.00 Poor
Board of Studies 2.00 Poor
General Integrity 4.00 Fair
Integrity in Hiring 2.00 Poor
Integrity in PA 0.50 Very Poor
Employee; All 1.84 Whistleblowing 0.00 N-E
Integrity in Enquiry 3.00 Fair
Integrity in Witnessing 0.33 Very Poor
Integrity in Resource Allocation 2.50 Poor
Integrity in General 1.00 Very Poor
Employee; Teacher 2.30 Integrity in Class 0.50 Very Poor
Integrity in Exams 2.40 Poor
General Integrity 3.00 Fair
Student 1.16 Integrity in Class 0.66 Very Poor
Integrity in Exams 1.20 Very Poor
Total 2.16 Poor
Compliance
Mean Dimensions Mean Status
Mechanism
Statements i.e. vision, mission etc. 1 Very Poor
Commitment Display 1.00 Electronic-social media, website
0 N-E
etc.
Central Monitoring 2 Poor
Monitoring 2.00
Departmental Monitoring 2 Poor
Awareness 0.00 Trainings, workshops etc. 0.00 N-E
Very
Total 1.00
Poor
BASR: Board of Advanced Studies & Research, N-E: Non-Existent

Table 5.2
 Codes and Compliance Strength Chart
Strength
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Good
Poor

Fair
Non-Existent

Very good
Very Poor

Excellent
Integrity Codes

University Administrative Bodies

Syndicate
Finance and Planning
Purchase Committee
Discipline Committee
University Academic Bodies
Academic Council
ASRB/BASR/ORIC
Faculty Board
Board of Studies
Employees (Teaching and Non-Teaching
General Integrity
Integrity in Hiring
Integrity in Performance Appraisal
Whistleblowing
Integrity in Enquiry
Witnessing
Integrity in Resources Allocation
Employees (Teaches only)
Integrity in General
Integrity in Class
Integrity in Examinations
Students
General Integrity
Integrity in Class
Integrity in Examinations
Integrity in Course and Teacher Evaluation
Whistleblowing
Witnessing

Strength
Compliance Mechanism
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
 Non-Existent

Very good
Very Poor

Excellent
Good
Poor

Fair
Compliance Mechanism for Administrative Functions
Central Integrity Assurance Team (IAT) –Monitoring
Departmental Focal Person of IAT –Monitoring
Integrity Codes Awareness Program (ICAP)
Display of Commitment
Compliance Mechanism for Academic Functions
Central Integrity Assurance Team (IAT) –Monitoring
Departmental Focal Person of IAT –Monitoring
Integrity Codes Awareness Program (ICAP)
Display of Commitment

5.2 DESCRIPTIVE OF INDIVIDUALS’ PERCEPTION

There are two sets of individual respondents; employees (n = 259) and
students (n = 707). Let us see the profiles of data set containing employees and
students.

5.2.1 Employees’ Profile

Among the total 259 respondents (employees), there are 154 males and
105 females. Highest number of respondents (102 which makes up 39.4% of
total) belongs to 31-35 years age bracket. Moreover our data set contain more
of teaching staff (140) than non-teaching staff (119), in which 40.9%
respondents belong to 17th and 18th grade, whereas only 2.7% respondents are
above 20th grade. As far as work experience is concerned 43.2% and 6.9% of
the respondents are having 1-5 years and above 15 years working experience
with current university respectively, and 49.8% respondents are having 6-14
years of experience with current university. Table 5.3 exhibits the profile of
employees’ in our data set, whereas table 5.3.1 provides more elaborative and
conclusive information pertaining to employees’ profile.

Table 5.3
Profile Analysis of Overall Respondents (Employees)
Profile (n=259) Category Frequencies Mean Std.Dev
Male 154 (59.5 %)
Gender
Female 105 (40.5 %)
Age (in years) 21-25 18 (6.9 %) 22.89 1.23
 26-30 53 (20.5 %) 28.43 .991
31-35 102 (39.4 %) 33.08 1.39
36-40 48 (18.5 %) 36.75 1.10
41-45 17 (6.6 %) 43.59 1.77
46-50 5 (1.9 %) 49.00 .000
Above 50 16 (6.2 %) 54.00 1.46
34.39 7.30
Teaching 140 (54.1 %)
Job Type
Non-Teaching 119 (45.9 %)
1-10 38 (14.7 %) 8.11 2.31
11-16 44 (17 %) 14.48 2.08
Grade 17-18 130 (50.2 %) 17.68 1.45
19-20 40 (15.4 %) 18.53 1.28
Above 20 7 (2.7 %) 21.00 .000
1-5 112 (43.2 %) 3.18 1.97
Experience at Current 6-10 93 (35.9 %) 8.55 2.31
University (in years) 11-15 36 (13.9 %) 12.00 4.72
Above 15 18 (6.9 %) 27.33 8.36
1-5 101 (39 %) 5.95 3.85
Total Working Experience 6-10 88 (34 %) 10.29 2.67
(in years) 11-15 38 (14.7 %) 14.00 4.74
Above 15 32 (12.4 %) 23.53 9.09

5.2.2 Students’ Profile

Let us now discuss the other set of respondents; students. There are 398
male and 309 female students in total data set of 707, which makes up 56.3%
and 43.7% respectively. Our data set reveals that most of the students; 368
(52%), fit in the 21-25 years age bracket, followed by 240 (33.9%) students are
less than 21 years of age; mean value is 19 years. There are 82.3% and 5.4%
students are enrolled in undergrad and postgrad programs respectively. We
collected the data during odd semester and dropped students of semester 1; as
we argue that students in first semester are not well aware about their
institution, therefore our data contains responses of the students studying in
semester 3, 5 and 7. The highest number of students; 299 (42.3%), are studying
in 3rd semester whereas students’ responses from 5th and 7th semester are 179
(25.3%), and 229 (32.4%) respectively. Students in our final sample represent
all provinces of Pakistan i.e. 85 belong to north of Pakistan including Gilgit
Baltistan, Azad Jammu & Kashmir, and Khyber PakhtouKhwa, 593 represent
Punjab, and 29 students show their affiliation with Balochistan and Sindh.
Table 5.4 provides a quick glance over the profile of students.
5.2.3 Employees’ Perception

Table 5.5 shows almost a similar trend in the perception of male;

teaching and non-teaching employees at the university, for instance the total
mean value of male employees is between 3.5 and 4 with very little difference
in the dispersion of data. However females teaching employees’ total mean
value is higher than non-teaching female employees. The mean value of each
variable; perceived leader integrity, awareness and perceived transparency and
perceived administrative justice, is closely similar among all employees,
except perceived leader integrity has higher mean in the data set containing
perception of teaching employees.
 Table 5.3.1
Elaborative Profile Analysis of Overall Respondents (Employees)
Employees - Job Type: Teaching Employees - Job Type: Non-Teaching
Male Female Total Mean Std.Dev Male Female Total Mean Std.Dev
68 (48.6 %) 72 (51.4%) 140 86 (72.26 %) 33 (27.73%) 119
Age 21-25 10 (11.6 %) 4 (12.1 %) 14 22.86 1.40
Age 21-25 4 (5.9 %) 00.00 4 23.83 0.92 26-30 26 (30.2 %) 7 (21.2 %) 33 28.45 1.20
26-30 00.00 20 (27.8 %) 20 28.40 0.50 31-35 10 (11.6 %) 12 (36.4 %) 22 33.55 1.96
31-35 36 (52.9 %) 44 (61.1 %) 80 32.95 1.16 36-40 10 (11.6 %) 10 (30.3 %) 20 36.20 0.41
36-40 20 (29.4 %) 8 (11.1 %) 28 37.14 1.26 41-45 17 (19.8 %) 00.00 17 43.59 1.77
Above 50 8 (11.8 %) 00.00 8 54.00 1.37 46-50 5 (5.8 %) 00.00 5 49.44 0.61
Above 50 8 (9.3 %) 00.00 8 54.00 2.13
Grade 17-18 Grade 1-10 26 (30.23 %) 12 (36.63%) 38 8.11 2.31
38 (55.88 %) 59 (81.94%) 97 18.32
19-20 0.46 11-16 31 (36.04 %) 13 (39.39%) 44 14.48 2.08
23 (33.82 %) 13 (18.05%) 36 18.89
Above 0.52 17-18 26 (30.23 %) 7 (21.21 %) 33 15.79 1.70
7 (10.29 %) 0 7 21.00
20 0.00 19-20 3 (3.48 %) 1 (3.03 %) 4 15.25 1.50
WECU 1-5 29 (42.64%) 53 (73.61%) 82 2.97 1.72 WECU 1- 22 (25.58%) 8 (24.24%) 30 3.76 2.47
6-10 22 (32.35 17 (23.61%) 39 7.71 2.40 5 34 (39.53%) 20 (60.60%) 54 9.16 2.07
11-15 9 (13.23%) 2 (2.77%) 11 9.00 3.77 6-10 22 (25.58%) 5 (15.15%) 27 13.00 4.63
Above 15 8 (11.76 0 8 25.00 10.54 11-15 8 (9.30%) 0 8 30.25 3.10
Above 15
OWE 1- 24 (35.29%) 50 (69.44%) 74 5.72 3.31 OWE 1-5 21 (24.41%) 6 (18.18%) 27 6.55 5.06
5 22 (32.35%) 17 (23.61%) 39 9.76 2.85 6-10 28 (32.55%) 21 (63.63%) 49 10.71 2.48
6-10 11 (16.17%) 1 (1.38%) 12 10.33 4.73 11-15 20 (23.25%) 6 (18.18%) 26 15.69 3.74
11-15 11 (16.17%) 4 (5.55%) 15 20.46 10.96 Above 15 17 (19.76%) 0 17 26.23 6.22
Above 15
WECU: Work Experience at Current University OWE: Overall Work Experience
 Table 5.4
Profile Analysis of Overall Respondents (Students)
Male Female Total Mean Std.Dev
398 (56.3 %) 309 (43.7 %) 707
Age Less than 21 118 (29.6%) 122 (39.4%) 240 (33.9%) 19.35 0.717
21-25 216 (54.2%) 152 (49.1%) 368 (52.0%) 22.61 1.40
26-30 39 (9.7%) 28 (9.0%) 67 (9.4%) 28.77 2.17
31-35 25 (6.2%) 7 (2.2%) 32 (4.5%) 33.09 2.37
Mean 24.42 23.87 24.14
TQ (in years) 12 330 (82.9%) 252 (81.6%) 582 (82.3%)
16 39 (9.8%) 48 (15.5%) 87 (12.3%)
18 29 (7.3%) 9 (2.9%) 38 (5.4%)
EP Undergrad 330 (82.9%) 252 (81.6%) 582 (82.3%)
Grad 39 (9.8%) 48 (15.5%) 87 (12.3%)
Postgrad 29 (7.3%) 9 (2.9%) 38 (5.4%)
Semester 3 162 (40.7%) 137 (44.3%) 299 (42.3%)
5 106 (26.6%) 73 (23.6%) 179 (25.3%)
7 130 (32.7%) 99 (32.0%) 229 (32.4%)
R(P) Gilgit Baltistan 11 (2.8%) 7 (2.3%) 18 (2.5%)
Khyber Pakhtoun Khau 32 (8%) 8 (2.6%) 40 (5.7%)
Punjab 305 (76.6%) 288 (93.2%) 593 (83.9%)
Balochistan 9 (2.3%) 1 (0.3%) 10 (1.4%)
Sindh 19 (4.8%) 0 19 (2.7%)
Azad Jammu & Kashmir 22 (5.5%) 5 (1.6%) 27 (3.8%)
TQ: Terminal Qualification EP: Enrolled Program R(P): Resident of (Province)

