Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

National interest in academic integrity , specifically breaches of academic integrity such as plagiarism, can be traced in Australia back to the 1990s and early years of the new millennium. Massification and commercialization of higher education, reduced public funding for higher education, increased number of international students, concerns for academic standards, and constant media scandals about “soft marking” and dumbing down all contributed to a heightened sense of panic that there was an educational “epidemic” which needed to be addressed.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the proportion of international students to domestic students in Australia was considered to be the highest in the world (Crooks 2003), and the issue of how second language learners use and cite sources in academic writing was a hotly contested topic in linguistics, academic writing, and TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) circles. Traditional academic skill books had always provided advice to students on how to use sources in essays and other assignments. However, as increased numbers of international students (the large proportion of whom were Chinese) enrolled in disciplines such as business, academic skills authors began to focus on the apparent difficulties that this group of students had in citing other people’s work according to Western academic conventions. This issue was identified as early as 1991 by Ballard and Clanchy (1991). The perceived wisdom during this period was that Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) students (those from Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and mainland China) tended to rely heavily on reference texts without the necessary “critical thinking” to analyze and interpret these texts.

Influential linguists such as Scollon (1995) suggested that it was not a lack of critical thinking but rather adherence to Chinese cultural rhetorical conventions which underpinned this group of students’ writing behavior. He further argued that cultural identity had a profound impact on how nonnative-speaking students of English could express their opinions in English (Scollon 1997). Other writers, such as Bloch and Chi (1995) and Watkins and Biggs (1996), challenged the notion of culturally determined thinking and writing patterns, while Mills (1997) argued that there was little academic difference between domestic and international students and there was no “typical overseas Asian student” (Mills 1997, p. 109). Throughout this debate, there was general acceptance that international students require induction into the Australian academic environment, with specific training provided in Western academic conventions such as essay writing and other writing genres, referencing, academic voice and register, and articulating opinions (Watkins and Biggs 1996; Kirby et al. 1996).

“ Plagiarism” Rears Its Ugly Head

One of the first groups to raise the issue of plagiarism, as distinct from academic writing issues by international students, was the Language and Academic Skills advisors (LAS advisors, now referred to as Academic Language and Learning (ALL) advisors) who maintained an engaged dialogue via the UniLearn discussion list. In 1999, Warner wrote specifically on the topic of plagiarism by LBOTE (Language Background Other Than English) students and suggested that it was “often a text-based practice that reflects different cultural and linguistic norms…[further complicated by] western institutions’ ambivalent and inconsistent approach to the practice” (Warner 1999, p. 24). At the 2000 Sources of Confusion LAS conference, Chen (2000) was somewhat more circumscribed in referring to the “citation behavior” of Chinese students; and at the Changing Identities LAS conference, Bretag (2001) referred for the first time in her own work to the “tendency to plagiarize” by CHC students which she attributed to inadequate linguistic and academic preparation for Western tertiary study.

Something was shifting in both the public and academic consciousness, and in the media, “plagiarism” became the byword for controversy, scandal, and everything that was negative in the increasingly commercialized and internationalized Australian higher education sector (see Rollison 2001; Giglio 2003; Illing 2003; Lane 2003; Sinclair 2003). In most of the rhetoric from this period, the words “plagiarism” and “cheating” were either used synonymously or as a collective term. In 2001, Marsden completed her honors thesis entitled Who Cheats at University? (2001) and in 2002, the Cooperative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries (CAVAL) made headlines across the country with the release of findings from the Electronic Plagiarism Detection Project. The key results of the study of 1,925 student essays from six universities in Victoria were that nearly 14 % of the essays “contained an unacceptable level of unattributed materials” (O’Connor 2003, p. 5) and 8 % of students had taken large chunks of text without acknowledgment (as reported by Buckell 2002, p. 19).

