Discursive legitimation strategies of academic misconduct consulting agencies in Mainland China

Discursive legitimation strategies of academic misconduct consulting agencies in Mainland China | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Discursive legitimation strategies of academic misconduct consulting agencies in Mainland China Gengyan Tang, Sarah Elaine Eaton, Wei Cai This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7234434/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract While academic integrity research has extensively examined issues like contract cheating and ghostwriting, less attention has been given to commercial services that operate in ethically uncertain but legally unregulated spaces. This study focuses on academic misconduct consulting agencies based in Mainland China that assist Chinese international students in preparing appeals and defenses during academic misconduct hearings. Despite growing visibility, these agencies remain underexplored in the literature. Drawing on Van Leeuwen’s Discursive Legitimacy Analysis framework and extending it with the concept of emotionalization, we conducted a qualitative analysis of website content from 11 such agencies. Our findings reveal that, unlike contract cheating providers who often rely on stigma-deflection strategies, these agencies use a wider range of discursive tactics to establish credibility. These include moralization (emphasizing ethical alignment), authorization (citing professional expertise), rationalization (stressing procedural effectiveness), mythopoesis (sharing illustrative case stories), and emotionalization (using affective language to convey urgency and risk). By presenting themselves as experienced and trustworthy actors, these agencies frame their services as both legitimate and essential for students navigating complex academic procedures abroad. This study contributes to the field of academic integrity by identifying how commercial actors discursively construct legitimacy in spaces where policy guidance is limited. It also invites further inquiry into the implications of such services for academic governance and international student support. Educational Philosophy and Theory Academic integrity academic misconduct discursive legitimation strategies contract cheating ghostwriting academic agencies higher education China Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction In 2021, the number of Chinese students studying at overseas higher education institutions reached 1.021 million. During the 2022-2023 academic year, Mainland China remained the largest source of international students for countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Germany, New Zealand, South Korea, and Malaysia (Center for China & Globalization, 2024). However, due to differences in educational systems, Chinese international students may experience not only cultural shock when studying abroad but also face risks related to academic behavior due to misunderstandings of educational policies. Academic integrity has become a particular area of concern (Bretag et al. 2013; Adam John Privitera, 2023). A survey of international students studying in Canada found that, although expectations around academic integrity may be similar between students’ home countries and Canada, there remain differences in understanding concepts such as resubmission or self-plagiarism (Sanni-Anibire et al., 2021). These differences may lead to an increased incidence of academic misconduct (Fatemi & Saito, 2019). In Mainland China, many universities have established independent departments to handle incidents of academic misconduct related to students (Li, Zhao, & Yan, 2022). However, in practice, the measures taken by Chinese universities differ from those in many other countries—specifically, Chinese universities do not typically hold academic misconduct hearings. Investigations into academic misconduct in Chinese universities are often conducted by administrative staff and always based on regulations. Students often lack participation, the right to defend themselves, or are even kept silent during this process (Du, 2018). The heterogeneous nature of academic integrity cultures presents adaptive challenges for Chinese students in understanding and addressing issues related to academic integrity (Jian, Marion, & Wang, 2018; Pan et al., 2019; Shafaei et al., 2015). These challenges in understanding and self-advocacy are particularly evident when Chinese students are studying abroad, alleged to have engaged in academic misconduct, and are then expected to attend academic misconduct hearings and defend themselves, often lacking the necessary support structures and feeling lost in the process. An anecdote (from a search on a Chinese-language search engine regarding academic integrity-related news) led the first author to stumble upon commercial agencies that specifically offer “academic misconduct consultant” to Chinese international students. The agencies claim they can help Chinese international students respond to urgent academic misconduct allegations and represent them in appeals, helping them avoid the negative consequences of such allegations. Although these agencies present themselves as advocates for students’ rights, they operate in a space of ethical ambiguity. On one hand, they may help students navigate complex institutional procedures and protect their rights during misconduct proceedings; on the other hand, their involvement in crafting appeal documents, managing student narratives, or advising on procedural loopholes raises questions about whether they are