Table 5.5
Descriptive of Employees’ Perception
Variable Faculty Non-Faculty
Male Female Male Female
Mean Std-Dev Mean Std-Dev Mean Std-Dev Mean Std-Dev
PLI 4.66 0.98 4.18 0.43 3.79 1.00 3.63 1.05
A&PT 3.46 1.48 3.83 0.38 3.37 0.85 3.20 1.05
PAdJ 3.80 0.83 4.26 0.43 3.43 1.17 3.59 1.15
Total 3.97 1.09 4.09 0.41 3.53 1.00 3.47 1.08
PLI: Perceived Leader Integrity, A&PT: Awareness and Perceived Transparency,
PAdJ: Perceived Administrative Justice
 Figure 5.1: Scatter Box (Employees)

13 Ensuring Parity
12 Reporting Mechanism
11 Accountability
10 Integrtiy Valued
9 Performance Appraisal
8 Transperancy
7 Awarness of Reporting Mechanism
6 Awarnes of Integrity Codes
5 Observing Personal Integrity
4 Encouraging Whistleblowing
3 Interactional Integrtiy
2 Stimulating Employees' Integrtiy
1 Impartially Ensuring Integrtiy
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

*Factors of Perceived Leader Integrity 1-5,

Awareness and Perceived Integrity 6-8, Perceived Administrative Justice 9-13
Figure 5.2: Factor Wise Perception of Employees
Figure 5.3: Histogram and Data Normality Curve
5.2.4 Students’ Perception

Students of all semester; 3rd, 5th and 7th, provide a neutral perception
toward their teachers’ integrity, and similarly consider the academic justice fair
enough to run the show. The mean value of male, female students of all
semesters in the data set is lesser than rest of the variables. The cumulative
mean of all variables is lesser than 4 and standard deviation is between .60 and
.90. Table 5.6 displays the descriptive of students’ perception.
Table 5.6
Descriptive of Students’ Perception
Variable Semester 3 Semester 5 Semester 7
Male Female Male Female Male Female
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
PTI 4.11 0.62 4.09 0.54 4.14 0.67 4.09 0.52 4.16 0.78 4.06 0.73
A&PT 3.54 0.95 3.35 0.84 3.35 1.03 3.50 0.94 3.24 0.92 3.38 0.93
PAcJ 4.02 0.54 3.96 0.51 4.09 0.57 4.06 0.55 4.06 0.61 4.00 0.57
Total 3.89 0.70 3.8 0.63 3.86 0.75 3.88 0.67 3.82 0.77 3.81 0.74
PTI: Perceived Teacher Integrity, A&PT: Awareness and Perceived Transparency,
PAcJ: Perceived Academic Justice

Figure 5.4: Scatter Box (Students)

 15 Ensuring Parity
14 Integrity Valued
13 Accountibility and Reporting Mechanism
12 Dealing Students' Feedback
11 Examinations
10 Student Assessment
9 Class Conduct
8 Transperancy
7 Awarness of Reporting Mechanism
6 Awarnes of Integrity Codes
5 Observing Personal Integrity
4 Encouraging Whistleblowing
3 Interactional Integrtiy
2 Stimulating Students' Integrtiy
1 Impartially Ensuring Integrtiy
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

*Factors of Perceived Teacher Integrity 1-5,

Awareness and Perceived Integrity 6-8, Perceived Administrative Justice 9-15
Figure 5.5: Factor Wise Perception of Students

PAcJ

PAdJ

APT - S

AWP-E

PTI

PLI

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

*PLI: Perceived Leader Integrity, PTI: Perceived Teacher Integrity, AWP (E-S): Awareness and Perceived
Transparency (Employee – Student), PAdJ: Perceived Administrative Justice, PAcJ: Perceived Academic Justice
Figure 5.6: Employees’ and Students’ Overall Perception
5.3 EFA and CFA (employees’ data set)

We run EFA (exploratory factor analysis) on final employee data set.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure confirmed the adequacy of our sampling for
the principal component analysis (Table 5.7), KMO = 0.849 (i.e. greater than
0.6, as recommended by Tabachnik and Fidell, 2001 and ‘great’ according to
Field, 2009) indicating the appropriateness of the factor analysis (Tabachnik
and Fidell, 2001). Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 (78) = 3133.352, p <.001, also
indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for principal
component analysis. In commonalities all extraction values are above .6 except
1item.
Table 5.7
KMO and Bartlett's Test (EFA-Employees’ Perception)
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .849
Approx. Chi-Square 3133.352
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 78
Sig. .000

Table 5.8
Commonalities (EFA-Employees’ Perception)
Sr Items Initial Extraction
1 Perceived Leader Integrity- Impartially Ensuring Integrity 1.000 .874

2 Perceived Leader Integrity- Stimulating Employees’ Integrity 1.000 .853

3 Perceived Leader Integrity- Interactional Integrity 1.000 .809

4 Perceived Leader Integrity- Encouraging Whistle- blowing 1.000 .706

5 Perceived Leader Integrity- Observing Personal Integrity 1.000 .743

6 Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of Integrity Codes 1.000 .806

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of Reporting a 1.000 .782
7
misconduct
8 Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Transparency 1.000 .685

9 Perceived Administrative Justice- Integrity in Performance Appraisal 1.000 .775

10 Perceived Administrative Justice- Integrity Valued 1.000 .866

11 Perceived Administrative Justice- Accountability 1.000 .890

12 Perceived Administrative Justice- Reporting Mechanism 1.000 .785

13 Perceived Administrative Justice- Ensuring Parity 1.000 .859

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 5.9
Total Variance Explained (EFA-Employees’ Perception)
Extraction Sums Rotation Sums
Component

Initial Eigenvalues
of Squared Loadings of Squared Loadings

% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative

Total Total Total
Variance % Variance % Variance %
7.287 56.053 56.053 7.287 56.053 56.053 4.140 31.847 31.847
1
1.985 15.268 71.321 1.985 15.268 71.321 3.796 29.201 61.049
2
1.162 8.938 80.259 1.162 8.938 80.259 2.497 19.210 80.259
3
.614 4.727 84.985
4
.387 2.974 87.959
5
.332 2.553 90.512
6
.297 2.283 92.795
7
.291 2.237 95.032
8
.209 1.608 96.641
9
.148 1.135 97.776
10
.136 1.048 98.823
11
.086 .663 99.486
12
.067 .514 100.000
13
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
 Figure 5.7: Scree Plot (EFA-Employees’ Perception)

Table 5.10
Rotated Component Matrixa (EFA-Employees’ Perception)
Component
1 2 3
Perceived Leader Integrity- Impartially Ensuring Integrity .899

Perceived Leader Integrity- Stimulating Employees’ Integrity .890

Perceived Leader Integrity- Interactional Integrity .845

Perceived Leader Integrity- Encouraging Whistle- blowing .792

Perceived Leader Integrity- Observing Personal Integrity .793

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of Integrity Codes .836

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of Reporting a misconduct .833

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Transparency .704

Perceived Administrative Justice- Integrity in Performance Appraisal .732

Perceived Administrative Justice- Integrity Valued .794

Perceived Administrative Justice- Accountability .895

Perceived Administrative Justice- Reporting Mechanism .847

Perceived Administrative Justice- Ensuring Parity .822

Reliability .929 .836 .936

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

To examine the likelihood of a unidimensional of multifaceted integrity perception

scale (rather than a three-factor model), the second model, where all 23
items were loaded onto a single factor was tested. The fit statistics
for unidimensional multifaceted thriving scale model are as follows:
χ2 = 10460.312; χ2/df = 42.521; GFI = 0.820; AGFI = 0.780; CFI = 0.282;
NFI = 0.279; RMSEA = 0.335; SRMR = 0.052; and TLI = 0.195. The values of
model fit indices for unidimensional was not satisfactory in any of the acceptable
level of good fit. In essence, the results supported a three factor model over a one
factor model.

Table 5.11
Calculated Fit Indices and Level of Acceptable Fit
(CFA-Employees’ Perception)
Level of Calculated
S# Indices Source
Acceptable Fit Fit Indices
1 χ2 534.603
Hair et al., 2010;
Hu and Bentler, 534/223 =
2 χ2/df χ /df ≤ 5
2
1999; Jöreskog 8.47
and Sörbom, 1993
Goodness of Fit Hu and Bentler,
3 .90 ≤ GFI ≤ 1 .783
Index (GFI) 1999
Adjusted Goodness Hooper, Coughlan
4 .90 ≤ AGFI ≤ 1 .682
Fit Index (AGFI) and Mullen, 2000
Kline, 2005;
Comparative Fix
5 .90 ≤ CFI ≤ 1 Tabachnick and .849
Index (CFI)
Fidell, 2001
Normed Fit Index Tabachnick and
6 .90 ≤ NFI ≤ 1 .833
(NFI) Fidell, 2001
Root Mean Square Browne and
7 0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 1 .175
Error of Cudeck, 1993; Hu
 Approximation and Bentler, 1999;
(RMSEA) MacCallum,
Browne and
Sugawara, 1996
Tucker-Lewis Index
7 .90 ≤ TLI ≤ 1 Kline, 2005 .810
(TLI)

5.4 EFA and CFA (students’ data set)

We also run EFA (exploratory factor analysis) on students data set. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure confirmed the adequacy of our sampling for the
principal component analysis (Table 3….), KMO = 0.850 (i.e. greater than 0.6, as
recommended by Tabachnik and Fidell, 2001 and ‘great’ according to Field, 2009)
indicating the appropriateness of the factor analysis (Tabachnik and Fidell, 2001).
Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 (105) = 7082.870, p <.001, also indicated that
correlations between items were sufficiently large for principal component
analysis.

