Exploration of Research Misconduct in a Non-Western Context: The Case of Kazakhstan
Type
fundamental research project
Start Date
September 1, 2024
End Date
July 31, 2027
Status
ongoing
Keywords
academic integrity
corruption
higher education
Kazakhstan
research integrity
Leader contributor(s)
Member contributor(s)
Kuzhabekova, Aliya
Eaton Sarah Elaine
Funder
Range
HSG + other universities
Division(s)
4 results
Filters
Settings
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Research integrity in context: How informal networks shape research practices and academic careers in Kazakhstan(2026-09-15); Kim, TatyanaWhile mentorship, collegial support, and the sharing of opportunities are widely viewed as essential to sustaining academic communities, research shows that academic networks can also obscure merit-based achievements, reinforce exclusion, and facilitate favoritism (Heffernan, 2021; Price et al., 2015). Building on this tension, the study addresses two research questions: (1) How do different forms of informal networks shape academic careers and research practices? (2) How do these networks interact with formal research integrity policies? Empirically, the paper draws on an in-depth qualitative case study of Kazakhstan, a context characterized by accelerated internationalization reforms, strong state oversight, and persistent reliance on personalized academic relationships (Ahn et al., 2018; Kuzhabekova & Almukhambetova, 2017; Oka, 2019). Theoretically, the analysis is grounded in Ledeneva’s (2018) framework of informal networks as compensatory mechanisms that help actors navigate gaps between formal rules and institutional realities. This framework distinguishes solidarity, domination, redistribution, and market-oriented networks based on their openness, affective versus instrumental character, and degree of persistence. Methodologically, the study is based on 23 semi-structured interviews conducted in the first half of 2025 with senior administrators and academic leaders working in universities, research institutes, technology parks, data centers, and the National Academy of Sciences in Kazakhstan. Purposeful maximum variation sampling was used to capture diverse institutional types, disciplines, and geographic locations (Creswell, 2012). Interviews were analyzed thematically following Braun and Clarke (2006), with themes developed through collaborative coding and reflexive discussions within the research team. The findings show that informal networks are not peripheral but constitutive of academic life in Kazakhstan, influencing hiring, promotion, dissertation defenses, publication practices, and access to research funding. From an outsider perspective, interviewees describe nepotism, cronyism, patronage, and clientelism as structural rather than exceptional features of the system, with academic advancement frequently tied to loyalty and compliance rather than scholarly merit. From an insider perspective, however, these same practices are often experienced as necessary forms of mutual assistance in a context of intense publication pressure, weak infrastructure, and hierarchical governance. Solidarity networks grounded in kinship, generational ties, or long-term mentorship relationships provide emotional support, facilitate collaboration, and compensate for ineffective formal communication, yet they also normalize non-confrontation and tolerance of questionable practices such as guest authorship or plagiarism. Domination networks, organized around elite credentials and personalized authority, structure access to resources and recognition while marginalizing scholars lacking prestigious affiliations, reinforcing symbolic hierarchies under the banner of excellence. Redistribution networks enable reciprocal exchanges of authorship, citations, and publication-related resources, helping academics collectively meet performance metrics but also blurring boundaries between legitimate collaboration and strategic gaming of evaluation systems. Market-oriented networks represent the most transactional response to metric-driven reforms, commodifying authorship, publications, and degrees through contract cheating. Importantly, the study finds that these networks are fluid, overlapping, and unpredictable: participation does not guarantee outcomes, obligations are often implicit, and refusal to engage in informal exchanges can result in delayed careers even for well-qualified scholars. The findings also demonstrate that integrity violations are frequently collective, relational, and structurally incentivized rather than individual deviations from rules. Policies that rely solely on transparency, formal compliance, or punitive sanctions fail to address the social norms of loyalty, reciprocity, and care that sustain informal practices. Effective integrity reforms must therefore be context-sensitive and relationally informed, distinguishing legitimate academic support from practices that distort evaluation, protecting junior scholars who refuse unethical exchanges, and aligning incentive structures with ethical standards rather than attempting to eliminate informality altogether. Through theorizing informal networks as ambivalent institutions rather than pathological deviations, the paper shows how rapid internationalization and output-based evaluation reshape, rather than replace, informal practices. While grounded in the Kazakhstani case, the analysis offers insights relevant to other higher education systems undergoing similar pressures, highlighting the need to integrate an understanding of informal networks into the design and implementation of academic integrity policies. References: Ahn, E. S., Dixon, J., & Chekmareva, L. (2018). Looking at Kazakhstan’s higher education landscape: From transition to transformation between 1920 and 2015. In J. Huisman, A. Smolentseva, & I. Froumin (Eds.), 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries (pp. 199–220). Palgrave Macmillan. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education. Heffernan, T. (2021). Academic networks and career trajectory: “There’s no career in academia without networks.” Higher Education Research & Development, 40(5), 981–994. Kuzhabekova, A., & Almukhambetova, A. (2017). Female academic leadership in the post-Soviet context. European Educational Research Journal, 16(2–3), 183–199. Ledeneva, A. (2018). Introduction: The informal view of the world – Key challenges and main findings of the Global Informality Project. In A. Ledeneva (Ed.), The global encyclopaedia of informality: Understanding social and cultural complexity (Vol. 1, pp. 1–27). UCL Press. Oka, N. (2019). Grades and degrees for sale: Understanding informal exchanges in Kazakhstan’s education sector. Problems of Post-Communism, 66(5), 329–341. Price, E., Coffey, B., & Nethery, A. (2015). An early career academic network: What worked and what didn’t. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(5), 680–698Type:conference contribution - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity in Kazakhstani Academia: Faculty and Administrators’ Perspectives on Teaching, Research, and Governance(2026-12-31); - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Who Gets In, Who Gets Cited, Who Gets Promoted: Informal Networks in Kazakhstani Academia(2026-06-01); - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, How systemic and cultural factors contribute to cheating(2025-11-12);