Academic staff owe a duty of fidelity to uphold institutional standards of integrity. They also have their own values and conceptions of integrity as well as personal responsibilities and commitments. The question of how academic practitioners address or reconcile conflicting values and responsibilities has been underexplored in the literature. Before we can examine effectiveness of academic integrity strategies and develop best practices, we need to examine the breadth of integrity decisions. To this end we posited the academic integrity problem as a set of seven dilemmas and presented them to post-secondary education staff (N = 80) located in Europe, North America, Oceania, and Asia. We asked the participants to recommend a solution to each dilemma. This yielded a modest sample of 498 themes across 30 categories. We expected the responses to fall on a binary scale where decisions either support the integrity or ignore it. However, the data suggests that academic integrity decisions are better suited to continuum where participants aim to reconcile personal and institutional obligations. We further argue that academic integrity decisions are predicated on personal experience and therefore pose a challenge for policy standardization and enforcement. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings for practice.

学术人员负有忠实的义务，以维护诚信的机构标准。他们也有自己的价值观和正直观念以及个人责任和承诺。在文献中尚未充分探讨学术从业者如何解决或调和相互矛盾的价值观和责任的问题。在我们检查学术诚信策略的有效性和制定最佳实践之前，我们需要检查诚信决策的广度。为此，我们将学术诚信问题视为七个难题的集合，并将其呈现给大专院校的教职员工（N = 80）位于欧洲，北美，大洋洲和亚洲。我们要求参与者为每个难题提出解决方案。这产生了一个涵盖30个类别的498个主题的样本。我们预计响应将落在二进制尺度上，在该尺度上决策要么支持完整性，要么忽略完整性。但是，数据表明，学术诚信决策更适合于参与者旨在调解个人和机构义务的连续性。我们进一步认为，学术诚信决定取决于个人经验，因此对政策的标准化和执行提出了挑战。最后，我们讨论了这些发现对实践的意义。