Table 5.12
KMO and Bartlett's Test (EFA-Students’ Perception)
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .850
Approx. Chi-Square 7082.870
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 105
Sig. .000

Table 5.13
Commonalities (EFA-Students’ Perception)
Initial Extraction

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Impartially Ensuring Integrity 1.000 .716

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Stimulating Students’ Integrity 1.000 .780

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Interactional Integrity 1.000 .554

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Encouraging Whistle- blowing 1.000 .590

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Observing Personal Integrity 1.000 .731

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of Integrity Codes 1.000 .873

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of Reporting a misconduct 1.000 .877

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Transparency 1.000 .837

Perceived Academic Justice- Integrity in Class 1.000 .751

Perceived Academic Justice- Integrity in Student Assessment 1.000 .526

Perceived Academic Justice- Integrity in Examinations 1.000 .558

Perceived Academic Justice- Student Feed Back 1.000 .663

Perceived Academic Justice- Accountability and Reporting Mechanism 1.000 .696

Perceived Academic Justice- Integrity Valued 1.000 .585

Perceived Academic Justice- Ensuring Parity 1.000 .735

Table 5.14
Total Variance Explained (EFA-Students’ Perception)
Extraction Sums Rotation Sums
Component

Initial Eigenvalues
of Squared Loadings of Squared Loadings

% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative

Total Total Total
Variance % Variance % Variance %
6.119 40.797 40.797 6.119 40.797 40.797 4.454 29.694 29.694
1
2.218 14.787 55.584 2.218 14.787 55.584 3.381 22.540 52.234
2
2.135 14.231 69.815 2.135 14.231 69.815 2.637 17.581 69.815
3
.901 6.007 75.822
4
.632 4.212 80.034
5
.488 3.250 83.284
6
.459 3.062 86.346
7
.421 2.805 89.151
8
.347 2.311 91.461
9
.273 1.823 93.284
10
.257 1.716 95.000
11
.249 1.657 96.657
12
.200 1.333 97.990
13
.186 1.242 99.232
14
 .115 .768 100.000
15
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Figure 5.8: Scree Plot (EFA-Students’ Perception)

Table 5.15
Rotated Component Matrixa (EFA-Students’ Perception)
Component
1 2 3
Perceived Teacher Integrity- Impartially Ensuring Integrity .810

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Stimulating Students’ Integrity .867

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Interactional Integrity .710

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Encouraging Whistle- blowing .748

Perceived Teacher Integrity- Observing Personal Integrity .799

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of Integrity Codes .914

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Awareness of Reporting a misconduct .930

Awareness and Perceived Transparency- Transparency .885

Perceived Academic Justice- Integrity in Student Assessment .856

Perceived Academic Justice- Integrity in Examinations .673

Perceived Academic Justice- Student Feed Back .694

Perceived Academic Justice- Accountability .805

Perceived Academic Justice- Integrity Valued .802

Perceived Academic Justice- Ensuring Parity .735

Reliability .868 .920 .899

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

To examine the likelihood of a unidimensional of multifaceted integrity perception

scale (rather than a three-factor model), the second model, where all 23
items were loaded onto a single factor was tested. The fit statistics
for unidimensional multifaceted thriving scale model are as follows:
χ2 = 10460.312; χ2/df = 42.521; GFI = 0.820; AGFI = 0.780; CFI = 0.282;
NFI = 0.279; RMSEA = 0.335; SRMR = 0.052; and TLI = 0.195. The values of
model fit indices for unidimensional was not satisfactory in any of the acceptable
level of good fit. In essence, the results supported a three factor model over a one
factor model (ANNEXURE D).

Table 5.16
Calculated Fit Indices and Level of Acceptable Fit
(CFA-Students’ Perception)
Level of Calculated
S# Indices Source
Acceptable Fit Fit Indices
1 χ2 945
Hair et al., 2010;
Hu and Bentler, 945/87 =
2 χ /df
2
χ /df ≤ 5
2
1999; Jöreskog 10.8
and Sörbom, 1993
Goodness of Fit Hu and Bentler,
3 .90 ≤ GFI ≤ 1 .849
Index (GFI) 1999
 Adjusted Goodness Hooper, Coughlan
4 .90 ≤ AGFI ≤ 1 .792
Fit Index (AGFI) and Mullen, 2000
Kline, 2005;
Comparative Fix
5 .90 ≤ CFI ≤ 1 Tabachnick and .878
Index (CFI)
Fidell, 2001
Normed Fit Index Tabachnick and
6 .90 ≤ NFI ≤ 1 .868
(NFI) Fidell, 2001
Browne and
Root Mean Square Cudeck, 1993; Hu
Error of and Bentler, 1999;
7 0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 1 .118
Approximation MacCallum,
(RMSEA) Browne and
Sugawara, 1996
Tucker-Lewis Index
7 .90 ≤ TLI ≤ 1 Kline, 2005 .853
(TLI)

5.5 COMPUTING INTEGRITY INDEX

Lastly we reached to our final stage where we could compute integrity

index of a higher education institution. We calculated their scores and took
percentages. The index was calculated using the following formula

Mean + Maximum Number

Maximum Number – Minimum Number

Then final mean index of each variable and of entire institution is

calculated (see; Table 51.7 - 5.22), which fall between 0 to 1.To display the
integrity level a bandwidth is then split in 4 equal sections; i) 0-0.25 alarming
to upsetting, 0.26-0.50 very poor to poor, 0.51-0.75 renaissance to revived, and
0.76-1 good to excellent. Tables and figures below represent the integrity level
0 as lowest to 1 highest.

Table 5.17
Integrity Index of Codes (University Bodies)
Sr Variable Mean Integrity Index Score Percentage
1 Administrative Bodies 3 0.46 12/28 42.85%
2 Academic Bodies 2.75 0.42 11/28 39.28%
Total 2.87 0.44 23/56 41.07%
 Table 5.19 shows the mean, score, and percentage and integrity index of codes for
university bodies. The table and figure represents that integrity codes for administrative bodies as
well as academic bodies fall in the area; poor with integrity index of 0.46 and 0.42 respectively.

Figure 5.9: Integrity Index Dial; Codes (University Bodies)

 Table 5.18
Integrity Index of Codes (Employees and Students)
Sr Variable Mean Integrity Index Score Percentage
1 All employees 2.9 0.32 12.33/49 25.16%
2 Employees (Teaching) 1.3 0.38 4.9/21 23.33%
3 Students 1 0.19 6/42 14.28%
Total 1.73 0.29 23.23/112 20.74%

Table 5.20 shows the mean, score, and percentage and integrity index of codes for
university employees; teaching and non-teaching and students. The table and figure represents
that integrity codes for employees have earned better score and fall in very poor area with the
integrity index 0.35. Whereas integrity codes for students fall in the upsetting area wit integrity
index of 0.19.

Figure 5.10: Integrity Index Dial; Codes (Employees and Students)

 Table 5.19
Integrity Index of Integrity Compliance Mechanism
Sr Variable Mean Integrity Index Score Percentage
1 Display of 0.5 0.17 1/14 7.14%
Commitment
2 Integrity Monitoring 2 0.33 12/42 28.57%
Integrity Awareness 0 0.00 0/28 0
Program
Total 0.83 0.16 13/84 15.47%

Table 5.21 exhibits the mean, score, and percentage and integrity index of compliance
mechanism, consisting of display of commitment, integrity monitoring, and awareness program.
The table and figure represents that integrity compliance mechanism is near alarming condition
with the integrity index of 0.16. Among three the integrity index of integrity monitoring is above
0.25, and falls in very poor area with 0.33 integrity index.

Figure 5.11: Integrity Index Dial; Compliance Mechanism

 Table 5.20
Integrity Index of Employees’ Perception
Sr Variable Mean Integrity Index Score Percentage
1 PLI 4.06 0.50 73.15/126 58.05%
2 A&PT 3.58 0.43 32.23/63 51.15%
3 PAdJ 3.66 0.43 54.9/105 52.28%
Total 3.77 .45 160.28/294 54.51%

Table 5.22 exhibits the mean, score, and percentage and integrity index of employees’
perception of their leader, awareness and transparency and administrative justice. The table and
figure represents that as per the perception of employees their leaders are having integrity closer
to renaissance but falls in poor area with integrity index of 0.50.

Figure 5.12: Integrity Index Dial; Employees’ Perception

 Table 5.21
Integrity Index of Students’ Perception
Sr Variable Mean Integrity Index Score Percentage
1 PTI 4.12 0.51 70/119 58.82%
2 A&PT 3.40 0.39 30.57/63 48.52%
3 PAcJ 3.93 0.49 102.21/182 56.15%
Total 3.82 0.46 202.78/364 55.70%

Figure 5.13: Integrity Index Dial; Students’ Perception

 Table 5.22
Overall Integrity Index of the Institution XYZ
Integrity
Sr Item Mean Score Percentage
Index
Integrity Code
Administrative Bodies 0.46 42.85%
3 12/28
Academic Bodes 0.42 39.28%
2.75 11/28
Employee(Teching & Non- 0.32 25.16%
1 2.9 12.33/49
Teaching) 0.38 23.33%
1.3 4.9/21
Employee(Teaching) 0.19 14.21%
1 6/42
Student 0.35 28.56%
2.19 54.48/168
Total
Integrity Compliance Mechanism
Integrity Commitment Display 0.5 0.17 1/14 7.14%
2 Integrity Monitoring 2 0.33 12/42 28.57%
Integrity Awareness Program 0 0 0/28 0
Total 0.83 0.16 13/84 11.90%
Employees’ Perception
Perceived Leader Integrity 0.50 58.05%
4.06 73.15/126
Awareness & Perceived 0.43 51.15%
3 3.58 32.23/63
Transparency 0.43 52.28%
3.66 54.9/105
Perceived Administrative Justice 0.45 54.51%
3.77 160.28/294
Total
Students’ perception
Perceived Teacher Integrity 0.51 58.28%
4.12 70/119
Awareness & Perceived 0.39 48.52%
4 3.40 30.57/63
Transparency 0.49 56.15%
3.93 102.21/182
Perceived Academic Justice 0.46 55.78%
3.82 202.78/364
Total
Grand Total 2.65 0.35 430.54/910 43.31%
Figure 5.14: Integrity Index Dial; Institution (University XYZ)
Figure 5.15: Overall Institutional Integrity Index of University XYZ
 CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The study begins with a very aim of developing a multipronged approach that could compute integrity
index for any higher education institution. This apparently modest aim made us realize that there exists no
framework that could present a holistic view of an educational institution’s integrity with a pragmatically
doable pathway. So, after developing integrity framework, that caters basic elements of integrity in Higher
education Institutions (HEIs), we collected and processed quantitative data. From the perspective of our
findings, let us have discussion on each critical and fundamental element and overall integrity of the university.
Furthermore, implications of the study, limitations future direction, and conclusion are also provided in this
chapter.

