Student Academic Integrity Champions Across Contexts: A Qualitative Comparison of SAIC Models in the UAE and the UK

Synopsis

This poster presents a qualitative, practice-based comparison of Student Academic Integrity Champion (SAIC) models developed in the UAE and the UK. In response to contemporary challenges such as generative AI use, evolving assessment practices, and the limitations of compliance-driven academic integrity approaches, tt analyses how student agency, governance structures, and sustainability mechanisms are operationalised in each context. The SAIC model addresses a key gap by shifting integrity efforts from enforcement-led approaches toward proactive, peer-driven, community-based cultures, where students influence norms, clarify expectations, and support ethical decision-making. The comparison offers practical insights for institutions seeking to embed student-led academic integrity initiatives ethically and effectively.

Abstract

Student engagement is increasingly recognised as central to fostering sustainable cultures of academic integrity, particularly in the context of generative AI, assessment transformation, and evolving student–staff relationships. One emerging approach is the Student Academic Integrity Champion (SAIC) model, which positions students as peer influencers, collaborators, and contributors to institutional integrity initiatives. While student partnership approaches in academic integrity are gaining international attention, limited work has examined how such models originate, adapt, and operate across different educational and cultural contexts.

This poster presents a comparative analysis of two SAIC implementations developed in distinct contexts: the original SAIC model developed in the United Arab Emirates by Khan and Hemnani (2025), and a subsequent UK-based adaptation developed through a Quality Assurance Agency-funded project by Davis and Goldin (2026). The comparison adopts a qualitative, practice-based approach grounded in close reading and analytic coding of both published models.

The comparative dimensions were identified through qualitative close reading and deductive–inductive coding of the two SAIC models. Recurring and salient elements were grouped into comparison categories commonly used to describe and evaluate academic integrity initiatives, including governance and institutional embedding, conceptualisation of student agency, scope of student roles, training and support mechanisms, sustainability strategies, and contextual and regulatory factors.

The UAE-based SAIC model, originally developed by Khan and Hemnani (2025), is a research-informed and practice-validated framework implemented at a nation-wide level across multiple universities and schools. The model follows a structured lifecycle approach, encompassing stages such as awareness creation, student engagement, training, empowerment, leadership development, and progression into research and co-authorship roles. Students operate as ambassadors, mentors, and co-creators of academic integrity initiatives, contributing to policy development, governance committees, awareness campaigns, and research activities. This model reflects a scalable, system-level approach in which student agency is embedded across institutional and cross-institutional structures, enabling sustained cultural change rather than isolated interventions.

In contrast, the UK-based SAIC model builds on similar principles of student partnership but translates them into a formalised, institution-specific implementation framework, presenting an eight-stage, step-by-step process emphasising recruitment, training, piloting, active engagement, and ongoing maintenance within formal university structures (Davis & Goldin, 2026). This approach reflects contextual adaptation, where student roles are more tightly scaffolded and operationalised within existing institutional governance and quality assurance systems.

The comparison highlights both convergence and divergence across the identified dimensions. While core principles of student partnership, peer influence, and shared responsibility for academic integrity are evident in both models, the analysis demonstrates that successful implementation requires careful contextual adaptation rather than direct replication. Key adaptations include differences in governance integration (system-wide vs institution-bound), the extent of student decision-making power, and the level of formalisation of roles through structured recruitment, training, and staged implementation. Importantly, the UAE model represents the original conceptual and operational foundation of the SAIC approach, with the UK model demonstrating how such frameworks are adapted within different institutional and regulatory environments.

Keywords: Student Academic Integrity Champions (SAIC), student partnership, academic integrity governance, UAE–UK comparison, sustainability of initiatives

References

Davis, M., & Goldin, C. P. (2026). Developing, implementing and experiencing a student academic integrity champion model: Foregrounding the student voice as influencer in the role and activity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-025-00210-w

Khan, Z. R., & Hemnani, N. (2025). Presenting a student academic integrity champion model: A proactive step towards campus-wide efforts in building a culture of integrity. In M. Davis & C. Baptista (Eds.), Ethics and integrity in education (practice) (pp. 25–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-95686-7