Undertaking An Investigation

AIO Login to AIMS

Investigation of the suspected breach of the policy is undertaken by the Academic Integrity Officer (AIO) with the administrative support of the PSO after the Suspected Academic Misconduct Incident Form is received.

If the staff member reporting the alleged breach is also the AIO, the case must be referred to another AIO appointed by the relevant Head of the School coordinating the course. This could be another AIO within the School (if the School has more than one), could be the HOS acting as an AIO, or, if practicable, an AIO from a different School within the Faculty could be asked to undertake the investigation.

How to manage the investigation

There are some import steps in the investigation process with associated timelines which must be followed to ensure procedural fairness.

  • Step 1 – Assign the Report

    When a report is made, it is routed to the Academic Integrity Officer(s) for the School where the course is taught. 

    The AIOs assign the case to a member of their team for an initial review.

  • Step 2 – Establish whether there are sufficient grounds to initiate a formal enquiry

    The AIO should make an initial determination, based on the evidence provided and any other relevant considerations, whether the student may have a case to answer. This decision is recorded in the Initial Review tab in AIMS.

    The AIO may determine at this stage that the investigation should not continue because the allegation is lacking in substance, is vexatious, or reflects Poor Academic Practice rather than Academic Misconduct.

    If the AIO decides not to continue the investigation, a record should be made in the University’s record management system. If the AIO determines that the alleged misconduct is Poor Academic Practice this should be addressed through marking and feedback as part of standard assessment procedures.

    At this stage if it is clear that the suspected misconduct is serious the AIO can initiate an AIRC Inquiry directly (even for a first breach).

    More information about how to determine the seriousness of the suspected misconduct is provided in Determining the Outcome section.

    If there are sufficient grounds to continue the enquiry proceed to Step 3

    When to refer a case to an AIRC Inquiry

    All suspected cases of serious academic misconduct should be decided by an AIRC. AIOs may also initiate an AIRC Inquiry when the various matters that need to be weighed are complex and there is significant uncertainty about the appropriate outcome.

    However, in these circumstances, before initiating an AIRC Inquiry, the AIO should consider discussing the matter with appropriate others, including other AIOs (while protecting student confidentiality) in order to reduce their uncertainty and seek to make a judgement if possible.

    Referring suspected breaches to an AIRC Inquiry also means that a more severe range of penalties may be applied. The case may be referred to the Student Misconduct Tribunal which can impose suspension or exclusion as a penalty. AIOs may contact Student Affairs for advice regarding gathering evidence and the process of referring a matter to the Tribunal under the Student Misconduct Rules.

    Membership of the AIRC

    • Chair – normally this would be the AIO investigating the case
    • An AIO from another school
    • The PSO serving as administrative officer

    The academic staff member who initiated the allegation and the relevant Course Coordinator may present their concerns to the inquiry but must not serve as members of the AIRC.

    If during the Academic Integrity Review Committee’s inquiry a member of the committee becomes unable (through illness or any other cause) to act for a period that would unduly delay the completion of the inquiry, an alternative member may be appointed.

    AIRC process

    As outlined in this flowchart the process for the AIRC enquiry is the same as for an AIO led enquiry. However, the range of outcomes available to the AIRC is more extensive reflecting the more serious allegations that AIRC Inquiries consider.

  • Step 3 – Notify the student of the inquiry

    The PSO will find a meeting time for the AIO and the student, and on behalf of the AIO emails the student to:

    • provide information about the alleged breach of academic integrity
    • request that the student attend a meeting with the AIO in person (including by telephone or video conference) and inform the student that they may also respond to the allegation in writing
    • include a copy of the documentation provided to the AIO
    • offer opportunity for the student to provide any relevant additional information

    Timeline: the student must be notified as soon as practicable and within 10 days of receiving the Incident Form

    Timeline: the student must respond within 10 days of receiving the Notification

  • Step 4 – Student Responds

    The notification email invites the student to attend a meeting at a specified time within 15 days of the Notification email.

    The student must respond to the Notification within 10 days indicating whether they will attend a meeting or respond in writing. Therefore the meeting should not be scheduled any earlier than 10 days after the notification.

    If the student will attend the meeting

    The student may bring a support person with them, often an Education Welfare Officer from Student Care.

    AIO or PSO should confirm with the student if they intend to bring a support person and schedule the meeting at a mutually convenient time for the AIO, student and support person.