6.1 INTEGRITY CODES

As Victor and Cullen (1988), Wimbush and Shepherd (1994), Martin and Cullen (2006), and Arnaud and
Schminke (2012) advocate the existence of codes as first and major step to have integrity at the institution, thus
we considered codes as critical element. The findings of the study reveal that University XYZ has dismal
condition pertaining to integrity codes. Though general rule books, developed by provincial bodies exist, but
the institutional effort to develop further codes seems inattentive.

University bodies whether administrative or academic, are very influential and decision of their members
lead. We agree that structure and system of such bodies do exist, but condition of integrity codes for their
members require much improvement. Among all, only Board of Advance Studies and Research (BASR) has
much better version of codes, and the reason might be special interference of Higher Education Commission
(HEC) of Pakistan in doing so. But our integrity index highlights that codes for university bodies are in poor
condition and require proper updating.
 Integrity codes for administrative and academic functions; performance appraisal, procurement, class
conduct, examinations etc. were available; though in vague, and inaccessible manner, but one of the most
important dimensions; whistleblowing is completely ignored, and surprisingly we found no codes regarding
that. As whistleblowing is recognized important for curbing corruption (Rehg, Miceli, Near & Van Scotter, 2008;
Chassang,2014) among scholars and international anti-corruption communities, but the university seems
ignorant of it. Furthermore integrity codes relevant to employees’ and students’ conduct are poorly crafted and
fall in upsetting section of our integrity index bandwidth, with the integrity score of 0.29 as whole. Integrity
score highlights that codes for employees, are better than for students; possible reason could be the intervention
external bodies and they seem to be more active but for the students the external pressure is less thus university
did not attend the need to strengthen the integrity codes for students.

Explicit formal integrity codes influence the conduct of its members (McCabe et al. 1996) and determine
the institutions’ core belief (Adams, Tashchian and Shore, 2001), and commitment toward rightful conduct
(Schwepker, 2001). Furthermore, policies, procedures, and codes in an attempt to help deter violations and
ultimately change the climate of dishonesty and misconduct in an academic setting is also showing respect for
learning (Hamlin, Barczyk, Powell, & Frost, 2013). Thus University XYZ needs to pay special focus on
developing, and updating integrity codes. This will not only fulfill the basic requirement, but would portray
much improved integrity picture of the University.

6.2 INTEGRITY COMPLIANCE MECHANISM

Scholars have identified that integrity codes alone cannot deliver the desired results, but a parallel
compliance mechanism can offer so, thus compliance mechanism is required to propagate the existence of
codes and get its employees acquainted with their composition (Wotruba, Chonko, and Loe, 2001). University
XYZ has disappointing and alarming condition as far as compliance mechanism is concerned.

While probing into documents for the integrity compliance mechanism; commitment display,
monitoring, and awareness, we come across startling results. Only mission statement of the university contains
a word ‘Integrity’ whereas no other statement; vice chancellors, deans’, chairpersons’ messages etc., do not
even contain a word i.e. integrity, honesty, ethics, morality, values etc., which shows ‘Integrity’ as their least
priority.
The university displays no sign showing their concern, seriousness about integrity, honesty, morality or
any concepts from the same basket. We have gone through its website, prospectuses, brochures, news bulletin,
social media; Facebook, twitter, minutes of meeting (ones accessible), training topics and pamphlets,
comments and recorded addresses, but it is lamentable to mention that even showcasing institutional
determination toward integrity is heartbreakingly overlooked. With the score of 0.17, the display of
commitment falls into alarming zone, and require an urgent attention from the university authorities.

Likewise, there exists no formal or informal central monitoring team to assure that codes are followed as
prescribed; though codes themselves are also not elaborative of doing so. There exists a disciplinary
committee of generic nature for students, QEC (Quality Enhancement Cell) members pay visits during exams,
and they have system to make committees on case-to-case bases, however proper central or departmental
integrity monitoring teams are absent.

As Caldwell (2010) precisely mentioned the need to conduct integrity orientation and awareness
program, and our data reveals most disheartening truth that university XYZ is absolutely without any integrity
awareness program. Though QEC provides information on exam conduct (only), but area of formal awareness
programs to make employees and students conscious toward integrity in all their actions, is completely
inattentive.

As compliance mechanism is likely more important than just plainly the existence or nonexistence of the
code itself (Valentine and Barnett, 2003), thus university needs to establish integrity compliance mechanism on
war footings.

6.3 EMPLOYEES’ AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION

 The findings reveal that with 0.45 and 0.46 integrity score, university employees and student
respectively, perceive their leaders/ teacher, awareness - transparency and administrative/ academic justice,
poor. It is important to note that beside repeated assurance of maintaining confidentiality of responses,
employees and students displayed the sign of worry while filling the survey questionnaire. For instance; while
searching for compliance mechanism we inspected the training topics and pamphlet and found integrity
training and awareness program unavailable, but employees on the contrary have mentioned to receive integrity
training program during their induction. From here we could infer that while filling the questionnaire they were
slightly closefisted and avoided to surface the truth. This has to be considered as a natural concern, because we
asked them to disclose their opinion about their immediate leaders, teachers and system of their own university.

Employees and students are the internal members of an institution. They maintain a perception of their
institution on the basis of their interaction with authorities and institutional system, among others. It is not
intelligent to solely gauge the integrity of an institution only on the basis of codes and compliance or vice
versa. Therefore our study included the perception of employees and students to compute the integrity index.

6.4 INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY INDEX

In our proposed study the scores of codes, compliance mechanism, employees’ and students’ perception,
sum-ups the institutional integrity. The integrity score of 0.48 shows that the institution stands poor. Though
our index shows very poor condition of integrity codes, but most grave and upsetting concern for the university
is integrity compliance mechanism. The perception of employees and students mark the university fair, but
university has to pull this perception toward excellence, through their will and determination by developing
and updating integrity codes and launching integrity compliance mechanism.

6.5 IMPLICATIONS

Once I was told by an old fellow “spending years in research, if brings no use to society, is a waste of
those years”. This advice not only pulled me toward present study but also helped me to shape my craft, thus
the study offers theoretical as well as practical implications.
6.5.1 Theoretical Implications

The study offers following theoretical implications:

• Holistic Integrity approach is recommended by several scholars i.e. Huberts and Hoekstra (2014), Visser
(2014), Schwartz (2011), Kooistra (2014); Langseth et al. (1997), but such approach has never been
attempted holistically. So the study contributes by trying the untested.

• Most of the current studies in corruption and integrity domain have followed single rater approach.
Present study has used dual rater; organization and individuals, approach that paves a way for future
researchers in the same domain.

• While measuring the integrity of educational institution, mostly if not all, have focused on the specific
academic functions, i.e. examination, class conduct etc., and completely ignore pure administrative and
academic administration elements. Our study has attempted to capture maximum elements involved in
any higher education institution.

• Prior studies have used either qualitative or quantitative approach to measure integrity. This study has
applied mixed method approach to reach out and understand reality.

6.5.2 Practical Implications

The study offer many practical implications for higher education institutions:

• As beacon of high morality and supreme values, higher education institution has to assure its
integrity that will reflect in to its graduates. Our study proposes a full-fledged mechanism to not
only compute integrity index and find where the institution stand, but also helps in identifying the
 areas that require corrective measures. We can say that the study do not tell a problem but guides
toward solution as well.

• Integrity cannot be reached unless and until all members participate in it. Our study can prove to
help administrative and academic both sides to foster integrity in their very institution. For
instance our study guides to recognize the strength of codes and compliance mechanism relevant
to university bodies, employees and students. The study also helps to figure out perceived weak
areas that could be improved by taking willful and adequate steps.

6.6 STUDY LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION

Research endeavors in social sciences are never without their limitations and in our case where we had
to chisel-out the integrity statue, which simply means surfacing the untidy picture; if any, of HEI, the
challenges and limitations were manifold.

First limitation was data collection. As no institution was ready to offer itself for experiment, therefore
institutional help was absent. Due to absence of support from the institution reaching out to documents,
employees and students was more challenging. To our best of effort we managed to access relevant documents.
But while reaching to employees and students it was more difficult, because most of the employees and
students had a hindsight feeling that such information might be used to victimize them by their institution or
teacher respectively, or they might be caught blowing whistle. Though we are confident not having single rater
measurement error because our data consists of institutional level information as well individual, but this made
task more tedious and rigorous.

Another limitation was the selection of variables; institutional and individual level. Though variables
selected were literature, FGDs and semi-structured interview based, they are limited to two institutional level
variables; codes and compliance, three employee and three students’ perception indicators. There might be
other relevant factors, such as external stakeholders, media, external pressure groups etc. In a single study there
is a limit of number of variables that can be handled adequately, therefore more variables could be considered
in further studies.

There is always room to improve or intensify the research. Following are some directions for the future
researchers.

• Future study can capture the variables outside the university premises that could influence or
impact the overall integrity of higher education institutions.

• Area of integrity and variables that can influence the individuals and institutions to adopt integrity,
asks for action research. Future scholars can contribute through taking that path.

• There is an ample room to devise research based integrity curricula specific to higher education
institutions, especially in context of Pakistan.