The prevailing view at the time is summarized well by the following excerpt from O’Connor on behalf of CAVAL (2003, p. 2):

…even with the extensive amounts of plagiarism that have been detected of late, the public outcries are more about quality of educational product than outrage about cheating. This is a fundamental difference of outlook. It is also a fundamental difference in how universities ought to be responding to the scourge. Universities will only invest resources into educational programs and other remedial programs if they believe there is a significant rationale. That rationale is bound in the value of their degrees, diplomas and courses. If they are being degraded in the eyes of their potential market then action will follow. Major universities in Melbourne and in Perth have experienced being on the front page of the New Straits Times for up to 10 days in a row because of accusations of cheating amongst the student population. This is the last place the universities wish to be. The adverse press coverage is also a measure of how importantly the Asian market regards the quality of the educational programs, and Australian educational programs particularly. The recent run of press coverage in Australia has, for the most part, been focused on accountability of the universities to achieve an even environment for all students. The coverage in the American press has been more focused on the moral aspects of cheating.

As O’Connor indicates above, Australian academic integrity researchers and practitioners were taking a quite different direction to their American counterparts. Much of the early interest in the topic in Australia focused on plagiarism and what this had to say about educational standards and “quality,” particularly in relation to Australian higher education as a “product” for export. In contrast, the focus in the USA was on values, morals, and student breaches of academic integrity that were most often characterized as “cheating” (see, e.g., Callahan 2004; Davis et al. 2009). The exception to this emphasis in the USA came from writing center/composition instructors who played a similar role to LAS/ALL advisors in Australia, with early work by Rebecca Moore Howard being particularly influential (see, e.g., Howard 1995, 1999, 2001).

The “ Educational Integrity” Movement

Shortly after the release of the CAVAL report, John Barrie, the founding CEO of iParadigms, the US company responsible for developing the text-matching software Turnitin, made a presentation on the capabilities of the software at the University of South Australia. As a result of this presentation, key stakeholders at the University of South Australia formed a committee to organize a conference on the topic of plagiarism. That conference, convened by Helen Marsden and entitled Educational integrity: Plagiarism and other perplexities (Marsden et al. 2003), was held in November 2003 and paved the way for the educational integrity movement in Australia. At the conclusion of the conference, the Asia Pacific Forum on Educational Integrity (APFEI) was established, with Helen Marsden as chair and Tracey Bretag as deputy chair.

From the beginning, the educational integrity movement in Australia benefited from the research and expertise of international collaborators. The 2003 Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (APCEI) was opened by highly influential American researcher Donald McCabe (2003) who had been conducting large-scale surveys on cheating behavior by students for over a decade and who had founded the Center for Academic Integrity at Rutgers University in 1992. Jude Carroll from Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom, author of the widely used teaching resource, A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education (2002), also provided a keynote address. The majority of the papers presented at the conference were by Australian LAS advisors, and the emphasis on plagiarism by international students, while still front and center of much of the discussion, was complemented by papers on integrity as a broader, educational issue (see Bell and Cumming-Thom 2003; Chanock 2003; Clerehan and Johnson 2003; Singh 2003). Ursula McGowan has consistently and comprehensively written about the need to reimagine both plagiarism and academic integrity as issues of scholarship and research pedagogy (McGowan 2002, 2005a, b, 2008, 2010).

During this period, Bretag completed her doctoral thesis entitled Developing Internationalism in the Internationalised University: A Practitioner Research Project. One chapter of the thesis, “Implementing plagiarism policy in the internationalised university,” was notably more concerned with plagiarism by international students than with exploring academic integrity per se. Bretag explained the rationale for that particular chapter as follows: “I was especially interested in exploring how staff perceive the issue (of plagiarism) in relation to international English as a Second Language (ESL) students, and understanding the barriers that currently preclude the development of a culturally sensitive but firm, fair and transparent policy to deal with deliberate cases of academic dishonesty” (Bretag 2005, pp. 107–108).

Other writers and researchers were writing about plagiarism as if this was synonymous with all academic misconduct, with few people writing about academic or educational integrity as a topic worthy of exploration in and of itself. APFEI continued to organize biennial conferences in Australia (Newcastle 2005, Adelaide 2007, Wollongong 2009, Perth 2011, Sydney 2013), and each conference developed a more sophisticated appreciation of the complexity of the issues. In 2005, the conference focus was on values in teaching, learning, and research. During this conference, Tracey Bretag and Helen Marsden launched the International Journal for Educational Integrity, an online, peer-reviewed journal to provide a platform for researchers and practitioners to share best practice in promoting educational integrity across the various education sectors and stakeholders.