    When booking a space for the meeting the PSO should be mindful of maintaining the confidentiality of the student. A room that affords privacy would be preferable. Similarly, if the meeting will be held via phone or video conference the PSO should assist the AIO to ensure that the conversation cannot be overheard and the student cannot be not observed by other staff or students on a screen within an open-plan office space.

    If the student chooses to respond in writing or the student does not respond at all

    A meeting does not need to be organised but the AIO should not determine the outcome until the student has had a chance to submit a response in writing, so the 10 day timeline applies.

    A decision made in the absence of a response from the student may be revisited if the student demonstrates that there were circumstances that prevented them from responding within the specified time frame.

    What to do if a group are suspected of academic misconduct

    If a group are suspected of academic misconduct for a group assessment, the investigation must be carried out in a way that is fair to all students involved.

    Ideally the same investigator should consider the case against all the students involved. Each student should be given the opportunity to put their case, in person and/or in writing, before a decision is taken. Meetings with students should occur individually and the outcome should be determined for each student in the group individually.

  • Step 5 – Preparing for the meeting

    Before the meeting occurs the AIO should consider the evidence including speaking to anyone that they consider might help them to reach a decision (Policy 2.7).

    The AIO should identify any issues they wish to clarify with the student at the meeting.

    TheAIO should also review the student's written response (if provided) and Academic Integrity Breach History to determine whether any previous breaches have occurred.

  • Step 6 – Have a meeting with the student

    The AIO meets with the student and their support person if present. The PSO will attend to take notes or make a record of the meeting.

    The purpose of the interview is to review the evidence available, allow the student the opportunity to respond to the allegation, discuss the matter with the student and allow the AIO to determine whether:

    • No academic misconduct has occurred, OR
    • Academic misconduct has occurred but as a result of a genuine misunderstanding, OR
    • Academic misconduct has occurred

    Checklist for meeting with the student

    • Ensure the student is aware of the definition of academic misconduct
    • Outline the procedure for suspected academic misconduct and make sure the student understands what is going to happen in the interview and afterwards
    • Make sure the student understands what the possible outcomes of the investigation could be
    • Explain the reasons for suspecting the student of academic misconduct and ask the student if they understand these reasons
    • Ask the student about any training/guidance they have received relating to academic misconduct
    • Ask the student to provide their own account of events, and any explanation for their behaviour including providing details of any mitigating circumstances

  • Step 7 - Notify the student of the outcome

    After the meeting the AIO should advise the student that the case will be considered and that they will learn of the outcome in writing. 

    The written outcome with reasons should be provided to:

    • the student
    • the Course Coordinator
    • if applicable, the staff member who made the allegation of the breach

    Timeline: the notification of the outcome must occur within 10 business days of the AIO determining the outcome

Academic Integrity Whistleblowers

The University has a webform to allow students to confidentially or anonymously report suspected academic misconduct. These reports are triaged and recordkeeping managed by the DASE Academic Integrity Team, who will gather the available evidence and formally lodge the report in the Academic Integrity Management System (AIMS). Below are some guidelines for AIOs relating to student-reported allegations:

1) Protect student confidentiality where possible. The reporter’s identity should be kept confidential from the Course Coordinator and the student who is the subject of the investigation. If the investigation cannot proceed without sharing information which may reveal the student’s identity, the AIO will:

a) contact the student reporter to discuss any intention to release information which may reveal their identity

b) provide an opportunity for the student to withdraw their report

c) whether the student chooses to continue or discontinue their report, discuss options for support, including Counselling Support or Student Care

d) discuss measures to protect the student from reprisals, if this is a concern. This may include transferring the student to another study group or class.

 

2) Seek additional evidence. If the evidence provided in the report is insufficient, or reveals the reporter’s identity (e.g. a group chat with a small number of participants), you can seek additional evidence by:

a) contacting the Course Coordinator to request additional evidence such as Turnitin reports, LMS analytics or feedback from marking. If possible, do not name the student reporter.

b) contacting ITDS to explore available evidence as appropriate (e.g. LMS analytics, IP addresses)

c) if contract cheating is suspected, requesting a Turnitin Authorship report from acintegrity@adelaide.edu.au.

 

< MAKING AN ALLEGATION DETERMINING THE OUTCOME >