6.7 CONCLUSION

Human endeavor to reach heights is consistent and evolving. This study has added into the journey by
recognizing and developing integrity framework that could lead to compute integrity index for any public
sector higher education institution. Our index help in knowing the magnitude of integrity in an institution,
and we believe that, higher the magnitude of integrity, lower the altitude of corruption, and until, unless we
cannot measure we cannot control, thus our work assist in measuring the integrity so pragmatic, focused,
and result oriented corrective measure could be drawn.
 REFERENCES

1. Abed, G., & Gupta, S. (2002). Governance; Corruption and Economic Performances, International Monetary Fund, Washington.
2. Ackerman, S. R. (1978). Corruption: a study in political economy. New York: Academic Pres.
3. Ackerman, S. R. (1978). Corruption: a study in political economy. New York: Academic Pres.
4. Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,
29(3), 199-211.
5. Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,
29(3), 199-211.
6. Adams, J. S., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. H. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business
Ethics, 29(3), 199-211.
7. Akçay, S. (2006). Corruption and human development. Cato J., 26, 29.
8. Alatas, H. (1990). Corruption: its nature, causes, and functions: Avebury.
9. Albrecht, C. C., Sanders, M. L., Holland, D. V., & Albrecht, C. (2011). The debilitating effects of fraud in organizations. Crime
and corruption in organizations: Why it occurs and what to do about it, 167.
10. Al-Sadig, A. (2009). Effects of Corruption on FDI Inflows, The. Cato J., 29, 267.
11. Amundsen, I. (2000). Corruption. Definition and concepts.
12. Armstrong, E. (2005). Integrity, transparency and accountability in public administration: Recent trends, regional and international
developments and emerging issues. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 1-10.
13. Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2012). The ethical climate and context of organizations: A comprehensive model. Organization
Science, 23(6), 1767-1780.
14. Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Trevino, L. K. (2008). Re-viewing organizational corruption. Academy of
management review, 33(3), 670-684.
15. Asongu, S. (2014). Financial development dynamic thresholds of financial globalization: evidence from Africa. Journal of
Economic Studies, 41(2), 166-195.
16. Audi, R., & Murphy, P. E. (2006). The many faces of integrity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(01), 3-21.
17. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership
using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
18. Baccili, P. A. (2003). Effects of company and manager psychological contract violation on justice, negative affect and
commitment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
19. Badaracco Jr, J. L., & Ellsworth, R. R. (1991). Leadership, integrity and conflict. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 4(4), 46-55.
20. Banfield, E. C. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society. New York: Glencol, 3(4).
21. Barth, Mary E., Wayne R. Landsman, and Mark H. Lang. "International accounting standards and accounting quality." Journal of
accounting research 46.3 (2008): 467-498.
22. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The leadership
quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
23. Basu, P. K. (2006). Corruption: A theoretical perspective and relevance for economic growth. International Review of Business
Research Papers, 2(4), 59-68.
24. Batson, C. D., Eidelman, S. H., Higley, S. L., & Russell, S. A. (2001). “And who is my neighbor?” II: Quest religion as a source of
universal compassion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(1), 39-50.
25. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life: Guilford Press.
26. Bayley, D. H. (1966). The effects of corruption in a developing nation. The Western Political Quarterly, 19(4), 719-732.
27. Becker, C. L., DeFond, M. L., Jiambalvo, J., & Subramanyam, K. (1998). The effect of audit quality on earnings management.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(1), 1-24.
28. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach The Economic Dimensions of Crime (pp. 13-68): Springer.
29. Bews, N. F., & Rossouw, G. J. (2002). A role for business ethics in facilitating trustworthiness. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(4),
377-390.
30. Bisping, T. O., Patron, H., & Roskelley, K. (2008). Modeling academic dishonesty: The role of student perceptions and
misconduct type. The Journal of Economic Education, 39(1), 4-21.
31. Blaxter, L, Hughes, C & Tight, M. 2002, How to research, Berkshire, Open University Press.
32. Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college.
33. Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2015). A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Exemplary Academic Integrity Policy in Australian
Higher Education.
34. Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., . . . James, C. (2014). ‘Teach us how to do it
properly!’An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1150-1169.
35. Bruton, S. V., & Rachal, J. R. (2015). Education journal editors’ perspectives on self-plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics,
13(1), 13-25.
36. Bryman, A & Bell, E 2007, Business research methods, Oxford University Press, USA.
37. Buchanan, J. E. (1996). Signal and Power Integrity in Digital Systems: TTL, CMOS, and BiCMOS. McGraw-Hill, Inc..
38. Burke RJ, Tomlinson EC, Cooper CL (eds) (2011) Crime and corruption in organizations: why it occurs and what to do about it,
Psychological and behavioral aspects of risk series. Gower Publishing, Surrey
39. Burke, J. A., Polimeni, R. S., & Slavin, N. S. (2007). Academic dishonesty: A crisis on campus. The CPA Journal, 77(5), 58.
40. Burke, J. A., Polimeni, R. S., & Slavin, N. S. (2007). Academic dishonesty: A crisis on campus. The CPA Journal, 77(5), 58.
41. Caldwell, C. (2010). A ten-step model for academic integrity: A positive approach for business schools. Journal of Business
Ethics, 92(1), 1-13.
42. Callahan, J. L. (2014). Creation of a moral panic? Self-plagiarism in the academy. Human Resource Development Review, 13(1),
3-10.
43. Carter, S. L. (1996). Integrity: Harper Collins.
44. Cavill, S., & Sohail, M. (2007). Increasing strategic accountability: a framework for international NGOs. Development in Practice,
17(2), 231-248.
45. Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven
organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 57-78.
46. Chapman, D. W., & Lindner, S. (2014). Degrees of integrity: the threat of corruption in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 41(2), 247-268.
47. Chiesl, N. (2007). PRA GMA TIC METHODS TO REDUCE DISHONESTY IN WEB-BASED COURSES. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education: Volume 8, Number 3, 203.
48. Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (1985). Ethics and marketing management: An empirical examination. Journal of business research,
13(4), 339-359.
49. Chye Koh, H., & Boo, E. F. H. (2004). Organisational ethics and employee satisfaction and commitment. Management
Decision, 42(5), 677-693.
50. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4): Pearson Education Boston, MA.
51. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance.
52. Cinali, G. (2016). Middle Eastern Perspectives of Academic Integrity: A View from the Gulf Region. Handbook of Academic
Integrity, 113-133.
53. Cleek, M. A., & Leonard, S. L. (1998). Can corporate codes of ethics influence behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 619-
630.
54. Cooray, A. V., & Schneider, F. (2014). Does corruption promote emigration? An empirical examination.
55. Cox, D., La Caze, M., & Levine, M. (2003). Integrity and the fragile self.
56. Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of
leader integrity. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 127-145.
57. Cummings, K. M., & Armenta, M. (2002). Penalties for peer sexual harassment in an academic context: The influence of harasser
gender, participant gender, severity of harassment, and the presence of bystanders. Sex Roles, 47(5-6), 273-280.
58. Damasio, A. (2012). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain: Vintage.
59. Davis, S. F., Drinan, P. F., & Gallant, T. B. (2011). Cheating in school: What we know and what we can do: John Wiley & Sons.
60. Davis, S. F., Drinan, P. F., & Gallant, T. B. (2011). Cheating in school: What we know and what we can do. John Wiley & Sons.
61. De Graaf, G., & Huberts, L. W. (2008). Portraying the nature of corruption using an explorative case study design. Public
Administration Review, 68(4), 640-653.
62. Decoo, W. (2002). Crisis on campus: Confronting academic misconduct: MIT Press.
63. Del Monte, A., & Papagni, E. (2007). The determinants of corruption in Italy: Regional panel data analysis. European Journal of
Political Economy, 23(2), 379-396.
64. Den Hartog, D. N., C Shippers, M., & L Koopman, P. (2002). The impact of leader behaviour on trust in management and co-
workers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(4).
65. Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2015). Academic Dishonesty or Corrupt Values: the Case of Russia.
66. Denisova-Schmidt, E., & Leontyeva, E. (2013). Corruption in Higher Education and Research: Russia.
67. Denisova-Schmidt, E., Huber, M., & Leontyeva, E. (2016). On the development of students’ attitudes towards corruption and
cheating in Russian universities. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 128-143.
68. DeSouza, E., & Fansler, A. G. (2003). Contrapower sexual harassment: A survey of students and faculty members. Sex Roles,
48(11-12), 529-542.
69. Dimant, E., Krieger, T., & Meierrieks, D. (2013). The effect of corruption on migration, 1985–2000. Applied Economics Letters,
20(13), 1270-1274.
70. Dininio, P. (2009). Linkages between corruption and democracy. Washignton, D. C. : Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars.
71. Dobel, J. P. (1999). Public integrity.
72. Dobel, J. P. (2016). Integrity and Corruption. In F. A. (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and
Governance. Switzerland Springer International Publishing.
73. Dong, B., & Torgler, B. (2013). Causes of corruption: Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 26, 152-169.
74. Dridi, M. (2014). Corruption and education: Empirical evidence. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 4(3),
476.
75. Drinan, P. M., & Gallant, T. B. (2008). Plagiarism and academic integrity systems. Journal of Library Administration, 47(3-4),
125-140.
76. Duska, R. F. (2005). A look at integrity in financial services. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 59(5), 26.
77. Dziech, B. W., & Weiner, L. (1984). The lecherous professor: Sexual harassment on campus: University of Illinois Press.
78. Ehrlich, I. (1972). The deterrent effect of criminal law enforcement. The Journal of Legal Studies, 1(2), 259-276.
79. Eigen, P. (1996). Combatting corruption around the world. Journal of Democracy, 7(1), 158-168.
80. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Pittman, J. A., & Rizeanu, S. (2015). Cross‐Country Evidence on the Importance of Auditor Choice
to Corporate Debt Maturity. Contemporary Accounting Research.
81. Elliott, K. A. (1997). Corruption and the global economy: Peterson Institute.
82. Embleton, K., & Helfer, D. (2007). The plague of plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
83. Everson, S. (1996). Aristotle: The politics and the constitution of Athens: Cambridge University Press.
84. Ferrell, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. journal of
Marketing Research, 103-109.
85. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., . . . Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and
dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of vocational behavior, 32(2), 152-175.
86. Fowler Jr, FJ. 2009, Survey research methods, SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
87. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration–aggression. Journal of Organizational behavior, 20(6), 915-931.
88. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and
organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of vocational behavior, 59(3), 291-
309.
89. Galitskii, E., & Levin, M. (2004). Korrupciia v rossiiskoi sisteme obrazovaniia. Corruption in the Russian education system),
Narodnoe obrazovanie, 10, 45-52.
90. Gallant, T. B. (2008). Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learning Imperative. ASHE Higher
Education Report, Volume 33, Number 5. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5), 1-143.
91. Gallant, T. B. (2011). Creating the ethical academy: A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change:
Routledge.
92. Gallant, T. B., & Drinan, P. (2008). Toward a model of academic integrity institutionalization: Informing practice in
postsecondary education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(2), 25.
93. Gardiner, J. A. (1970). The Politics of Corruption: Organized Crime in an American City: Organized Crime in an American City:
Russell Sage Foundation.
94. Glendinning, I. (2016). European Perspectives of Academic Integrity. Handbook of Academic Integrity, 55-74.
95. Goudie, A. W., & Stasavage, D. (1997). Corruption: the issues: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
96. Gould, D. J., & Amaro-Reyes, J. A. (1983). The effects of corruption on administrative performance. World Bank Staff Working
Paper, 580, 2514.
97. Graeff, P., & Svendsen, G. T. (2013). Trust and corruption: The influence of positive and negative social capital on the economic
development in the European Union. Quality & Quantity, 47(5), 2829-2846.
98. Graycar, A., & Prenzler, T. (2013). Understanding and preventing corruption: Springer.
