Academic dishonesty (AD), encompassing plagiarism, cheating, and deception, is a widespread issue in higher education, causing societal damage and raising concerns among academics. While research explores reasons for AD, uncertainty remains. This article examines existing research and proposes a new theoretical framework using Axel Honneth's (1995) Theory of Recognition to understand the root causes. Academic integrity (AI) is the ethical code of academia built on honesty, fairness, and responsibility, while AD violates these principles. The focus is on intentional AD, where students deliberately violate rules for advantage. Studies show high rates of AD, with figures ranging from 60% to 95% depending on the survey and methodology, with increased occurrences potentially linked to the shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Institutions use various methods to combat AD, including technological solutions and changes to assessment design, but these often address symptoms rather than the underlying causes. This article shifts the focus to understanding the social and moral reasoning behind AD by applying Honneth's Theory of Recognition.

Existing research attributes AD to various factors categorized as: attitudes towards AD among students, peers, and instructors; personality traits, gender, and age; the role of international students; and stress and student experience. Studies consistently show a link between positive attitudes toward cheating and AD. Peers' and instructors' attitudes also influence AD rates, with tolerance leading to increased cheating. Personality traits such as excitement-seeking and low self-restraint are associated with higher likelihood of AD. Research on gender and age has yielded mixed results. The role of language proficiency and cultural background for international students is complex and requires more research; existing studies show conflicting findings, suggesting that a simplified cultural explanation for AD may be a misrecognition of individual circumstances. Stress, pressure to achieve high grades, and the instrumental view of education have been identified as factors influencing AD. However, no single, universally accepted explanation exists.

This article uses a theoretical approach, applying Axel Honneth's (1995) Theory of Recognition to reinterpret the causes of academic dishonesty. Honneth's theory focuses on the role of recognition and disrespect in human moral experience. It emphasizes that achieving freedom and stable self-relation requires intersubjective recognition. Lack of deserved recognition leads to disrespect and can negatively impact the self. The struggle for recognition can take various forms, from verbal discussions to conflict. While recognition theory has seen limited application in education, prior research has explored its potential in understanding adult learners' struggles for re-entry into the workforce and the need for teachers to foster respect in themselves and their students. Honneth identifies three areas of self-relation—self-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem—developed through struggles for recognition in different social contexts. In higher education, recognition can come from assessment success, degree attainment, or acknowledgement from instructors. The struggle can also be against ideologies in education and society, such as the merit principle, which prioritizes performance over learning enjoyment. AD, in this context, could be seen as a struggle against perceived injustices in education.

The article argues that AD is driven by the pressure on students to view education instrumentally to gain societal recognition (a “good life”), prioritizing high grades and quick completion over intrinsic engagement. Honneth's theory helps to explain why students engage in AD despite the risks of consequences: it is a struggle for recognition and a form of privatized resistance. Students are motivated to achieve the recognition needed for positive self-relation. The social esteem mode of recognition is particularly relevant; approval from assessors or the broader academic community is crucial. Students lacking confidence or critical of assessment ideologies might resort to AD to avoid the potential suffering of disrespect through failing, thereby rationalizing their actions. AD, then, can be a means to protect self-relation, even if it entails disrespecting others. The article presents a detailed analysis using tables to map Honneth's theory of disrespect and recognition to the different aspects and dimensions of AD behaviours. This framework helps clarify why students may choose the risk of being caught engaging in AD over facing the consequences of failing. Neutralization theory is discussed as a possible contributing factor where students mitigate the negative self-consequences of their actions by rationalizing or blaming external factors. The act of AD itself, however, entails disrespect. The cycle is presented as a social pathology, where the desire for recognition through AD ends up perpetuating disrespect.

This reconceptualization of AD shifts the focus from individual moral failings to the systemic pressures within higher education. The “moral panic” surrounding AD is challenged, suggesting that students may be acting rationally, though unintentionally causing harm. The underlying causes of AD point to issues within academia, particularly the pressure to view education instrumentally, the stressors of the student experience, and the reification of certain aspects of academia. By understanding AD as a struggle for recognition, we can move beyond simplistic explanations and create more effective strategies for addressing the problem.

This paper argues that academic dishonesty should be understood through the lens of Honneth's Theory of Recognition, specifically the pursuit of social esteem. It highlights the pressure on students to view education instrumentally, leading to a struggle for recognition that can manifest as AD. This framework suggests that addressing the systemic issues in higher education, particularly the instrumentalization of education and the resulting stress, is crucial for reducing academic dishonesty. Future research might explore interventions that foster a more intrinsic view of education and enhance students' self-esteem and recognition within the academic community.

The study is a theoretical analysis and does not involve empirical data collection. The generalizability of the findings to all educational contexts and student populations may be limited. Further research is needed to empirically test the proposed model and explore the effectiveness of different interventions based on this theoretical framework.