This paper presents the results of an Internet survey of university Information Technology (IT) managers on the use/abuse of IT resources by a university’s students. The survey sought data on university size, public/private organization, whether there were policies in place on acceptable use of IT resources, possible student use and actions, and finally how IT resources were monitored if they were monitored. Results revealed that most universities had policies on the proper use of IT resources but were very unlikely to monitor use/abuse of IT resources mainly due to a lack of personnel. Some potential abuses were identified and respondents were asked what actions might be taken with respect to such abuse

Speers, Jimmy D.

English

SWOSU Digital Commons (Southwestern Oklahoma State University)

Administrative Issues JournalVolume 2Issue 3 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS:OCTOBER 4th-5th, 2012Article 1810-2012Monitoring Students and Enforcing InformationTechnology use Policies in UniversitiesJimmy D. SpeersFollow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/aijPart of the Health and Medical Administration Commons, Higher Education AdministrationCommons, and the Public Administration CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals atSWOSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inAdministrative Issues Journal by an authorized editor of SWOSU DigitalCommons. An ADA compliant document is available upon request. Formore information, please contact phillip.fitzsimmons@swosu.edu.Recommended CitationSpeers, Jimmy D. (2012) "Monitoring Students and Enforcing Information Technology use Policies in Universities," AdministrativeIssues Journal: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 18.Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/aij/vol2/iss3/18ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH59Monitoring Students and Enforcing Information Technology use Policies in UniversitiesDr. Jimmy D. SpeersSoutheastern Oklahoma State UniversityIntroductionThis paper addresses sanctions against university students for Internet abuse, frequency of university monitoring of students, and methods to monitor students. Thus, this paper addresses a subject that is covered in current research but fills the gap by focusing the subject on universities. We will review the recent literature on Inter-net abuse, its consequences, and attempts to control the abuse and we will present the findings of an exploratory study concerning Internet abuse in an academic setting and will provide our conclusions and suggestions for future research.Literature ReviewPersonal Use of the Internet Case and Young (2002) report an American Management Association survey which found that 89% of firms monitor their users Internet usage, at least to some extent. The monitoroing includes e-mail, website visits, and soft-ware piracy. Further, Case and Young (2002) report that the leading inappropriate uses of the Internet are, in this order, accessing pronography, online chatting, gaming, sports, investing, and shopping.  Recently, social media has also become a part of the Internet landscape and poses some distinctive problems. While users may spend too much time on social media sites, thus reducing productivity, social media is also an inte-gral part of the work routine at many firms (Jackson, 2010). To prevent abuses, a clear policy concerning social media use should be implemented. See Jackson (2010) for a list of recommended policies. Ponography, particularly child pornography, as well as other sexually explicit or racially offensive material may put the employer or university at risk (Greenfield & Davis 2002; Panko & Beh 2002; Siau, Nah, & Teng 2002). These risks include the downloading of illegal material (child pornography), copyrighted books, music, or videos, and gaming sites. Addtionally, “legal” sexaully explicit material circulated among users may lead to a charge of a hostile work en-vironment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This paper presents the results of an Internet survey of university Information Technology (IT) managers on the use/abuse of IT resources by a university’s students.  The survey sought data on university size, public/private organization, whether there were policies in place on acceptable use of IT resources, possible student use and actions, and finally how IT resources were monitored if they were monitored. Results revealed that most universities had policies on the proper use of IT resourc-es but were very unlikely to monitor use/abuse of IT resources mainly due to a lack of personnel. Some potential abuses were identified and respondents were asked what actions might be taken with respect to such abuse. Keywords: Internet, Policy, Survey, UniversityADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH60Methods to Monitor Users Internet UseQuestions of what is and what is not personal abuse of the Internet at work cloud the attempts to discipline wayward users (Sipor & Ward 2009). Further, even if the user is abusing the firm’s e-mail system, courts have noted that em-ployers cannot read a user’s e-mails or texts without the permission of the user (Swartz 2008).  