Corruption in Higher Education; A Comparative Studies on Whistleblowing System between University of Stanford and Universitas Indonesia
Abstract
This study seeks to demonstrate the utilisation of the whistleblower system in higher education to mitigate academic dishonesty and fraud, emphasising a comparison between Stanford University in the United States and the University of Indonesia. The study's findings indicate that both universities acknowledge the significance of witness protection within the whistleblowing framework, particularly to safeguard the safety and security of whistleblowers. Stanford University and the University of Indonesia provide conventional reporting mechanisms; nevertheless, Stanford University possesses superior reporting governance and regulations. Both schools offer application-based reporting mechanisms; however, Stanford University maintains an exceptional framework for reporting management rules and whistleblower protection. This study's conclusions aim to assist Indonesian universities in establishing efficient reporting methods and procedures to eliminate corruption and enhance academic integrity. This study employs a qualitative research methodology encompassing two primary approaches: a literary approach and a law approach. The literature review method examines academic literature, publications, and regulations about whistleblowing in higher education institutions in the United States and Indonesia. This literature analysis examines the optimal practices of whistleblower systems in several international universities and their implications for higher education in Indonesia. A legal framework is utilised to explore the existing regulations and statutes, specifically concerning witness protection, whistleblower security, and the enforcement of academic integrity. This entails an examination of the legislation and internal university policies concerning whistleblowing in each nation. The study offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of the effective implementation of whistleblower systems in Indonesian universities, along with recommendations for enhancing reporting governance policies to foster a more transparent and accountable academic environment.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Chapman, D. W., & Linder, S. (2014). Degrees of integrity: the threat of corruption in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1-22.
Chaudhary, N. S., Gupta, K. P., & Phoolka, S. (2019). A study of whistle-blowing intentions of teachers working in the higher education sector. International Journal of Law and Management, 1-30.
Dorasamy, N. (2012). Institutionalising a Whistleblowing Culture within Higher Education Institutions: Policy and Procedure Underpinning Good Governance at the Durban University of Technology. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 505-512.
Jubb, P. B. (1999). Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation. Journal of Business Ethic, 74-94.
Maulidi, A., & Ansel, J. (2021). Tackling practical issues in fraud control: a practice-based study. Journal of Financial Crime, 493-512.
Palumbo, R., & Manna, R. (2019). Uncovering the relationship between whistleblowing and organizational identity Some preliminary evidence from Italian publicly owned universities. International Journal on Public Sector Management, 94-112.
Petersen, J., & Farrell, D. (1986). Whistleblowing: Ethical and Legal Issues in expressing dissent. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company.
Pratiwi, E. T., Abdullah, R., & Abdullah, L. O. (2018). Whistleblowing Systems as an Initial Effort to Prevention and Detection of Fraud. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research , 22-26.
Pratolo, S., Sadjiman, V. P., & Sofyani, H. (2020). Determinants of Whistleblowing Intention of Employees in Universities: Evidence from Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Keuangan dan Akuntansi Indonesia, 92-101.
Rumyantseva, N. L. (2005). Taxonomy of Corruption in Higher Education. Peabody Journal of Education, 81-92.
Tatawi, M. L. (2015). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Saksi dan Korban (Kajian UU Nomor 31 Tahun 2014). Lex et Societatis, 41-49.
Newspaper article and Website:
Egi. (2016, December 6). Korupsi di Perguruan Tinggi. Retrieved from Indonesia Corruption Watch: https://antikorupsi.org/id/article/korupsi-di-perguruan-tinggi
Puspitasari, M. A. (2020, June 9). ICW Temukan Lima Modus Korupsi di Perguruan Tinggi. Koran Tempo.
Sjafrina, A. G., & Anggraini, D. (2021). Tren Penindakan Korupsi Sektor Pendidikan: Pendidikan di Tengah Kepungan Korupsi. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch.
Stanford, U. o. (2022, December 13). A History of Stanford. Retrieved from University of Stanford: https://www.stanford.edu/about/history/
Stanford, U. o. (2023, January 01). 1.1.1 University Code of Conduct. Retrieved from University of Stanford: https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapters/guiding-policies-and-principles/university-code-conduct/university-code-conduct
The Employment Law Group. (n.d.). A Timeline of U.S. Whistleblowing. Retrieved from The Employment Law Group: https://www.employmentlawgroup.com/timeline-us-whistleblowing/
UI. (2018, 2022 13). Peraturan Rektor No 028 Tahun 2018 tentang Sistem Pelaporan Dugaan Pelanggaran. Retrieved from Universitas Indonesia: http://eng.ui.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/Peraturan_Rektor_028_2018_Tentang_Sistem_Pelaporan_Dugaan_Pelanggaran.pdf
UI. (2022, 12 1). Sejarah Universitas Indonesia. Retrieved from Universitas Indonesia: https://www.ui.ac.id/tentang-ui/sejarah-ui/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v12i1.38693 Abstract - 0 PDF - 0
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.