06/16/2025

Summer Series Post-Blog 2: Understanding evidence

by Greer Murphy and Wanda Moore

The Summer Series of webinars continues the blog takeover with the second post-webinar blog. The presenters from Workshop 2: Understanding Evidence on June 13 reflect on takeaways from their session.

What an interesting, engaging, and encouraging session we had! Thank you so much to all our attendees for showing up for discussion, and for each other. We had a wonderful time catching up with the chat after the session wrapped. 

Following what many commented in the chat during our time together, one thing seems clear to Wanda and me: When it comes to generative artificial intelligence and assessing authenticity of learning evidence, the age of “wishful thinking”* is over ( ... was it ever really here?!). We can’t close Pandora’s box, the genie is not going back in the lamp, and like it or not, genAI is here to stay. Facilitating, assessing, and certifying students’ learning was never easy and it has gotten more complicated and more challenging, not less. 

(*Full disclosure: I’m riffing off the title of a blog post by Kane Murdoch; his original post, which ages remarkably well for having been written way back in 2024, is viewable here. Murdoch and Ellis’ McCabe-ICAI award-winning article on the integrity enforcement pyramid framework is also highly worthwhile; that piece is linked here).

So, assuming you agree with us—or will indulge our logic for the purposes of this post—what does the end of wishful thinking mean for our shared goals of (1) upholding evidentiary integrity on our respective campuses, and (2) encouraging (ahem, motivating, or cajoling) our colleagues to do the same? Here are some of our thoughts.

First, we have to be honest with ourselves, so that in turn we can be honest with others. To me, that starts with not sugarcoating the magnitude of what lies ahead. If we don’t dedicate time and resources—invest in sustained professional development, or shift our incentive structures (hello tenure and promotion standards)—we’re not going to succeed. Telling our faculty colleagues to adapt their teaching and assessment practices without providing the means to do so is futile. 

Now, we recognize that not all of this falls strictly under our purview as integrity administrators … as we said during the session, efficient and effective academic integrity work is all about partnerships! At the same time, one of us (ahem, Greer) can’t seem to get through writing an ICAI blog without making reading recommendations (case in point: see this post from August 2024). So for those looking to get a head start in learning about where our faculty colleagues are coming from, here are a few (some of these are open access, but not all):

— Kiata Rundle and colleagues’ work on why students choose not to contract cheat (famous for adapting the ‘Swiss Cheese’ framework into the academic integrity conversation) is compelling; as is Phill Dawson’s LinkedIn post on the ironies of telling faculty to redesign their assessment without making sufficient resources or time available to do so;

— Corbin, Dawson, & Liu’s (2025) article about the need for structural assessment has already shifted our thinking in helpful ways; and of course, Derek Newton’s recent incisive Cheat Sheet commentary (issue 369) that addresses Corbin et al. (2025) is a good read, also. 

In addition to faculty-facing research, there is good work, especially journalism and LinkedIn activity happening on the student and staff use side(s) of responding to genAI. National contexts where assessment and accreditation are more tightly connected have much to teach us here in the States. (For example, see Australia’s S.E.C.U.R.E. framework. However, we realize, those are other subjects for other blog posts.) Regardless of whether we find ourselves agreeing with all colleagues in an institutional context, we must work to find common ground. We must vocally, visibly advocate for them if we want them to advocate for shared policies—or, in the end, for us.

Second, we as integrity administrators must also adapt our practices in evaluating and guiding colleagues to make good, responsible, and above all defensible decisions about evidence. In part, that should involve reaching out within and across professional communities to gather the expertise of others and expand our knowledge base. (For instance, we are not members of the Association of Student Conduct Administrators and have yet to attend one of their communities of practice. But we continue to hear glowing things; they are on at least Greer’s list to connect with in Summer, for sure. We bet those of us who work in other countries or contexts can think of partner groups to connect with, too!)

As many of you alluded to during our time together last week, we can—and we should—do our best to quantify and acknowledge all the labor, including the emotional labor, that is involved in following up on suspected misconduct. We could dig much more deeply into this particular area of literature. As there is time, we can look to fields such as psychology or sociology to build deeper understanding. (Full disclosure: Greer has written about collaboration, recognition, and burnout-related issues in the field of academic integrity specifically before; articles can be found here and here.) 

If you have been online in any professional space over the last six months, then you have surely heard about Tricia Bertram Gallant’s and David Rettinger’s wise The Opposite of Cheating. Not only has one of us (Greer) already recommended it to Teaching and Learning Center colleagues at Santa Cruz, but we plan to prominently feature it in programming throughout the upcoming academic year. For those looking to go farther afield, Rebecca Pope-Ruark’s work (for example, Unraveling Faculty Burnout; with another book forthcoming) is also excellent. 

Perhaps especially for those who came to integrity work from teaching and learning or faculty backgrounds, understanding evidence can be intimidating. Working outside of our comfort zone(s) takes effort. The pace of change is dizzying, and the challenges are ample. We can wring our hands, grieve, cry, rest, do whatever we need to do to stay committed to the work. But in higher education, the one thing we cannot do is hide our collective heads in the sand. We can and we must find ways of moving forward—together. 

A huge part of what we appreciated most deeply about our time together last week is that we had a whole Zoom-room full of integrity administrators dedicated to doing just that. Let’s not let the momentum drop! We’ll see you on June 27 for Kelly Ahuna and Joseph Brown’s discussion of working with faculty partners. In the meantime, consider: What else could you be reading? What new partnerships might you cultivate? How can you extend the evidence and investigation conversation beyond the bounds of just our single meeting?

Greer Murphy, EdD came to integrity work from a background in applied linguistics, teaching and learning, and writing program administration, and currently serves on ICAI's Board of Directors as Vice President for Strategy and Membership. Professionally, Greer directs the Academic Integrity Office at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Wanda M. Moore, MS is the inaugural Academic Integrity Officer at Stony Brook University (2006- present). She serves as the Hearing Officer of the Academic Judiciary Committee and serves on various academic and university committees in the role of advocate, expert, and educator; Specializing in design of formal methods for evaluating compliance with policies and procedures, committee responsibilities, best practices, and academic standards.

The authors' views are their own.

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership and consider joining us by visiting our membership page. Be part of something great!