Iranian Higher Education
1- Assistant Professor, Department of educational sciences, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran. , A.allahkarami@cfu.ac.ir
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Counseling and Psychology, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of educational sciences, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
4- PhD in Educational Management, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Counseling and Psychology, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of educational sciences, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
4- PhD in Educational Management, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
Abstract: (10 Views)
Objective: The growing prevalence of academic ghostwriting in recent years, as a significant challenge in research ethics, reflects profound transformations in the functioning of higher education systems as well as inefficiencies in policy-making of science in Iran. This study aims to explore the lived experiences of academic ghostwriters and to examine the ethical dimensions of this phenomenon within the context of perceived inadequacies in higher education policies.
Method: A qualitative research design with a descriptive phenomenological approach was employed. The participants consisted of nine researchers (holding MA and PhD degrees) who were professionally engaged in ghostwriting. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews using purposive and snowball sampling and analyzed following Colaizzi’s seven-step method.
Results: The findings revealed that the lived experiences of ghostwriters can be categorized into six major themes: 1) livelihood motivations and professional survival, 2) cognitive tensions and justificatory strategies, 3) inefficiencies in educational and supervisory structures, 4) professional and social motivations, 5) consequences and redefinition of academic credibility, and 6) reform-oriented agency. Meanwhile, the emergence of a drive among ghostwriters to prove their scientific competence -as a reactive response to the experience of being overlooked within the academic system- revealed a distinctive facet of this hidden lifeworld.
Conclusion: The results suggest that academic ghostwriting should not be understood merely as individual misconduct; rather, it is reproduced within a context shaped by perceived inefficiencies in higher education policies, including excessive quantification, weak mentorship systems, and limited academic employment opportunities. Addressing this phenomenon requires moving beyond punitive approaches toward fundamental revisions in higher education policies, including reforms in recruitment, promotion, and research supervision structures. As a transitional measure, the formalization of academic consulting services (under independent oversight) could help mitigate the expansion of the informal ghostwriting market.
Method: A qualitative research design with a descriptive phenomenological approach was employed. The participants consisted of nine researchers (holding MA and PhD degrees) who were professionally engaged in ghostwriting. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews using purposive and snowball sampling and analyzed following Colaizzi’s seven-step method.
Results: The findings revealed that the lived experiences of ghostwriters can be categorized into six major themes: 1) livelihood motivations and professional survival, 2) cognitive tensions and justificatory strategies, 3) inefficiencies in educational and supervisory structures, 4) professional and social motivations, 5) consequences and redefinition of academic credibility, and 6) reform-oriented agency. Meanwhile, the emergence of a drive among ghostwriters to prove their scientific competence -as a reactive response to the experience of being overlooked within the academic system- revealed a distinctive facet of this hidden lifeworld.
Conclusion: The results suggest that academic ghostwriting should not be understood merely as individual misconduct; rather, it is reproduced within a context shaped by perceived inefficiencies in higher education policies, including excessive quantification, weak mentorship systems, and limited academic employment opportunities. Addressing this phenomenon requires moving beyond punitive approaches toward fundamental revisions in higher education policies, including reforms in recruitment, promotion, and research supervision structures. As a transitional measure, the formalization of academic consulting services (under independent oversight) could help mitigate the expansion of the informal ghostwriting market.
Keywords: academic ghostwriting, lived experience, structural exclusion, higher education policy, phenomenology
Type of article: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2026/04/21 | Accepted: 2026/07/1 | ePublished ahead of print: 2026/08/7
Received: 2026/04/21 | Accepted: 2026/07/1 | ePublished ahead of print: 2026/08/7
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |