View in EDS

Managing Breaches of Academic Integrity -- Learning Lessons from Patient Interactions in the Healthcare Setting

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Managing Breaches of Academic Integrity -- Learning Lessons from Patient Interactions in the Healthcare Setting
Language: English
Authors: Mary-Claire Kennedy (ORCID 0000-0002-3835-2736), Matthew Lynch (ORCID 0000-0003-4266-3518)
Source: Journal of Academic Ethics. 2026 24(1).
Availability: BioMed Central, Ltd. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://www.springer.com/gp/biomedical-sciences
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Integrity, Patients, Physician Patient Relationship, Consultation Programs, Allied Health Occupations Education, Participative Decision Making, Medical Students, Ethics, Models, Meetings, Discussion
DOI: 10.1007/s10805-025-09715-y
ISSN: 1570-1727
1572-8544
Abstract: This opinion article outlines the alignment between patient-clinician consultations in healthcare and student-investigator meetings focused on academic misconduct. We consider how healthcare consultations have evolved from a clinician-centred, authoritative approach to an increasingly shared decision-making model in which the patient is an equal partner. We explore how student-staff discussions on academic misconduct have also been transformed to a more student-centred approach, though this shift is evident only within certain educational organisations. The Calgary-Cambridge model, commonly used to structure clinical consultations, is adapted as a suggested model for framing conversations relating to academic misconduct with students. The five stages of the original Calgary-Cambridge (initiating the conversation; gathering information, physical examination, explanation and planning, closing the session) have been revised to four stages better suited to the non-clinical context of the academic misconduct meeting (initiating the conversation, gathering and examining information, providing information and planning, closing the conversation). The descriptions within the model have also been adapted to suit the academic integrity context. We propose that this adapted Calgary-Cambridge model supplements the Courageous Conversations approach, as described by House, Murdoch and Ellis. Courageous Conversations provide a broad framework for supportive conversations where the student is valued as a partner. The model we describe builds on this concept of student partnership as an anchor for academic misconduct meeting and provides a granular and practical structure for these conversations. We argue that the constructive and supportive approach to these challenging conversations is likely to have a more positive impact on future academic practice than an exclusively authoritative approach, mirroring the better patient outcomes observed with a partnership approach.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1502053
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1502053
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Managing Breaches of Academic Integrity -- Learning Lessons from Patient Interactions in the Healthcare Setting
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mary-Claire+Kennedy%22">Mary-Claire Kennedy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3835-2736">0000-0002-3835-2736</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Matthew+Lynch%22">Matthew Lynch</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4266-3518">0000-0003-4266-3518</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Academic+Ethics%22"><i>Journal of Academic Ethics</i></searchLink>. 2026 24(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: BioMed Central, Ltd. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://www.springer.com/gp/biomedical-sciences
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrity%22">Integrity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Patients%22">Patients</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physician+Patient+Relationship%22">Physician Patient Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Consultation+Programs%22">Consultation Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Allied+Health+Occupations+Education%22">Allied Health Occupations Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participative+Decision+Making%22">Participative Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+Students%22">Medical Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Meetings%22">Meetings</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discussion%22">Discussion</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10805-025-09715-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1570-1727<br />1572-8544
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This opinion article outlines the alignment between patient-clinician consultations in healthcare and student-investigator meetings focused on academic misconduct. We consider how healthcare consultations have evolved from a clinician-centred, authoritative approach to an increasingly shared decision-making model in which the patient is an equal partner. We explore how student-staff discussions on academic misconduct have also been transformed to a more student-centred approach, though this shift is evident only within certain educational organisations. The Calgary-Cambridge model, commonly used to structure clinical consultations, is adapted as a suggested model for framing conversations relating to academic misconduct with students. The five stages of the original Calgary-Cambridge (initiating the conversation; gathering information, physical examination, explanation and planning, closing the session) have been revised to four stages better suited to the non-clinical context of the academic misconduct meeting (initiating the conversation, gathering and examining information, providing information and planning, closing the conversation). The descriptions within the model have also been adapted to suit the academic integrity context. We propose that this adapted Calgary-Cambridge model supplements the Courageous Conversations approach, as described by House, Murdoch and Ellis. Courageous Conversations provide a broad framework for supportive conversations where the student is valued as a partner. The model we describe builds on this concept of student partnership as an anchor for academic misconduct meeting and provides a granular and practical structure for these conversations. We argue that the constructive and supportive approach to these challenging conversations is likely to have a more positive impact on future academic practice than an exclusively authoritative approach, mirroring the better patient outcomes observed with a partnership approach.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1502053
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1502053
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10805-025-09715-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Integrity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Patients
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physician Patient Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Consultation Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Allied Health Occupations Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participative Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Meetings
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discussion
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Managing Breaches of Academic Integrity -- Learning Lessons from Patient Interactions in the Healthcare Setting
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mary-Claire Kennedy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Matthew Lynch
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1570-1727
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1572-8544
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Academic Ethics
              Type: main
ResultId 1