99. Greenberg, M. D. (2013). Culture, Compliance, and the C-Suite: Rand Corporation.
100. Grimes, P. W. (2004). Dishonesty in academics and business: A cross-cultural evaluation of student attitudes. Journal of
Business Ethics, 49(3), 273-290.
101. Gundlach, E., & Paldam, M. (2008). The transition of corruption: From poverty to honesty. Economics Letters, 103(3), 146-
148.
102. Gupta, M. S., & Abed, M. G. T. (2002). Governance, corruption, and economic performance: International Monetary Fund.
103. Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., & Alonso-Terme, R. (1998). Does corruption affect inequality and poverty? : International Monetary
Fund.
104. Gupta, S., Davoodi, H., & Alonso-Terme, R. (2002). Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty? Economics of
governance, 3(1), 23-45.
105. Gyimah-Brempong, K. (2002). Corruption, economic growth, and income inequality in Africa. Economics of governance, 3(3),
183-209.
106. Gyimah-Brempong, K., & de Gyimah-Brempong, S. M. (2006). Corruption, growth, and income distribution: Are there
regional differences? Economics of governance, 7(3), 245-269.
107. Habib, M., & Zurawicki, L. (2002). Corruption and foreign direct investment. Journal of international business studies, 291-
307.
108. Hagermoser Sanetti, L. M., Fallon, L. M., & Collier‐Meek, M. A. (2013). Increasing teacher treatment integrity through
performance feedback provided by school personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 50(2), 134-150.
109. Hakkala, K. N., Norbäck, P.-J., & Svaleryd, H. (2008). Asymmetric effects of corruption on FDI: evidence from Swedish
multinational firms. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(4), 627-642.
110. Hallak, J., and Poisson, M. 2007. Corrupt Schools, Corrupt Universities: What Can Be Done? Paris: International Institute for
Educational Planning, UNESCO.
111. Hellman, D. (2012). Defining Corruption and Constitutionalizing Democracy. Mich. L. Rev., 111, 1385.
112. Hellman, J. S., Jones, G., & Kaufmann, D. (2000). Seize the state, seize the day: State capture, corruption and influence in
transition. World Bank policy research working paper (2444).
113. Helton-Fauth, W., Gaddis, B., Scott, G., Mumford, M., Devenport, L., Connelly, S., & Brown, R. (2003). A new approach to
assessing ethical conduct in scientific work. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 10(4), 205-228.
114. Heyneman, S. P. (2004). Education and corruption. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(6), 637-648.
115. Heyneman, S. P. (2011). The concern with corruption in higher education. Creating the ethical academy: A systems approach
to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. .
116. Heyneman, S. P. (2013). Higher education institutions: Why they matter and why corruption puts them at risk. Global
corruption report: Education, transparency international, 101-108.
117. Hoekstra, A. (2014). Integrity management infrastructure: Dutch design. Paper presented at the International Conference:
National Anticorruption Strategies, Central Anticorruption Bureau, the Ministry of the Interior and the Civil Service: Warsaw.
118. Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Interpersonal Justice and Deviance The Moderating Effects of Interpersonal Justice
Values and Justice Orientation. Journal of Management, 39(2), 339-365.
119. Huberts, L. (2014). The Integrity of Governance: What it is, What We Know, What is Done and Where to Go: Springer.
120. Huberts, L., & Hoekstra, A. (2016). Integrity management in the public sector: The Dutch approach.
121. Huberts, L., Lamboo, T., & Punch, M. (2003). Police integrity in the Netherlands and the United States: Awareness and
alertness. Police Practice and Research, 4(3), 217-232.
122. Huntington, S. P. (1968). The bases of accommodation. Foreign Affairs, 46(4), 642-656.
123. Itzkovich, Y., & Alt, D. (2015). Development and Validation of a Measurement to Assess College Students’ Reactions to
Faculty Incivility. Ethics & Behavior, 1-17.
124. Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(1), 71-121.
125. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (Vol. 349): Houghton Mifflin Boston.
126. Johnston, M. (2005). Syndromes of corruption: wealth, power, and democracy: Cambridge University Press.
127. Junion-Metz, G. (2000). The e-Plagiarism Plague What you can do about online plagiarism. School Library Journal, 46(9), 43-
44.
128. Justesen, M. K., & Bjørnskov, C. (2014). Exploiting the poor: Bureaucratic corruption and poverty in Africa. World
Development, 58, 106-115.
129. Justesen, M. K., & Bjørnskov, C. (2014). Exploiting the poor: Bureaucratic corruption and poverty in Africa. World
Development, 58, 106-115.
130. Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2011). The law of higher education: John Wiley & Sons.
131. Kapunda, S., & Moffat, B. D. (2013). Trends in economic growth and poverty reduction in Botswana: A corruption control
perspective. Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 26(1), 83-92.
132. Karabag, S. F., & Berggren, C. (2012). Retraction, dishonesty and plagiarism: analysis of a crucial issue for academic
publishing, and the inadequate responses from leading journals in economics and management disciplines. Journal of Applied
Economics and Business Research, 2(3), 172-183.
133. Kaufmann, D. (2005). Myths and realities of governance and corruption. Available at SSRN 829244.
134. Kaufmann, D., Hellman, J. S., Jones, G., & Schankerman, M. A. (2000). Measuring governance, corruption, and state capture:
How firms and bureaucrats shape the business environment in transition economies. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper,
(2312).
135. Kaunas Conference. 2013. 14th European Conference on Knowledge Management – ECKM 2013. Kaunas University of
Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania, September 5-6.
136. Kelley, M. L., & Parsons, B. (2000). Sexual harassment in the 1990s: A university-wide survey of female faculty,
administrators, staff, and students. Journal of Higher Education, 548-568.
137. Khan, K., Abbas, M., Gul, A., & Raja, U. (2015). Organizational justice and job outcomes: Moderating role of Islamic Work
Ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 235-246.
138. Khera, R. (2011). India's public distribution system: utilisation and impact. Journal of Development Studies, 47(7), 1038-1060.
139. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on
performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36.
140. Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2007). Cheating during the college years: How do
business school students compare? Journal of Business Ethics, 72(2), 197-206.
141. Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption: University of California Press.
142. Klitgaard, R. (1998). Strategies against corruption. Presentation at Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional Foro
Iberoamericano sobre el Combate a la Corrupción, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Jun, 15-16.
143. Koehn, D. (2005). Integrity as a business asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1-3), 125-136.
144. Kolthoff, E., Macaulay, M., & Anechiarico, F. (2013). Introduction: Integrity systems for safeguarding ethics and integrity of
governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(4), 593-596.
145. Korsgaard, C. M. (2009). Self-constitution: Agency, identity, and integrity: Oxford University Press, USA.
146. Krueger, A. O. (1974). The political economy of the rent-seeking society. The American economic review, 64(3), 291-303.
147. Krueger, A. O. (1974). The political economy of the rent-seeking society. The American economic review, 64(3), 291-303.
148. Lambsdorff, J. G., Taube, M., & Schramm, M. (2004). The new institutional economics of corruption: Routledge.
149. Langlois, C. C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1990). Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe
and the United States. Journal of international business studies, 21(4), 519-539.
150. Langseth, P., Stapenhurst, R., & Pope, J. (1997). The role of a national integrity system in fighting corruption 1.
Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 23(1-2), 499-528.
151. Latova, N., & Latov, J. (2007). Obman v uchebnom protzesse [Cheating in the educational process]. Obschestvennye nauki i
sovremennost, 1, 31-46.
152. Lawton, T., McGuire, S., & Rajwani, T. (2013). Corporate political activity: A literature review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 86-105.
153. Ledeneva, A. V. (1998). Russia's economy of favours: Blat, networking and informal exchange (Vol. 102): Cambridge
University Press.
154. Lee, Y. M., & Kaplan, M. M. (1995). Primary sclerosing cholangitis. New England Journal of Medicine, 332(14), 924-933.
155. Leff, N. H. (1964). Economic development through bureaucratic corruption. American behavioral scientist, 8(3), 8-14.
156. Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower
commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 255-264.
157. Lewis, C. W., & Gilman, S. C. (2005). The ethics challenge in public service: a problem-solving guide. John Wiley & Sons.
158. Li, H., Xu, L. C., & Zou, H. f. (2000). Corruption, income distribution, and growth. Economics & Politics, 12(2), 155-182.
159. Llaca, E. G. (2005). La corrupción: patología colectiva: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
160. Lowe, P. (2006). Counterfeiting: links to organised crime and terrorist funding. Journal of Financial Crime, 13(2), 255-257.
161. Lumsden, D. B. (2004). The anatomy of academic dishonesty: Cognitive development, self-concept, neutralization techniques,
and attitudes toward cheating. University of North Texas.
162. Luo, Y. (2005). An organizational perspective of corruption. Management and Organization Review, 1(1), 119-154.
163. Macaulay, M., Newman, C., & Hickey, G. (2014). Towards a Model of Local Integrity Systems: The Experiences of Local
Government in Great Britain.International Journal of Public Administration, 37(2), 83-92.
164. Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism—a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233-245.
165. MacMullen, R. (1988). Corruption and the Decline of Rome: Yale University Press.
166. Manion, M. (2004). Lessons for Mainland China from Anti-corruption Reform in Hong Kong. China Review, 81-97.
167. Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Business Ethics, 69(2), 175-194.
168. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The quarterly journal of economics, 681-712.
169. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can
do about it. JHU Press.
170. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can
do about it. JHU Press.
171. McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1996). The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on
ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(04), 461-476.
172. McFall, L. (1987). Integrity. Ethics, 98(1), 5-20.
173. McKendall, M., DeMarr, B., & Jones-Rikkers, C. (2002). Ethical compliance programs and corporate illegality: Testing the
assumptions of the corporate sentencing guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(4), 367-383.
174. Mocan, N. (2008). What determines corruption? International evidence from microdata. Economic Inquiry, 46(4), 493-510.
175. Morley, L. (2011). Sex, grades and power in higher education in Ghana and Tanzania. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(1),
101-115.
176. Morris, E. J., & Carroll, J. (2015). Developing a Sustainable Holistic Institutional Approach: Dealing with Realities “on the
Ground” When Implementing an Academic Integrity Policy.
177. Morris, E. J., & Carroll, J. (2015). Developing a Sustainable Holistic Institutional Approach: Dealing with Realities “on the
Ground” When Implementing an Academic Integrity Policy.Handbook of Academic Integrtiy, Springer Sciences+Business Media,
Singapore.
178. Morrison, A. (2001). Integrity and global leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1), 65-76.
179. Muñoz-García, A., & Aviles-Herrera, M. J. (2014). Effects of academic dishonesty on dimensions of spiritual well-being and
satisfaction: a comparative study of secondary school and university students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3),
349-363.
180. Narasaiah, M. L. (2005). Corruption and Poverty: Discovery Publishing House.
181. National Accountability Bureau (2002), Pakistan: National anti-corruption strategy. Retrieved from
http://www.nab.gov.pk/Downloads/Doc/NACS.pdf
182. Neu, D., Everett, J., & Rahaman, A. S. (2014). Preventing corruption within government procurement: Constructing the
disciplined and ethical subject. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 28, 49–61.
183. Neuman, W. L. (1997). 'Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn & Bacon', Needham Heights,
USA.
184. Newman, B. (2003). Integrity and presidential approval, 1980–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 335-367.
185. Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229.
186. Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty:
A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for business, 77(2), 69-77.
187. Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty:
A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for business, 77(2), 69-77.
188. Nye, J. S. (1967). Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis. American political science review, 61(02),
417-427.
189. Nye, J. S. (1967). Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis. American political science review, 61(02),
417-427.
190. O'Donovan, J., Wagner, H. F., & Zeume, S. (2016). The Value of Offshore Secrets–Evidence from the Panama Papers.
Available at SSRN 2771095.
191. OECD. (1998). Recommendation of the Council on improving ethical conduct in the public service including principles for
