Crossing the line : collusion or collaboration in university group work?

In both policy and practice, collusion is a perplexing area of academic integrity. Students are expected to learn to work collaboratively in university courses, yet are often required to submit assessment tasks as individuals whilst in group-work situations. This paper discusses the tension between 'collaboration' and 'collusion' in group-work and the consequences for crossing the line. Adopting a theoretical framework from Bourdieu's work (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1971; Bourdieu, 1991) on symbolic power, the notion of legitimate voice and intertextuality, this paper outlines the effects on the academic identities of 17 students found 'guilty' of collusion in one Australian university. In addition, 34 staff involved in formal disciplinary procedures were interviewed. The findings indicate that collusion is a fraught notion and not approached systematically across the university, nor with any degree of confidence by staff or students. The delineation between 'acceptable collaboration' and 'collusion' appears to be founded in shifting sands, with negative attitudes towards collaborative tasks being the main lesson learned by students.