Shortly after the first issue of the journal was published, Rebecca Moore Howard, at that time associate professor of Writing and Rhetoric and director of the writing program at Syracuse University, wrote the following review on her weblog Schenectady Synecdoche:

…another new journal focused on academic integrity has entered the fray: the International Journal for Educational Integrity. A preliminary evaluation: It’s sponsored by the University of South Australia Library…[The Editors have] an idea of transgressive authorship as a scholarly field rather than police action; their inaugural issue has a leadoff article from Don McCabe, the foremost quantitative researcher in the field and a well-known advocate of honor codes, and it concludes with an article by Celia Thompson, who’s writing her dissertation on student authorship, under the direction of Alastair Pennycook. IJEI is offering not only authoritative voices but also a genuinely diverse range of viewpoints—a promising start for a new journal. (Howard 2006)

As sole editor since 2006, Bretag continues to edit the journal which is now published by Springer.

In 2007, the APCEI conference theme was “creating a culture of integrity”; in 2009, the conference focused on “creating an inclusive approach.” In 2011, the conference returned to “culture and values,” and in 2013, the conference committee called for papers which addressed the theme “From policy to practice: Bridging the gap.” In addition to the APCEI conferences, pockets of academics from a variety of disciplines and institutions around the country continued to explore what was increasingly understood to be “a complex, unstable issue that must be considered from a variety of viewpoints and at a variety of sites” (Howard and Robillard 2008, p. 3). For example, the 2008 Ethical engagements in academic writing: Dialogues on scholarship, plagiarism and collaboration conference (Charles Sturt University, NSW) had a strong cultural studies theme.

Key Themes in the Australian Educational Integrity Movement

Definitions Matter

Although speaking specifically about plagiarism, Jude Carroll’s keynote address (2003) at the first educational integrity conference in 2003 began with the words “Definitions matter,” and the importance of appropriately defining terms has been an ongoing refrain. The Fundamental Values Project, developed by the Center for Academic Integrity in 1999, provided the basis for the first definitions of “educational integrity” in 2003. “Honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility” were regarded as key values, alongside the arguably unique Australian emphasis on “equity.” The following excerpt from the APFEI website explains the genesis of the term “educational” rather than “academic” integrity:

APFEI defines educational integrity as a commitment to the key values of honesty, trust, fairness, equity, respect and responsibility, and the translation of these values into action (adapted from the Center for Academic Integrity The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity 1999). This view of integrity involves much more than a commitment from students not to cheat or plagiarise. Educational integrity is multi-dimensional and is enabled by all those in the educational enterprise, from students to teachers, librarians, advisors, research colleagues and administrators. It is for this reason that APFEI prefaces ‘integrity’ with ‘educational’ rather than just the more conventional ‘academic’. Additionally, from the first conference in 2003, APFEI has sought to be inclusive in our approach to the numerous stakeholders of integrity across the various educational sectors. (APFEI n.d.)

The Academic Integrity Standards Project (AISP 2010–2012) continued to contend with feedback from students that “ academic integrity” was inconsistently defined and understood across the Australian higher education sector. Based on interview data with Australian senior educational managers, the AISP proposed the following definition which attempted to articulate the complexity and multifaceted nature of academic integrity:

Academic integrity encompasses a number of values and ideals that should be upheld in an academic institution. Within the academy there is a fundamental obligation to exercise integrity, which includes honesty, trustworthiness and respect. Within an academic structure those values must be evident in the research as well as the teaching and learning activities of the institution. Academic integrity involves ensuring that in research, and in teaching and learning, both staff and students act in an honest way, that they’re open and accountable for their actions, and that they exhibit fairness and transparency when they’re dealing with people or with research. Furthermore, it is important that staff members at all levels be role models and demonstrate integrity as an example to students who will progress through the education system and then transition into professional life. Academic integrity impacts on students and staff in these core activities, and is fundamental to the reputation and standing of an organisation and its members. (AISP n.d.)

The Exemplary Academic Integrity Project further refined this definition to provide a “plain English definition” which would be accessible to all stakeholders, regardless of their role in education:

Academic integrity means acting with the values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in learning, teaching and research. It is important for students, teachers, researchers and professional staff to act in an honest way, be responsible for their actions, and show fairness in every part of their work. All students and staff should be an example to others of how to act with integrity in their study and work. Academic integrity is important for an individual’s and a school’s reputation. (EAIP 2013)

How academic integrity is defined remains a subject for debate and ongoing refinement.