However, the USA Pa-triot Act has expanded the government’s authority to monitor electronic communications including e-mail although there is no general oversite of monitoring (GAO 2002). Despite court decisions concerning privacy, firms have investigated a number of methods to detect Internet abuse by users. While some of these electronic monitoring (EM) practices may be effective, there are also tradeoffs. The EM procedures may discover abuse of the Internet by users but may also lead to lower morale (Urbaczewski & Jes-sup 2002). Altough it is estimated that two-thirds of U.S. firms have either disciplined or terminated users for Internet abuse (Greenfield & Davis 2002; Siau et al. 2002), more firms are also realizing the subsequent lower morale and lost productivity (Young & Case 2004). An interesting defense by users threatened with punishment or termination is that of “Internet addiction.” This affliction involves a preoccupation with the Internet along with an increase in anxiety when forced to be off-line. In-ternet addiction leads to social isolation, marital problems, and reduced job performance. Human resource managers and employee assistance programs (EAP) report an increase in Internet addiction as a defense and claims are being made under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Young & Case 2004). In addition to EM, firms also implement Acceptable Internet Usage Policies (AIUP). As opposed to EM, the AIUP does not control or spy on users. Instead, the AIUP is a guideline for Internet usage by users and is similar to a code of ethics for Internet use (Siau et al., 2002). In addtion to an AIUP policy, orginazations may become proactive in manag-ing Internet abuse. This involves screening for Internet missuse tendencies, effective policies and training, EM, and an attempt at rehabilitation before punitive action is taken (Young 2010). Table 1 illustrates the elements necessary for an effective AIUP.Internet Useage in the University EnvironmentHigher education has embraced the Internet not only as a method to enhance research, but also classroom and on-line teaching. The worldwide web helps in the creation of course materials and engages students in active learning (Vongchavalitkul, Sing, Neal & Morris 2005). Further, according to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry on the Internet should have no more restrictions than would exist for non-electronic material (AAUP 2006). As with private firms, universities also face potential charges of a hos-tile work environment and many universities have speech codes. One interesting difference between most business firms and universities involves sexually explicit material.  Pro-fessors and students in art, psychology, and other disciplines, may download and share images that would be con-sidered pornographic in another context. Universities are required to determine what on the Internet is accessed for legitimate reasons and what is downloaded purely for prurient interests (AAUP 2006). None of this is to suggest that universities should abandon promoting proper Internet usage by users. Instead, the differences between universities and business firms should be recognized and faculty, staff and students need to be involved in the development of any applicable policy.The Current Study An invitation to participate in the study, by taking an online survey, was sent to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of 419 universities in the United States.  The survey was completed by 35 participants, a return rate of 8.35%. The survey sought data on university size, public/private organization, whether there were policies in place on ac-ceptable use of IT resources, possible student use and actions, and finally how IT resources were monitored if they were monitored. Most of the universities are public, 77%, with 20% being private. One school reported as private with formal religious affiliation.  All of the universities offered at least a Master’s degree with 77% offering a doctorate degree.  All of the universities have a formal policy regarding acceptable uses of IT resources and 71% have a formal policy regarding forbidden uses of IT resources. The universities that have procedures for monitoring student’s use of IT resources were reported as 20%.ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH61Respondents were asked “What types of actions are taken when procedures are violated by a student?” The responses are shown in Table 2. These results indicate that most respondents felt that the last four misuses of IT resources were the most serious especially viewing child pornography. In most states, it is illegal to keep such images on a computer and distributing such images is a federal crime and failure to respond if knowledgeable about such incidents may make administrative officials liable to prosecution.       Respondents were also asked how frequently student us of IT resources was monitored.  The results are show in Table 3. Note that the most common response in each category was “Never” which means that even though they have policies in place, students are not monitored to determine whether the policies are being violated.Respondents who did say students use of IT resources were monitored, were asked what methods were used to mon-itor student use of IT resource. The results are shown in Table 4. The most frequent response was log files followed by scanning computer for illegal software.  Chi square analysis was used to compare responses based on the size of the university and whether the universi-ty was public or private. There were no significant differences in responses based on these two characteristics.  Only 20% of the respondents said that their university had the proper staff to monitor the entire network ad-equately.  Sixty six percent of respondents said that the university did not have the proper technology to monitor the entire network adequately.  Ninety four percent of respondents said that their university had moderate, low or no concern about monitoring IT resources used by students.DiscussionTo Monitor or Not to Monitor While most firms monitor users of the Internet, most universities do not. In light of the ongoing debate concern-ing academic freedom, this is probably the best course of action, or non-action, for university administrators to take. Monitoring the use of IT resources by university students would most likely create an adversarial environment that would not be beneficial to either group.  