Integrity among Academics: Concept, Challenge and Way Forward
- 1 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
- 2 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
- 3 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
- 4 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
- 5 Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract
The degree of integrity among academics is yet to be determined because there is no proper instrument for such measurement. The purpose of this paper is therefore to identify elements that can measure integrity, as well as develop integrity framework or model. Among the themes discussed in this paper are, what are the theories, models and concepts related to integrity, previous studies on integrity and subsequent discussions on the development process of the model that are appropriate for measuring integrity. This concept paper concludes that integrity can be measured based on the values required for integrity. The implication of this concept paper is that the values that are inherent in a person determine their level of integrity. This concept paper recommend s that integrity should be measured over time. It is not on ly to produce an index of integrity but also to remind academics of the appropriate values and practices in fulfilling their responsibilities. Furthermore, ongoing exposures to integrity instruments may prevent misconceptions about integrity that only associated with corruption, abuse of power, unprofessional and inaccurate matters in terms of duties, responsibilities, roles or positions held.
- (2004) National Integrity Plan.
- (2005). Report of the Commission on Travel Improvement and Management PDRM. PKN.
- (2005). Royal Malaysian Police Travel and Management Improvement Commission Report. PKN. Unpublished Report.
- Ab. Rahman, I. (2005). Malaysia Outstanding, Glorious and Incredible: Integrity Become an Agenda. Pemikir, 41, 1-13.
- Amstrong, E. (2005). Integrity, Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration: Recent Trends, Regional and International Developments and Emerging Issues. United Nation, Economic and Social Affairs.
- Dobel, J. P. (1990). Integrity in the Public Service. Public Administration Review, 50, 354-366. https://doi.org/10.2307/976617
- Ernst & Young International (1996). Fraud Survey Report (Global). http://www.ey.com/US/en/SearchResults?query=integrity+and+corruption+1996&searchoptionscountry_name
- Mazilan, M., Izal Arif, Z., & Suzanna, C. M. (2005). Ethics and Integrity in Malaysia: Issues and Challenges. Kuala Lumpur: Institut Integriti Malaysia (IIM).
- Megat Ayop, M. A. & Abd. Halim, A. (2016a). College of Law, the Importance of Cultural Integrity and Work Ethic in Organizations in Malaysia: An Overview. Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 12, 138-149.
- Megat Ayop, M. A., & Abd. Halim, A. (2016b). The Concept of Integrity in the Organization of Royal Malaysian Police: A Preliminary Study. Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 12, 135-147.
- Mohd. Tap, S. (2008). Practicing Integrity among Youth. Working Paper in Conjuntion with the National Youth Consultative Council (MPBN) Conference XXVI Year 2008 Meeting on May 24, 2008, at the Hotel Marriot, Putrajaya.
- Nik Hairi, O., Azmi, A., & Azmi, A. M. (2012). Integrity from a Public Complaint Perspective: A Case Study in the Road Transport Department (JPJ) Malaysia. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7, 141-155.
- OECD Report (2009). OECD Annual Report 2009. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/39/43125523.pdf
- Sulaiman, M. (2005). National Integrity Plan. In M. Mazilan, Z. Izal Arif, & C. M. Suzanna (Eds.), Ethics and Integrity in Malaysia: Issues and Challenges. Kuala Lumpur: Institut Integriti Malaysia (IIM).
- The Oxford Dictionary (2008). The Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.