managing ethics in the public sector. http://acts.oecd.org/Instruments/-ShowInstrumentView.aspx?InstrumentID=129&Lang=en.
Retrieved 8 Feb 2016
192. OECD. (2009). Towards a sound integrity framework: instruments, processes, structures and conditions for implementation,
Paris. http://www.oecd.org/official documents/publicdisplaydocumentpdf-/?doclanguage= en&cote=GOV/PGC/GF(2009)1.
Retrieved 27 Jan2016
193. Oleinik, A. (2012). Institutional transfers in the Russian system of higher education: A case study. Journal of Economic
Issues, 46(4), 881-908.
194. Osipian, A. 2007. “Corruption in Higher Education: Conceptual Approaches and Measurement Techniques.” Research in
Comparative and International Education 2 (2): 313–332.
195. Osipian, A. L. (2012). Education corruption, reform, and growth: Case of Post-Soviet Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies,
3(1), 20-29.
196. Osipian, A., Sweeney, G., Despota, K., & Lindner, S. (2013). Recruitment and Admissions: Fostering Transparency on the
Path to Higher Education. Global corruption report: Education, transparency international, 148-154.
197. O'Toole, C. M., & Tarp, F. (2014). Corruption and the efficiency of capital investment in developing countries. Journal of
International Development, 26(5), 567-597.
198. Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard business review, 72(2), 106-117.
199. Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and Leadership:: Clearing the Conceptual Confusion. European
Management Journal, 25(3), 171-184.
200. Park, N. (2002). Managing Corruption in Code and Practice: The Prosecution of Jiang Zhou and Qian Du. CORNELL EAST
ASIA SERIES, 114, 155-182.
201. Park, N. E. (1997). Corruption in eighteenth-century China. The Journal of Asian Studies, 56(04), 967-1005.
202. Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organisational settings.
Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75-96.
203. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification: Oxford University
Press.
204. Philp, M. (1997). Defining political corruption. Political Studies, 45(3), 436-462.
205. Pillay, S., & Kluvers, R. (2014). An institutional theory perspective on corruption: The case of a developing democracy.
Financial Accountability & Management, 30(1), 95-119.
206. Posner, B. Z. (2001). What does it mean to act with integrity? Teaching Business Ethics, 5(4), 461-473.
207. Quah, J. S. (1999). Corruption in Asian countries: Can it be minimized?. Public Administration Review, 483-494.
208. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice Oxford University Press. New York.
209. Rehg, M. T., Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Van Scotter, J. R. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against
whistleblowers: Gender differences and power relationships. Organization Science, 19(2), 221-240.
210. Rimskii, V. (2010). ‘Sposobstvuet li sistema vysshego obrazovaniia rasprostraneniiu korrupcii v Rossii?’[Does the Higher
Education System Promote the Spreading of Corruption in Russia?]. Terra Economicus, 8(3), 91-102.
211. Rohr, J. (1988). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values (Vol. 36): CRC Press.
212. Rose, R., & Peiffer, C. (2015). Paying Bribes for Public Services: A Global Guide to Grass-Roots Corruption: Palgrave
Macmillan, Springer.
213. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Political corruption and democracy. Conn. J. Int'l L., 14, 363.
214. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2004). Governance and corruption. Global crises, global solutions, 301, 310-311.
215. Rossouw, G. J., & Van Vuuren, L. J. (2003). Modes of managing morality: A descriptive model of strategies for managing
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(4), 389-402.
216. Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective:
University of Chicago Press.
217. Rumyantseva, N. L. (2005). Taxonomy of corruption in higher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(1), 81-92.
218. Rumyantseva, N., & Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2015). Corruption inside-out: A grass-root approach.
219. Sandholtz, W., & Koetzle, W. (2000). Accounting for corruption: Economic structure, democracy, and trade. International
studies quarterly, 44(1), 31-50.
220. Sargiacomo, M., Ianni, L., D‘Andreamatteo, A., & Servalli, S. (2015). Accounting and the fight against corruption in Italian
government procurement: A longitudinal critical analysis (1992–2014). Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 28, 89-96.
221. Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies,
14.
222. Schneider, R. G. (1986). Sexual harassment and higher education. Tex. L. Rev., 65, 525.
223. Schramm, M., & Taube, M. (2004). Privat Ordering of Corrupt Transactions: The Case of Chinese Guanxi-Networks and Their
Challenge by a Formal Legal System. Corruption and the New Institutional Economics. Routledge, New York, 181-197.
224. Schwepker, C. H. (2001). Ethical climate's relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention
in the salesforce. Journal of business research, 54(1), 39-52.
225. Seligson, M. A. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American
countries. Journal of politics, 64(2), 408-433.
226. Shah, A., & Schacter, M. (2004). Combating corruption: look before you leap. Finance and Development, 41(4), 40-43.
227. Shishkin, S., Zaborovskaia, A., Kliachko, T., Korolev, I., Chernets, V., Chirkova, L., & Shilova, L. (2004). Vyshee
obrazovanie v Rossii: Pravila I real’nost. Higher Education in Russia: Rules and Reality]. Moscow: NISP.
228. Simons, T. L. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of organizational
change management, 12(2), 89-104.
229. Simons, T., & Parks, J. M. (2000). The sequential impact of behavioral integrity on trust, commitment, discretionary service
behavior, customer satisfaction, and profitability: Cornell University, Center for Hospitality Research.
230. Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for
business, 68(4), 207-211.
231. Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1998). Predictors of external whistleblowing: Organizational and intrapersonal variables. Journal
of Business Ethics, 17(4), 411-421.
232. Sivak, E. (2006). Prestuplenie v auditorii. Determinanty nechestnogo povedeniya studentov (plagiata i
spisyvaniya)[Wrongdoing in the Classroom. Students’ Foul Play Determiners (Plagiary and Copying)]: Working paper
WP10/2006/06. Moscow: HSE.
233. Solomon, R. C. (2007). True to our feelings: What our emotions are really telling us: Cambridge Univ Press.
234. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between
counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource management review, 12(2), 269-292.
235. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3),
571-610.
236. Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 19-42.
237. Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 19-42.
238. Sweeney, G., Despota, K., & Lindner, S. (2013). Global Corruption Report: Education: Routledge.
239. Tanaka, S. (2001). Corruption in education sector development: a suggestion for anticipatory strategy. International Journal of
Educational Management, 15(4), 158-166.
240. Tanzi, V. (1998). Corruption around the world: Causes, consequences, scope, and cures. Staff Papers-International Monetary
Fund, 559-594.
241. Teachout, Z. (2009). The Anti-Corruption Principle. Cornell Law Review, 94(341).
242. Tebaldi, E., & Mohan, R. (2010). Institutions and poverty. The journal of development studies, 46(6), 1047-1066.
243. Titaev, K. (2012). Akademicheskii sgovor. Otchego rossiiskie vuzy stanoviatsia, zaborostroitel’nymi institutami [Academic
Collusion. Why Russian Universities are Becoming ‘Fence-building Institutions’), Otechestvennye zapiski, 2, Accessed August 17,
2015.
244. Toma, J.D. (2007). Expanding peripheral activities, increasing accountability demands and reconsidering governance in us
higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(1), 57-72.
245. Townsley, N. C., & Geist, P. (2000). The discursive enactment of hegemony: Sexual harassment and academic organizing.
Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 64(2), 190-217.
246. Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1994). Transformational leaders in the hospitality industry. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 18-24.
247. Transparency International (2000) TI sourcebook 2000: confronting corruption: the elements of a national integrity system.
http://archive.transparency.org/publi cations/sourcebook
248. Transparency International. (2013). Global Corruption Report 2013, Retrieved from http://www.wingia.com/-
web/files/news/61/file/61.pdf
249. Tremblay, K., Lalancette, D., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Assessment of higher education learning outcomes: Feasibility study
report, volume 1 design and implementation: OECD Paris.
250. Trevino, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation
for ethical leadership. California management review, 42(4), 128-142.
251. United Nations Convention Against Corruption (2004) UN Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodoc.org/
unodoc/en/treaties/cac
252. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2013) An anticorruption ethics and compliance program for business: a practical
guide. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, New York
253. United Nations Organization (2004). United nations convention against corruption. Retrieved from
https://www.unodc.org/documents/brussels/UN_Convention_Against_Corruption.pdf
254. United States Agency for International Development (1999). A handbook on fighting corruption. Retrieved from
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnace070.pdf
255. Uslaner, E. M., & Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American politics research, 33(6), 868-894.
256. Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2002). Ethics codes and sales professionals' perceptions of their organizations' ethical values.
Journal of Business Ethics, 40(3), 191-200.
257. Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2003). Ethics code awareness, perceived ethical values, and organizational commitment. Journal
of personal selling & Sales Management, 23(4), 359-367.
258. Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative science quarterly, 101-
125.
259. Vincent-Lancrin, S., Sweeney, G., Despota, K., & Lindner, S. (2013). Cross-border higher education Addressing corruption,
ensuring opportunity. Global corruption report: Education, transparency international, 142-147.
260. Vojak, C. (2006). What market culture teaches students about ethical behavior. Ethics and Education, 1(2), 177-195.
261. Weber, M. (1946). Bureaucracy. From Max Weber: essays in sociology, 196, 232-2
262. Wedeman*, A. (2005). Anticorruption campaigns and the intensification of corruption in China. Journal of Contemporary
China, 14(42), 93-116.
263. Wedeman, A. (2012). Double paradox: rapid growth and rising corruption in China: Cornell University Press.
264. Wei, S.-J. (2000). How taxing is corruption on international investors? Review of economics and statistics, 82(1), 1-11.
265. Wei, S.-J., & Wu, Y. (2002). Negative alchemy? Corruption, composition of capital flows, and currency crises Preventing
currency crises in emerging markets (pp. 461-506): University of Chicago Press.
266. Wei, T., Chesnut, S. R., Barnard-Brak, L., & Schmidt, M. (2014). University students’ perceptions of academic cheating:
Triangulating quantitative and qualitative findings. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(4), 287-298.
267. Wheeler, G. (2009). Plagiarism in the Japanese universities: Truly a cultural matter? Journal of Second Language Writing,
18(1), 17-29.
268. Wheeler, G. (2016). Perspectives from Japan. Handbook of Academic Integrity, 107-112.
269. Wilder, A. N. (2014). New Testament faith for today. Wipf and Stock Publishers. 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene.
270. Wilhelm, P. G. (2002). International validation of the corruption perceptions index: Implications for business ethics and
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(3), 177-189.
271. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books. Basic Books, Inc. Printed
in the United States of America
272. Wimbush, J. C., & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward an understanding of ethical climate: Its relationship to ethical behavior and
supervisory influence. Journal of Business ethics, 13(8), 637-647.
273. Wong, W., Lam, W., Lui, P., & Wong, W. (2012). The civil service. Contemporary Hong Kong Government and Politics,
Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, 87-110.
274. Worden, S. (2003). The role of integrity as a mediator in strategic leadership: A recipe for reputational capital. Journal of
Business Ethics, 46(1), 31-44.
275. World Bank, Population Growth (annual %) 2014. Retrieved from http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-tale-of-two-flaccos/
276. World Bank, World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
277. Wotruba, T. R., Chonko, L. B., & Loe, T. W. (2001). The impact of ethics code familiarity on manager behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 33(1), 59-69.
278. Young, O. R. (2013). Compliance & Public Authority: A Theory with International Applications: Routledge.
279. Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. u: Dunnete MD i Hough LM [ur.]
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Palo Alto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
280. Zaelke, D., Kaniaru, D., & Kružíková, E. (2005). Making Law Work: Environmental Compliance & Sustainable Development:
Cameron May.
281. Chassang, S. (2014). Corruption, Intimidation, and Whistle-blowing: a Theory of Inference from Unverifiable Reports (No.
w20315). National Bureau of Economic Research.
 ANNEXURE A
TYPES STUDENTS CHEATING

