1. Following IAU-MCO Guidelines for an Institutional
Code of Ethics in Higher Education: a Pilot Application
Giedrius Viliūnas, Inga Žalėnienė
Mykolas Romeris University
Higher Education and the Global Agenda: Alternative Pathways to the Future
IAU 14th General Conference, 27-30 November 2012, Inter American University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA

2. Rationales
• Persistent need for revitalization of ethical
foundations of the University
• Implications of massification, commercialization and
globalization
• Ethical reflection as a stage in development of a
new institution

3. Background
• Expansion of Lithuanian higher education in 1990ties
and 2000ties
• First generation of Institutional Codes of Ethics in
mid-2000ties stimulated by the order of the Minister
of Education and Science of 2006: typical structure,
communities not involved, some doubtful attitudes
multiplied
• Revision of Codes after the reform of higher
education of 2009: minor corrections

4. Mykolas Romeris University
Institutional Code of Ethics of 2007
• I. General Principles; II. Common Standarts of Ethical Behaviour
of Academic Community; III. Code of Communication Between
the Community of the University and the Students; IV. General
Norms of Ethical Behaviour of Students; and the V. Rules and
Procedures of the Implementation of the Code
• Separation of the Academic Community and the Students
• Presciptive
• Too general
• Missing concepts
• Procedure of safe reporting absent: “anonimous reports shall
not be considered”

5. Drivers of New ICE
• Institutional strategy of 2009:
internationalization, leadership, service to underrepresented
groups of the society
• Omissions and shortcomings of existing ICE felt in practice
• IAU International Conference Ethics and Values in Higher
Education in the Era of Globalization: What Role for the
Disciplines?, Mykolas Romeris
University, Vilnius, Lithuania, November 2010
• IAU-MCO Working Group
• Ongoing national debate

6. Mykolas Romeris University
Draft Institutional Code of Ethics of 2012
• I. General Provisions; II. Underlying values and principles; III.
Conflict of Interest; IV. Consideration of Academic Misconduct;
V. Hearing of Reports on Academic Misconduct in the
Commision of Academic Ethics
• Value-centered
• Integrative
• Descriptive
• Explicit definition of misconduct
• Clear procedures
• Still internally-biased; need for further work on the level of
institutional responsibility

7. Applicability of IAU-MCO Guidelines
• Discrepancy between the notions of ‘Code of (Inter)Personal
Conduct’ and ‘Ethical Infrastructure’
• Tacit and explicit academic ethics
• ‘Deontological’ and ‘teleological’ element
• Tranfserability of ‘corporate’ ethical mechanisms to the
University
• Guidelines 1.4, 2.2, 3.3 fully integrated
• Challenges of integrating institutional responsibility and
integrity of teaching, research, AND leadership
• Code and procedures
• Creating the Ethical Infrastructure

8. Suggestions to IAU-MCO Group
1. Spell out more expicitly that the Guidelines apply first and
foremost to the institutional practices and not only to rules
of (inter) personal behaviour
2. Define core concepts of ‘academic community’ and ‘ethics’
which may vary in different countries and cultures
3. Define the applicability of ICE to interpersonal and
institutional levels of conduct.
4. Recommendations on composition and contents of a single
ICE dokument may be instrumental to institutions developing
or revising their ICEs
5. Discuss the composition of ‘Ethical Infrastructure’

9. Recommendations to HEIs
1. Involve all grops of your institution. Do not except
Ileadership, administrative staff and students. Take note on
the concept of ‘academic community’
2. Investigate the environment of ICE in your culture and legal
system. Discuss macro-, meso- and microlevels of ethical
infrastructure
3. Define areas of application. Notice the task of bridging the
academic freedom and institutional responsibility; of
integrity of research, teaching and leadership &
administration
4. Discuss the role of ICE in the system of institutional
regulatory acts. Decide upon the implementation
mechanisms
5. After the adoption of new ICE, define the tasks of revision of
ethical infrastructure of your HEI

10. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION