Students' dishonest behavior is one of the most significant problems of higher education all over the world. Therefore, researchers and university administrators attempt to develop corresponding preventive measures. The measures can be aimed at either punishing students or engaging them in ethically sustainable academic practices. Recently, universities has shifted their focus from punishing to the holistic approach, aimed at the formation of academic integrity values among students. The implementation of honor codes becomes especially popular (Löfström et al., 2015). Although their effectiveness has not been proven yet, for example, experimental studies show a small and statistically insignificant effect of such honor codes (Corrigan-Gibbs et al., 2015). The purpose of this work is to study the discourses used in honor codes and other Russian universities` policies regarding the issues of student academic dishonesty to understand what arguments are used by the universities` management to form academic integrity values among students and present their position towards student dishonest behaviour. The objective of this study is to analyse Russian universities` honor codes and other ethical policies and distinguish key discourses in them. The research question of this paper is: What discourses and themes ​​are present in honor codes and other Russian university policies aimed at student dishonest behavior prevention?

In this study, N. Ferclo's discourse analysis is used to explore university policies and public statements of the Russian universities` rectors participating in the 5-100 Project. In total, the research sample consisted of 12 public statements of universities` management representatives, 10 honor codes, 12 policies on plagiarism and 21 policies concerning internal regulations for students.

The analysis helped to understand what kinds of discourses, argumentations and ways of their linguistic representation are used by Russian universities to represent their position towards students' academic dishonesty and to influence students' behavior. There were identified key topics of university ethical policies: responsibility for academic dishonesty, sanctions, and academic integrity. There were also distinguished two main discourses: punitive and value. In fact, punitive discourse in prevalent in the analysed policies of Russian universities. However, according to the existing research, different sanctions and the use of traditional punitive discourse in university ethical policies are not sufficient to address student academic dishonesty (Sutherland-Smith, 2011; Macdonald & Carroll, 2006). The results of our analysis show that there are several possible reasons for this, which, along with other features of ethical policies, may lead to their low efficiency: 1) specific language of policies that is not always clear to students; 2) references in ethical policies to laws and regulations; 3) full responsibility for dishonest behavior on students and faculty members; 4) insufficiency of ethical policies in general, and in relation to the values and norms adopted at the university. Thus, at the moment, ethical regulations in Russian universities are considered to be a punitive mechanism of the administrative system, and this may be the reason why honor codes are not effective enough.

Based on the received results, it is important to carefully develop ethical policies that mention what constitutes academic dishonesty, the importance of academic integrity, procedures for preventing student dishonesty and sanctions imposed for dishonest actions. All these details are necessary to tackle the issue of academic dishonesty at university.

This paper might be of use for university administrators and managers, as well as for those who professionally investigate students' academic dishonesty, to analyze and reform strategies for students' dishonesty prevention.

This study applied N. Ferclo's discourse analysis. The research sample consisted of honor codes and other ethical policies, presented on the websites of Russian universities and public statements made by universities` management, published in media. The selection of policies was carried out as follows. The sample involved 21 Russian universities participating in Project 5-100. This project was a government initiative aimed at increasing the competitiveness of leading Russian universities in the global education market. The choice of universities from that project was based on the fact that those universities are considered to be one of the best in Russia, they respond to modern changes quicker than other universities and strive to achieve the highest results in the quality of higher education, which determines their particular concern about academic integrity. Then universities were selected based on the availability of honor codes and other ethical policies on their websites. However, the findings cannot be generalized to all Russian universities due to the sample. In total, 12 public statements of universities` management representatives, 10 honor codes, 12 policies on plagiarism and 21 policies concerning internal regulations for students were considered.

The official ethical policies of Russian universities do not pay enough attention to the regulation of situations in which cases of student dishonesty occur. According to these policies, students are entirely responsible for their dishonest actions, and faculty members are responsible for the formation of students' attitudes towards academic integrity and control over their dishonest behavior. Thus, university management shifts its responsibility for student dishonesty on faculty members and students and takes the position of an observer and assistant in resolving possible conflicts. At the same time, in cases when university management is required to take an action in relation to the dishonest students` acts, various types of sanctions are applied following the ethical policies. Such position was named punitive. According to the existing research, different sanctions and the use of traditional punitive discourse in university ethical policies are not sufficient to address student academic dishonesty (Sutherland-Smith, 2011; Macdonald & Carroll, 2006). However, at the moment, ethical regulations in Russian universities are considered to be a punitive mechanism of the administrative system, and this may be the reason why honor codes are not effective enough. Nevertheless, discussions of honor code projects have been resumed recently in Russian universities and the implemented codes of ethics and regulations regarding student academic integrity undergo some changes. More elements of value discourse start to appear in ethical policies. For example, there are references to moral values and norms: “This honor code has been developed according to the moral and cultural values, customs and traditions that are in force in the university campus” (KFU, Code of Ethics). Thus, the value discourse is beginning to gain popularity among Russian universities.

1.Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2015). Deterring cheating in online environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22(6), 1-23. 2.Dremova O. V., Bekova S.K. (2021). University codes of ethics: what do they regulate and how? Educational policies. 1: 88-98 (In Russ.) 3.Hamlin, A., Barczyk, C., Powell, G., & Frost, J. (2013). A comparison of university efforts to contain academic dishonesty. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 16(1), 35. 4.Ives, B., & Giukin, L. (2020). Patterns and Predictors of Academic Dishonesty in Moldovan University Students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(1), 71-88. 5.Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they teach it?. Higher Education, 69(3), 435-448. 6.Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism—a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233-245. 7.McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294-305. 8.McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics &Behavior, 11(3), 219-232. 9.Stephens, J. M. (2019). Natural and normal, but unethical and evitable: The epidemic of academic dishonesty and how we end it. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51(4), 8-17. 10.Sutherland-Smith, W. (2011). Crime and punishment: An analysis of university plagiarism policies.