Twenty one (21) distinct types of students cheating by

Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes and Armstead (1996)

1. Paraphrasing material from another source without acknowledging the original author
2. Inventing data (i.e., entering nonexistent results into the database)
3. Allowing own coursework to be copied by another student
4. Fabricating references or a bibliography
5. Copying material for coursework from a book or other publication without acknowledging the source
6. Altering data (e.g., adjusting data to obtain a significant result)
7. Copying another student's coursework with their knowledge
8. Ensuring the availability of books or journal articles in the library by deliberately mis-shelving them so that
other students cannot find them, or by cutting out the relevant article or chapter
9. In a situation where students mark each other's work, coming to an agreement with another student or students to
mark each other's work more generously than it merits
10. Submitting a piece of coursework as an individual piece of work when it has actually been written jointly with
another student
11. Doing another student's coursework for them
12. Copying from a neighbor during an examination without them realising
13. Lying about medical or other circumstances to get an extended deadline or exemption from a piece of work
14. Taking unauthorized material into an examination (e.g., cribs)
15. Illicitly gaining advance information about the contents of an examination paper
16. Copying another student's coursework without their knowledge
17. Submitting coursework from an outside source (e.g., a former student offers to sell pre-prepared essays; "essay
banks")
18. Premeditated collusion between two or more students to communicate answers to each other during an
examination
19. Lying about medical or other circumstances to get special consideration by examiners (e.g., the Exam Board to
take a more lenient view of results; extra time to complete the exam)
20. Attempting to obtain special consideration by offering or receiving favors through, for example, bribery,
seduction, corruption
21. Taking an examination for someone else or having someone else take an examination for you
 ANNEXURE B
MISCONDUCTS CONCERNING STUDENTS

Thirty one (31) academic misconducts concerning students by

Bisping, Patron and Roskelley (2008)

1. Copying from others during tests

2. Preparing cheat sheets but not using them
3. Using cheat sheets during tests
4. Having someone else do your class work but presenting it as your own
5. Copying or buying an entire paper but presenting it as your
6. Copying word by word from a source without giving proper reference
7. Turning in a paper that you wrote in more than one class
8. Asking other students about the content of a test you are about to take
9. Using the work of other students in your paper without giving them credit
10. Reading Cliff Notes or condensed versions instead of full-length assignments
11. Listing unread material in the reference section of a paper
12. “Making up” references in a paper
13. Listing nonpertinent material in the reference section of a paper
14. Working in groups when assignments are meant to be completed individually
15. “Sitting for” a student during a test
16. Memorizing test questions to review them later
17. Having a paper edited, when style, grammar, etc. are not being
18. Having a paper edited, when style, grammar, etc. are being graded
19. Giving false excuse to miss class or to postpone tests or assignments
20. Keeping a page or multiple pages of a test when the teacher does not allow it
21. Getting a copy of a test by having a student “sit in” on the test and not turn it
22. Removing reserved material from a file to prevent other students from viewing it
23. Looking at someone else’s test, and keeping your answer when both responses are the same
24. Changing your answer on a test after it was graded and reporting a false misgrade
25. Deliberately marking two answers on a computer answer sheet when only one answer is allowed
26. Deliberately marking two answers on a hand-scored test, making your choice unclear
27. Permitting others to look at your test
28. Claiming to have handed in a test or a paper when you did not
29. Shirking your reponsibilities in a group project
30. Trying to bias a professor after a test or at the end of the quarter
31. Changing margins or format of a paper to make it appear longer or shorter
 ANNEXURE C

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPALS IN EACH ESTABLISHED PARADIGMS

Principles Realism Constructivism Positivism

Ontology Critical realism Critical relativism Primitive realism

Refers to Assumes that there is Realities are constructed Apprehensible reality
fundamental a ‘real’ reality but by people with specific is assumed to exist
assumptions being such reality is multiple local identities, and is governed by
made about the imperfectly hence such realities are natural laws.
elements of reality apprehensible more or less relatively
(specifying what because the world is constructed according to
exists) too complex for individual values.
limited human
beings to understand
fully, so
triangulation from
many sources is
required to try to
know it.
Epistemology Modified objectives Subjectivist Objectivist
Is the study of the A person may rely Findings are created in Truth is objective and
nature and on the critical the process of the can be measured.
knowledge about community and/or person’s investigations,
phenomena (how do pre-existing not the objective ‘truth’
we come to know knowledge to find that is produced from
what exists?) the truth. However, investigations.
the truth is
probabilistically
apprehensible.
Methodology Case studies / Hermeneutical/dialectical Experiments/surveys
Is the way of convergent The investigator is deeply Questions and
studying those interviewing involved and thus hypotheses can be
phenomena Triangulation is becomes a ‘passionate verified by empirical
(how do we gain adopted to interpret participant’ within the testing chiefly
knowledge about the research questions. world that is being through quantitative
world?) researched. methods.

Source: Guba and Lincoln (1994) and Perry et al. (1999).

 ANNEXURE D
Invitation Letter/ email for Focus Group Discussion

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

SUBJECT: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH PROJECT

Investigators: Mr. Muhammad Ali Hamza (PhD student, [email protected])

Dr. Alia Ahmed (Supervisor, dralia @ncbae.edu.pk)

Respected Participant,

I am currently a PhD student in the National College of Business Administration and Economics (NCBA&E). This research
project is being conducted to fulfill the requirements of my PhD degree. The project has been approved by the competent authority at
NCBA&E.

This research project is designed to explore the dimensions and elements that can have significant impact on the integrity of
public sector Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), so that integrity level of HEIs could be measured with precision. The first stage of
this research will use Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with experts in the HEIs, to collect their views on the topic.

Your good self is an expert of the said field; therefore I cordially invite you to participate in this research project. Your views on
educational integrity, its practical importance, existing policy and application to foster integrity, factors that can amplify integrity, and
weightage of the impact of each factor to assure integrity, are some of very important points to form our understanding about
measuring integrity level of a public sector HEIs. The program is hereunder:
 • Date: ______________________

• Day: ______________________

• Venue: ______________________

• Duration: 60 min approximately

The findings of this study will be disseminated in conferences and published in journals and could also be used as policy guidelines
for Higher Education Commission and HEIs of Pakistan.

I attach here a list of FGD broad questions so you can decide whether you want to participate. There are no perceived risks.
Participation in this research is entirely voluntary and anonymous; you may withdraw your participation and any unprocessed data
concerning you at any time, without prejudice. There is no direct benefit to the participants as a result of their participation. However,
I will be delighted to provide you with a copy of the research report upon request as soon as it is published.

Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly maintained in such a manner that you will not be identified in the thesis report
or any subsequent publications under the terms of research ethics. FGD data will be only seen by my supervisor and examiners.

To ensure that data collected is protected, the data will be retained for five years upon completion of the project after which
time paper records will be shredded and placed in a security recycle bin and electronic data will be deleted/destroyed in a secure
manner. All hard data will be kept in a locked filling cabinet and soft data in a password protected computer in the custody of the
investigator.

If you have any queries regarding this project please contact me at +92-300-4368873 or email me at [email protected].
You may also contact my supervisor, Dr. Alia Ahmed at +92-300-8412454 or email at [email protected].

Thank you very much for your contribution to this research.

Yours Sincerely,

Muhammad Ali Hamza Dr Alia Ahmed

PhD Candidate, Associate Professor,
School of Business Management, School of Business Management
NCBA&E, Gulberg, Lahore. NCBA&E, Gulberg, Lahore.
ANNEXURE E