Text-Matching Software

At the same time that Australian universities were grappling with issues around internationalization, academic standards, and plagiarism, higher education in the United Kingdom was undergoing a similar level of soul-searching. In particular, the independent adjudicator for higher education called attention to inconsistencies in penalties for plagiarism across the higher education sector. This resulted in the development of the project Academic Misconduct Benchmarking Research (AMBeR) (Tennant et al. 2007), which led to a nationwide approach to detecting and dealing with plagiarism that both promotes and relies heavily on the text-matching software Turnitin.

While UK universities have appeared to uncritically embrace Turnitin as a useful tool in detecting plagiarism, influential writers in the USA and elsewhere (e.g., Howard 2001, 2007; Pecorari 2012) have been less welcoming of the software, which has been erroneously touted as “plagiarism detection software.” In addition to drawing attention to the fact that no software can “detect plagiarism” (the best it can do is highlight text matches), concerns were expressed that using the software would establish an adversarial relationship between teacher and student which would not be conducive to learning. Rebecca Moore Howard eloquently summarized the issues as follows:

In our stampede to fight what The New York Times calls a “plague” of plagiarism, we risk becoming the enemies rather than the mentors of our students; we are replacing the student-teacher relationship with the criminal/police relationship. Further, by thinking of plagiarism as a unitary act rather than a collection of disparate activities, we risk categorising all of our students as criminals. Worst of all, we risk not recognising that our own pedagogy needs reform. Big reform. (Howard 2001, p. 2)

Sutherland-Smith and Carr (2005) also reminded Australian educators and policymakers that Turnitin should not be considered “a panacea to plagiarism.” The company which produces Turnitin, iParadigms, was required to defend the charge that the software violated students’ copyright by maintaining their work in a commercial database (Zimmerman 2007; A.V. vs iParadigms 2008), a case which iParadigms won after much public fanfare.

The hostility and mistrust directed toward text-matching software in the USA, juxtaposed against its almost universal use in UK higher education, has resulted in an ambivalent attitude and often inconsistent use of the software in the Australian context. Project team members of the AISP, while not necessarily in agreement that Turnitin should be a compulsory requirement of assignment submission, did concur that exemplary academic integrity policies need to provide clear information on how academic integrity breaches, including plagiarism, are identified. Furthermore, if text-matching software is to be used, students should have the opportunity to use it as an educative drafting tool to develop their writing and referencing skills.

The Internet and Plagiarism

In Australia and elsewhere, the Internet was vilified as the culprit behind students’ plagiarism (and during the early days of research on plagiarism, students remained the focus of attention). Scores of papers and books were published which explored the particular educational issues associated with students’ increasing reliance on the Internet. Wendy Sutherland-Smith’s interests in TESOL, academic literacies, and information and communication technologies (ICT) in education led to her research on the role that the Internet played in student plagiarism. From 2004, Sutherland-Smith began publishing on the topic, and her book Plagiarism, the Internet and Student Learning: Improving Academic Integrity (2008) summarized the key concerns during this period and provided fresh perspectives on how plagiarism might be viewed and responded to. Extending recommendations from the Centre for Studies in Higher Education at the University of Melbourne (James et al. 2002), Sutherland-Smith proposed the “plagiarism continuum” to inform discussion and the direction of plagiarism management. Once again, Rebecca Moore Howard and colleagues’ work on plagiarism and the Internet exerted considerable influence on the way that Australian researchers approached the topic (see, e.g., Howard and Davies 2009).

Focus on Policy

The emphasis on educational/academic integrity policy in Australian universities arguably began in 2010 with Gabrielle Grigg’s doctoral thesis entitled Plagiarism in Higher Education: Confronting the Policy Dilemma. At the time, every Australian university had a policy on plagiarism (Grigg 2010, p. 185) as opposed to a policy on academic integrity. Based on linguistic analysis of those plagiarism policies, Grigg concluded that “institutional policy predominately depicts plagiarism as an offense, with educative considerations incorporated into this framework” (2010, p. 8).

