ABSTRACT

Contract cheating is a significant problem, both within and outside the academy. Responses have largely focused on punitive consequences for tertiary students, and in 2019 the Australian Federal Government proposed legislation that would formally criminalise contract cheating both for the buyer and the seller. Although contract cheating has the hallmarks of white-collar crime, criminological examination of this form (and arguably all forms) of academic misconduct has been minimal. Utilising the findings of Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019. Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856), where over 14,000 Australian tertiary students were surveyed, we examine contract cheating through a criminological lens and discuss whether rational choice theory (RCT) or general strain theory (GST) can contribute to understanding of its incidence and whether these theories offer a way to respond to or prevent this behaviour in the future. Our findings suggest that neither theory offers a complete solution and it is, in fact, a blend of RCT and GST that can help explain student contract cheating—what we term ‘strained rationality’.

摘要

合同作弊是学院内外的一个重大问题。回应主要集中在对大学生的惩罚性后果上，2019 年，澳大利亚联邦政府提出立法，正式将买卖双方的合同作弊定为刑事犯罪。尽管合同作弊具有白领犯罪的特征，但对这种形式（可以说是所有形式）的学术不端行为的犯罪学检查却很少。利用 Bretag, T.、Harper, R.、Burton, M.、Ellis, C.、Newton, P.、Saddiqui, S. 和 van Haeringen, K. 的调查结果（2019 年。合同欺诈：澳大利亚调查大学生。高等教育研究, 44(11), 1837–1856)，其中对超过 14,000 名澳大利亚大学生进行了调查，我们通过犯罪学的视角检查合同作弊，并讨论理性选择理论 (RCT) 或一般应变理论 (GST) 是否有助于理解其发生率以及这些理论是否提供了一种应对或预防未来这种行为的方法。我们的研究结果表明，这两种理论都没有提供完整的解决方案，事实上，它是 RCT 和 GST 的混合体，可以帮助解释学生合同作弊——我们称之为“紧张理性”。