Reconceptualizing academic dishonesty as a struggle for intersubjective recognition: a new theoretical model

The paper addresses why students engage in intentional academic dishonesty (AD) despite clear norms of academic integrity (AI). It distinguishes AI (honesty, fairness, trust, respect, responsibility) from AD (plagiarism, cheating, lying, deception) and focuses specifically on intentional violations rather than inadvertent mistakes. The author highlights the high prevalence of AD in higher education and its broader societal consequences, noting reports such as 80% of preservice teachers admitting AD behaviors, over 60% of students cheating in some form, figures as high as 95% in some samples, and perceived increases during COVID-19 online learning (e.g., 81% of STEM students believed cheating increased). Institutional responses have emphasized detection and control (e.g., proctoring, AI/ML tools), but these target symptoms rather than causes. The study’s purpose is to reorient inquiry toward the social and moral underpinnings of AD by introducing Axel Honneth’s Theory of Recognition as a framework, proposing that AD is driven less by moral deficit and more by a struggle for intersubjective recognition amid pressures to view higher education instrumentally.

The article synthesizes existing explanations for AD and organizes empirical findings into thematic categories. It reviews four commonly cited theoretical frames: Game Theory (student–teacher cat-and-mouse), Kohlberg’s Moral Development (maturation of moral reasoning), Neutralization Theory (rationalizations to deflect guilt), and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB: intention plus opportunity). While these help explain when AD occurs, they do not fully account for how favorable attitudes toward AD form. Empirical literature is summarized across four categories: 1) Attitudes toward AD among students, peers, and instructors: Positive attitudes to cheating predict AD; instructor tolerance and peers’ behaviors/solidarity increase AD; perception of widespread cheating reduces reporting and normalizes AD. 2) Personality traits, gender, and age: Mixed evidence links AD to lower self-restraint, excitement seeking, lower self-efficacy, and achievement; some studies find higher rates among males and earlier-year students, though patterns are inconsistent across contexts and samples. 3) International students, language, and culture: Some work links language proficiency and unfamiliarity with norms to higher AD, and cultural norms (collectivist vs individualist) may shape behaviors. However, these explanations are contested, with studies showing strong plagiarism understanding among international cohorts and critiques of cultural stereotyping; “culture” can function as misrecognition when overgeneralized. 4) Stress and the student experience: Pressures of performance, mental health burdens, and the instrumentalization of higher education are highlighted as broad drivers of AD. The COVID-19 shift to online learning is associated with perceived increases in cheating. Overall, findings are fragmented and sometimes conflicting, with no single definitive causal account. The review also introduces recognition theory in education, noting limited prior educational applications and framing learning as a site for struggles for recognition (self-confidence, self-respect, self-esteem) within broader ideologies (e.g., merit principle, performance orientation).

This is a theoretical/conceptual study. The author conducts a narrative review of research on academic dishonesty and then applies Axel Honneth’s Theory of Recognition to reinterpret AD. The approach maps Honneth’s recognition domains (love/primary relations, rights/legal respect, and social esteem/solidarity) and forms of disrespect to the context of higher education assessment and student experience. The paper develops a conceptual model—supported by illustrative tables—that frames intentional AD as a struggle for intersubjective recognition (particularly in the self-esteem mode) under conditions of instrumentalized education and performance-oriented norms. No empirical data were collected or analyzed.

- Empirical literature is inconsistent regarding individual predictors (e.g., gender, achievement, year of study, culture/language), though attitudes toward AD and peer/instructor norms consistently predict behavior. - During COVID-19, perceived cheating increased (e.g., 81% of surveyed STEM students believed online learning increased cheating). Prior work shows widespread AD (e.g., >60% self-reported cheating; 68% had cheated and 75% would cheat in future in a U.S. sample; up to 95% in one large sample), underscoring the phenomenon’s embeddedness in HE. - The proposed theoretical model reconceptualizes intentional AD as a struggle for intersubjective recognition within Honneth’s framework, especially the social-esteem dimension tied to assessment outcomes and membership in academic/professional communities. - AD can function as privatized resistance to perceived unjust or reified aspects of academic ideology (e.g., merit principle, performance-at-all-costs), and as a means to avoid misrecognition when failure is anticipated. Neutralization strategies can protect self-relation when engaging in AD. - AD creates a circular social pathology: it is driven by misrecognition yet entails disrespect toward others (instructors, peers), reinforcing the pathology of instrumentalized education.

By situating intentional AD within a struggle for intersubjective recognition, the model explains why students knowingly take risks: achieving recognition (self-esteem via successful assessment and progression) may outweigh the perceived risk of being caught, especially under strong performance pressures and instrumental goals. This reframing shifts emphasis from viewing AD as primarily a moral deficit to understanding it as a rational—though ethically problematic—response to social pathologies (meritocratic ideology, performance orientation, reification of assessment). It integrates disparate empirical findings (attitudes, peer effects, stress) into a unified social-philosophical account and highlights how neutralization rationales protect self-relation. The framework suggests that addressing AD requires attending to the recognition needs of students and the ideologies structuring HE, not solely intensifying detection and sanctions.

The paper contributes a universal theoretical model that reconceptualizes intentional academic dishonesty as a struggle for intersubjective recognition, particularly in the self-esteem mode, under conditions that instrumentalize education and prioritize performance. It argues this perspective can reduce moral panic, avoid simplistic moral-deficit attributions, and inform more effective institutional responses that consider student recognition needs and systemic pressures. Implications for teaching, learning, and assessment include rethinking assessment design, classroom climate, and institutional cultures that overemphasize performance metrics. Explicit future research directions are not detailed in the article.

The article is conceptual and does not involve empirical data collection or analysis (data availability notes no datasets were generated). Limitations are not explicitly discussed by the author.