In the same year, the Australian Learning and Teaching Council provided $174,000 in funding for the Academic Integrity Standards Project (AISP). The project developed out of the research group that formed the core members of APFEI and aimed to extend the work of East (2009) who had advocated for universities to align policy, teaching and learning practices, academic integrity decision-making, and academic integrity review processes. The following excerpt from the AISP website provides an overview of the project:

The Academic Integrity Standards Project: Aligning Policy and Practice in Australian Universities (2010-2012) aimed to develop a shared understanding across the Australian higher education sector of academic integrity standards with the aim of improving the alignment of academic integrity policies and their implementation…The project reviewed policies and procedures and the ways that universities educate students and staff about their academic integrity expectations. The project provided an overview of current responses to student breaches of academic integrity by analysing Australian universities’ online policies, and collaborating with stakeholders from the six universities represented by the project team, as well as a Colloquium of national and international experts on academic integrity. This overview informed the establishment of exemplars, and the development of teaching and learning resources that align academic integrity policy with good practice. …The project partner institutions were the University of South Australia (Lead institution), The University of Adelaide, The University of Newcastle, The University of Western Australia, University of Wollongong and La Trobe University. (AISP n.d.)

In addition to developing practical learning and teaching resources, the key conceptual deliverable of the AISP was the identification of “five core elements” of exemplary academic integrity policy: access, approach, responsibility, detail, and support. This was achieved via analysis of the 39 Australian universities’ publicly available academic integrity policies and is elaborated in detail in Section 4, “Academic Integrity Policy and Practice” in this Handbook. The “five core elements” of exemplary academic integrity policy were informed by the Higher Education Academy (UK) document published at around the same time, Policy works: Recommendations for reviewing policy to manage unacceptable academic practice in higher education (2011), which provided both a point of reference and a springboard for discussion and analysis (see Bretag et al. 2011b).

AISP also conducted the largest student survey on academic integrity ever to be completed in Australia (n = 15,304). Unlike other surveys on academic integrity (mostly conducted in the USA using a format developed by McCabe and colleagues) which have typically focused on students’ self-reporting of cheating behavior, the AISP survey aimed to explore students’ understandings of academic integrity and how best to inform and support them in avoiding an academic integrity breach.

The main research questions which the survey aimed to address included the following:

  1. 1.

    What awareness do Australian university students have of academic integrity and academic integrity policy?

  2. 2.

    Are Australian university students satisfied with the way that academic integrity is communicated and managed at their university?

  3. 3.

    What experience have Australian students had of the academic integrity breach process at their university? (Bretag et al. 2013, p. 1154)

The key results of the survey were that:

the majority of respondents reported a good awareness of academic integrity and knowledge of academic integrity policy at their university and were satisfied with the information and support they receive. International students expressed a lower awareness of academic integrity and academic integrity policy, and lower confidence in how to avoid academic integrity breaches; and postgraduate research student respondents were the least satisfied with the information they had received about how to avoid an academic integrity breach. (Bretag et al. 2013, p. 1150)

Academic Integrity: A National Priority

Following the completion of the AISP and in response to significant policy shifts in higher education, the OLT called for project proposals specifically relating to academic integrity. Four projects received 2 years’ funding as follows:

  1. 1.

    Embedding and extending exemplary academic integrity policy and support frameworks across the higher education sector (Exemplary Academic Integrity Project (EAIP) led by Tracey Bretag at the University of South Australia). The EAIP aimed to extend and embed the five core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy identified by the AISP across the broader higher education sector, including both public universities and private providers of higher education. In particular, this project aimed to develop resources for student groups identified as needing support: international EAL students and postgraduate research students (EAIP 2013).

  2. 2.

    Working from the Centre: Supporting unit/course coordinators to implement academic integrity policies, resources and scholarship (“Building Academic Integrity,” led by Fiona Henderson and Paul Whitelaw at Victoria University). This project focused on the role of the unit/course coordinator in building academic integrity in teaching and learning. The project aimed to develop resources to assist unit/course coordinators in ensuring that academic integrity policies are appropriately adhered to (Building Academic Integrity n.d.).

  3. 3.

    Academic integrity in Australia – understanding and changing culture and practice (led by Abhaya Naya at Macquarie University). This project aimed to develop guidelines for policy development and benchmarking, create online resources that address identified cultural issues and gaps, and establish student societies to promote peer-driven cultural change (OLT n.d.).

