Exploring Academic Corruption Formation Grounds in Iranian Universities (Case Study: Shiraz and Yasouj Universities)

The issue of administrative corruption has become a pressing matter in Iran, affecting various aspects of the society. Corruption is a persistent and complex problem that perpetuates human underdevelopment through harmful cycles. According to Transparency International Organization, it involves the exploitation of entrusted power for personal gain. Despite the widespread presence of corruption within Iranian society, current evidence from both internal and external sources suggests that the education system conflicts with academic institutions as a particularly influential source of corrupt behavior. Academic corruption is a well-known phenomenon in Iranian universities with numerous examples, such as scientific fraud, plagiarism, forgery, distortion, academic black market, and buying and selling of articles appearing in the country's universities. Some investigators consider academic corruption as a form of scientific corruption, while others define it as encompassing all forms of unethical and improper conduct committed by educational advocates that violate ethical, social, legal, or institutional guidelines for personal or organizational gain with detrimental effects on an institution's objectives and principles. Despite the long-standing use of the term "academic corruption" in Iran's scholastic context, it remains largely unexplored from a scholarly perspective.

This study utilized qualitative methodology and a grounded theory approach to explore the perspectives of academic activists, including professors and doctoral students, on various aspects related to fraudulent practices in academia, such as contexts, causes, strategies, and repercussions. Grounded theory is a research method that involves deriving theoretical constructs directly from the data collected over time for analytical purposes. The research followed the Strauss and Corbin’s paradigm model, which is a systematic plan for grounded theory methodology. The focus was on professors and doctoral students from Shiraz and Yasouj universities, who were selected based on their experiences with academic corruption. A sample of 25 participants was chosen through theoretical sampling and semi-structured interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was reached, meaning that no new features or characteristics related to academic corruption and its causes were identified. The collected information underwent a three-fold coding process, including open, axial, and selective coding methods, to facilitate the analysis of the results. This process led to the identification of a core category or primary classification, which was represented in a paradigm model. To ensure the accuracy of the findings, two researchers independently analyzed and coded the data using analytical techniques. Additionally, member feedback was collected to assess the validity of the communication and respondent validation was employed through continuous comparison checks by using the codes developed by the investigators to assess the reliability of the research results.

The findings of this study revealed that corruption in academia was influenced by various factors. The primary causal conditions included the presence of oil money, a deficient administrative system, and compromised institutional independence. In addition, poor awareness of corrupt practices and inadequate monitoring mechanisms acted as the intervening circumstances that facilitated academic misconduct. Situational factors, such as departmental culture and individual work experience, as well as background guidelines like university policies, also played a significant role in promoting fraudulent activities within higher education institutions. On the other hand, academic activists employed strategies, such as student alienation, deliberate silence, two-way blackmail, outsourcing, hostage-taking, and strategic cooperation, to further their corrupt practices. The consequences of academic corruption were commodification of science, emergence of an academic proletariat, alienation, moral dilemmas, decline in credibility and trust in universities, and institutionalization of corruption in the society. Based on the results, it could be concluded that university corruption operated as a double-edged sword, benefiting both the structure and the activist in the short term but leading to negative outcomes in the long run. This meant that the political structure and system, by prioritizing the quantity of articles produced through scientific research, could showcase their standing in the global community, while academic scholars benefited from the publishing papers and projects. However, this approach had drawbacks for both parties involved. The articles evaluated solely based on quantity did not directly correlate with production or economic growth, resulting in limited social welfare within a country. Moreover, the professors and students, who prioritized the publishing quantitative content might experience a sense of alienation as they grappled with conflicting emotions regarding their moral principles. It is important to recognize that this win-win mentality perpetuates corruption within the university system, creating a reproductive cycle that continues into the future.