Writing Away Responsibility: How Physicians and Ghostwriting Agencies Legitimise Academic Misconduct in China's Healthcare System

IF 2.3 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Yang Zhao
{"title":"Writing Away Responsibility: How Physicians and Ghostwriting Agencies Legitimise Academic Misconduct in China's Healthcare System","authors":"Yang Zhao","doi":"10.1111/hequ.70123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This paper examines how physicians and ghostwriting agencies in China's healthcare system legitimise academic misconduct through strategic discourse. Integrating governmentality and accounts theories, it analyzes how participation in ghostwriting is constructed as an inevitable response to contradictory institutional demands. Critical discourse analysis of social media posts reveals three dynamics: parties position services in a grey zone between professional assistance and misconduct through boundary-drawing techniques; frame involvement as unavoidable rather than voluntary; and create complementary discourses enabling institutional requirements to be met without challenging contradictions. The study extends accounts theory by showing how neutralisation techniques serve as identity-protective mechanisms in professional contexts. It introduces ‘mediated responsibility displacement’ to explain how market actors, as intermediaries, partially assume responsibility while redirecting moral blame to systemic factors, showing how professionals navigate impossible requirements through market solutions rather than resistance.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51607,"journal":{"name":"HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"80 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hequ.70123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines how physicians and ghostwriting agencies in China's healthcare system legitimise academic misconduct through strategic discourse. Integrating governmentality and accounts theories, it analyzes how participation in ghostwriting is constructed as an inevitable response to contradictory institutional demands. Critical discourse analysis of social media posts reveals three dynamics: parties position services in a grey zone between professional assistance and misconduct through boundary-drawing techniques; frame involvement as unavoidable rather than voluntary; and create complementary discourses enabling institutional requirements to be met without challenging contradictions. The study extends accounts theory by showing how neutralisation techniques serve as identity-protective mechanisms in professional contexts. It introduces ‘mediated responsibility displacement’ to explain how market actors, as intermediaries, partially assume responsibility while redirecting moral blame to systemic factors, showing how professionals navigate impossible requirements through market solutions rather than resistance.

逃避责任:医生和代笔机构如何使中国医疗系统中的学术不端行为合法化
本文考察了中国医疗保健系统中的医生和代笔机构如何通过战略话语使学术不端行为合法化。本文结合治理学和会计学理论,分析了参与代写是如何被建构为一种对矛盾的制度需求的必然回应。对社交媒体帖子的批判性话语分析揭示了三种动态:当事人通过边界绘制技术将服务定位在专业协助和不当行为之间的灰色地带;认为参与是不可避免的,而不是自愿的;并创造互补的话语,使制度要求在不挑战矛盾的情况下得到满足。该研究通过展示中和技术如何在专业环境中作为身份保护机制来扩展账户理论。它引入了“中介责任置换”来解释作为中介的市场参与者如何部分承担责任,同时将道德责任转移到系统因素上,展示了专业人士如何通过市场解决方案而不是抵抗来解决不可能的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY
HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Higher Education Quarterly publishes articles concerned with policy, strategic management and ideas in higher education. A substantial part of its contents is concerned with reporting research findings in ways that bring out their relevance to senior managers and policy makers at institutional and national levels, and to academics who are not necessarily specialists in the academic study of higher education. Higher Education Quarterly also publishes papers that are not based on empirical research but give thoughtful academic analyses of significant policy, management or academic issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书