  4. 4.

    Plagiarisms and related issues in assessment not involving text (led by Simon at the University of Newcastle). This project aimed to investigate the understanding of both academics and students about academic integrity in assessment items that are not written text, such as computer games and visual images. The project explored how both staff and students regard such breaches and how academics discourage, detect, and respond to such breaches (OLT n.d.).

The allocation of OLT funds for the projects represented a significant investment in nurturing shared understandings of academic integrity across the Australian higher education sector. Furthermore, it was apparent from the broad range of topics that the educational integrity movement had developed a level of sophistication and understanding that had gone well beyond the original preoccupation with international students’ citation practices, although this group of students continues to be acknowledged as a stakeholder group in need of support. All of the projects have made important contributions, both theoretically and practically, to the way that educational/academic integrity is articulated, understood, and promulgated in Australian higher education (for examples of some of the research outputs, please see Bretag et al. 2011a, b, 2013; Mahmud and Bretag 2013a, b; Nayak et al. 2013; Simon et al. 2013, 2014).

International Collaborations

Following the first educational integrity conference in Australia in 2003, PlagiarismAdvice.org in the United Kingdom (UK) established the International Plagiarism Conference in 2004. From 2008, the UK-based JISC plagiarism service was divided into two services: PlagiarismAdvice.org which focuses on plagiarism prevention and (electronic) detection, particularly the text-matching software, Turnitin; and the Academic Integrity Service which has a more holistic, pedagogic focus. In an example of antipodean cross-fertilization and recognition that plagiarism is just one breach of academic integrity, the International Plagiarism Conference has been known since 2012 as the International Integrity and Plagiarism Conference and continues to attract numerous educational integrity researchers and practitioners from Australia. The UK Higher Education Academy (and in particular Erica J. Morris as a reference group member and collaborator) has played an important role in shaping the outcomes of both the AISP and the Exemplary Academic Integrity Standards Project.

Key members of the Center for Academic Integrity (renamed the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) in 2010) have contributed to the development of educational integrity in Australia. In addition to providing a keynote address at the first educational conference in 2003 and providing the opening paper for the International Journal for Educational Integrity in 2005, ICAI founder Donald McCabe and his extensive, internationally administered surveys have provided a launching pad for Australian-specific surveys such as the one developed by the AISP. Former chair of the advisory board of the ICAI, Tricia Bertram Gallant, contributed to the reference group of both the AISP and the EAIP. Her work in establishing the Academic Integrity Matters Student Organization at the University of California, San Diego, provided inspiration to the Macquarie University project to promote the role of student-led initiatives in developing a culture of academic integrity on campus. Sonia Saddiqui is currently completing doctoral research on the outcomes of this initiative (see Section 10, Systems Approach to Going Forward – Tricia Bertram Gallant).

In 2012, the International Association of Academic Integrity Conferences was launched to celebrate and promote the interconnection between PlagiarismAdvice.org, APFEI, and the ICAI.

New Directions

While the Australian educational integrity movement has benefited from research and practice on both sides of the Pacific, it is now well placed to be able to make a direct and substantial contribution to the burgeoning interest in integrity in its own region. Academic integrity researchers and practitioners in Asia are in the unique position of being able to adapt best practices that have developed over two decades of research around the globe. Taylor’s University, Malaysia, as part of a twinning arrangement with the University of South Australia, has developed its academic integrity policy based on advice from APFEI; and the University of Islam, Indonesia, has begun to explore issues of integrity in their specific context, with the Yogyakarta Forum on Educational Integrity recently established. Contributions to this volume from writers representing a range of Asian countries suggest that academic/educational integrity is a topic of interest and research which has moved well beyond the UK/US/Australian collaboration.

Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the educational integrity movement in Australia. The chapter has highlighted international influences and identified key themes in educational integrity research in Australia. These have included the centrality of clear definitions, the role of text-matching software, the perceived impact of the Internet, the focus on policy, the ongoing importance of international collaborations, and the recent commitment to fostering shared understandings of academic integrity across the sector by the Australian Government’s OLT, as evidenced by substantial funding for a range of academic integrity projects. We are now poised to share the benefits of nearly 20 years of debate, research, and practice with our neighbors in the Asia Pacific.