University administrators should review the AIUP that is in place and involve faculty and students in revising the policies if needed. These policies should be clearly communicated to users.  Ad-ditional research needs to be done to determine the quality of these policies. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH62Table	  1	  Guidelines	  for	  Developing	  an	  Acceptable	  Internet	  Usage	  Policy	  	  Begin the Internet usage policy with a value statement that reflects the organization’s mission and vision. Make sure the AIUP conforms with the firms Code of Ethics and other standards and policies. Involve students in the development of the AIUP Explain to students that use of the Internet is for business purposes and the students have no right of privacy concerning Internet use at work. Caution against any improper activities. While it is impossible to develop an exhaustive list of infractions, list the most obvious (e.g., sexually explicit material, offensive jokes or cartoons, and anything that casts a negative light on the organization. Strongly urge students to regularly delete e-mail. Inform them that the system administrator will automatically delete any email over 30 days old. Remind students of the penalties for violating copyright, patent, and trademark laws as well as other violations of intellectual property. Encourage the reporting of violations. Provide an ombudsman within the organization to whom violations can be reported if the perpetrator is the student’s immediate supervisor. Provide for fair and balanced enforcement. Enlist the help of the Human Resource department and the firm’s Student Assistance Program  	  Take	  no	  action	  Verbal	  reprimand	  Written	  reprimand	  Lose	  access	  to	  IT	  resources	  Probation	  Suspension	  Expulsion	  Using	  IT	  resources	  to	  run	  business	  12.5% 18.75% 25% 34.38% 6.25% 3.13% 0% Using	  IT	  resources	  for	  personal	  business	  62.5% 15.63% 12.5% 9.38% 0% 0% 0% Divulging	  personal	  student	  information	  6.9% 6.9% 24.14% 10.34% 17.24% 13.79% 20.69% Divulging	  personal	  employee	  information	  	  7.14% 7.14% 14.29% 7.14% 25% 14.29% 25% Viewing	  adult	  pornography	  43.3% 20% 10% 10% 3.33% 10% 3.33% Viewing	  child	  pornography	  0% 3.57% 0% 10.7% 10.7% 7.14% 67.86%  Table 2 Actions Taken When Policies Are Violated ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH63Table 3 Frequency of Monitoring Student Use of IT Resources. 	   Never	   Daily	   Weekly	   Quarterly	   Annually	  Email	   97% 0% 0% 2.94% 0% Social	  Networking	  97 % 2.94% 0% 0 % 0% Documents	  on	  computer	  100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Frequency	  of	  internet	  use	  88.24% 8.82% 2.94% 0% 0% Site	  tracking	  internet	  use	  93.94 0% 0% 6.06% 0%  Table 4 Methods Used to Monitor Student Use of IT Resources Manually	   12.5% Log	  files	   25% Keyword/Phrase	  email	  scanning	  software	   12.5% Remote	  Desktop	  Viewing	   2.1% Remote	  Recent	  Document	  History	  Viewing	   4.2% Remote	  System	  Information	  Viewing	   4.2% Scanning	  university	  computers	  for	  illegal	  software	  18.8% Keystroke	  capture	  software	  or	  device	   2.1%  ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES JOURNAL: EDUCATION, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH64 ReferencesAAUP Policy Tenth Ed.2. (2006, October 26). Retrieved July 26, 2012, from AAUP: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/electcomm-stmt.htmCase, C. J., & Young, K. S. (2002). Student Internet Management: Current Business Practices and Outcomes. CyberPsy-chology & Behavior, 5(4), 355-361.GAO. (2002). Student Privacy: Computer-Use Monitoring Practices and Policies of Selected Companies. General Ac-counting Office. Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office.Greenfield, D. N., & Dais, R. A. (2002, August). Lost in Cyberspace: The Web @ Work. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 347-353.Jackson, R. M. (2010, April). Social Media: Counsel for Clients and Firm Managers. Law Office Management & Admin-istration Report, 4, p. 1.Panko, R. B., & Beh, H. G. (2002). Monitoring for Pornography and Sexual Harassment. Communnications of the ACH, 45(1), 84-87.Siau, K., Nah, F. F.-H., & Teng, L. (2002, January). Acceptable Internet Use Policy. Communications of the ACH, 45(1), 75-79.Sipior, J. C., & Ward, B. T. (2009). A Framework for Student E-mail Privacy Within the United States. Journal of Internet Commerce, 8, 161-179.Swartz, N. (2008, September/October). Bosses Can’t Reaed Students’ Messages, Court Says. The Information Manage-ment Journal, 26-30.Vongchavalitkul, B., Singh, P., Neal, J. A., & Morris, M. (2005). An Exploratory Study on the Effects of Learning Organiza-tion Characteristics on Internet Usage. Group & Organizational Behaivor, 30(4), 398-420.Young, K. (2010, January/February). Killer Surf Issues: Crafting an Organizational Model to Combat Student Internet Abuse. Information Management, pp. 34-38.Young, K. S., & Case, C. J. (2004). Internet Abuse in the Workplace: New Trends in Risk Management. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(1), 105-111. 

Monitoring Students and Enforcing Information Technology use Policies in Universities

https://dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&amp;context=aij

Monitoring Students and Enforcing Information Technology use Policies in Universities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SWOSU Digital Commons (Southwestern Oklahoma State University)