upholding or undermining the values of academic integrity. Understanding how these agencies construct their legitimacy discourse can illuminate how they negotiate this tension between providing support and potentially enabling questionable practices. Although previous research has shown that commercial pressures in higher education contribute to increased academic misconduct (Curtis & Clare, 2017; Eaton et al., 2019), little attention has been given to companies that offer consulting services specifically to students accused of misconduct. These agencies provide strategic advice, emotional support, and assistance during disciplinary processes. Despite their growing visibility, we know little about how such services publicly present and justify their roles in the academic context. This study offers one of the first in-depth analyses of how these commercial agencies construct legitimacy through their public language. We use the term “academic misconduct consulting agencies” to refer to private service providers, primarily operating online, that support students accused of academic misconduct by offering procedural guidance and communication strategies rather than producing academic content. To better understand this underexplored phenomenon, we examine how such agencies in Mainland China frame their legitimacy through discourse. Specifically, we analyze (1) what discursive strategies they use on their websites, and (2) how these strategies are implemented. By doing so, this study makes a meaningful contribution to academic integrity studies. It draws attention to a previously overlooked type of commercial actor. Through one of the first analyses of how these agencies seek to establish legitimacy via the descriptions on their websites, the study provides empirical insight into an emerging phenomenon. By examining how legitimacy is discursively constructed in a context where ethical boundaries and policy frameworks remain unsettled, it lays the groundwork for further discussion on how academic institutions might understand and respond to such agencies. Literature review Academic misconduct in higher education is often linked to its commercialization. To inform our study, we draw on two areas of literature: first, research on how commercialization has shaped different forms of academic misconduct; and second, studies on academic misconduct in Mainland China, which help us to identify gaps in the current knowledge. Commercialization of higher education: A persistent challenge in academic integrity Higher education institutions around the world are increasingly shaped by market-oriented logics, emphasizing competition, branding, and financial return over traditional academic values (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2009; Kezar & Bernstein-Sierra, 2024). This has led to the commodification of knowledge and the reframing of students as consumers (Washburn, 2006), creating conditions in which various commercial services such as ghostwriting, editing, or credential services have proliferated. These developments are closely associated with increased concerns over academic misconduct, including contract cheating, diploma mills, and degree fraud (Curtis, 2023; Lancaster, 2020; Contreras & Gollin, 2009; Carmichael & Eaton, 2023). While research has examined student motivations and institutional responses to contract cheating (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019; Miron et al., 2021), far less attention has been paid to commercial services that operate outside formal regulation and within ethically ambiguous domains. For example, doctoral writing support and academic coaching often blur the lines between legitimate assistance and unauthorized collaboration (Aitchison & Mowbray, 2015). These cases highlight the growing presence of actors who do not directly violate academic rules but nonetheless shape how students approach assessment and misconduct, raising questions about legitimacy, regulation, and discourse. However, how these commercially driven services operate in culturally and institutionally specific contexts such as Mainland China remains underexplored. The commercialization of higher education in Mainland China: A neglected dimension of academic integrity studies In Mainland China, the commercialization of higher education has unfolded alongside long-standing traditions of educational pragmatism, centralized evaluation systems, and exam-based credentialism (Li & Wu, 2016; Yang, 2014; Mok, 2018). These pressures have given rise to a vibrant academic service market that includes ghostwriting, graduate school application consulting, and “academic emergency response” services (Zou et al., 2019; Mu & Chen, 2017). Early empirical data showed more than 1,800 full-time ghostwriters producing over 8,000 academic papers per year (Hu & Wu, 2013), and recent studies have examined student cheating behaviors (Ma, McCabe, & Liu, 2013), policy enforcement (He, Xu, & Zhou, 2023; Gow & Sun, 2024), and contract cheating motivations (Zhang & Ni, 2024; Zhang, 2023). However, virtually no research has examined academic misconduct consulting agencies that assist students in navigating academic misconduct proceedings, particularly those offering services to Chinese international students studying abroad. These agencies, based in Mainland China and operating primarily online, do not complete assignments on behalf of students. Instead, they provide consulting-oriented services such as appeal letter drafting, hearing preparation, policy interpretation, and strategy development. Their services are marketed using terms such as “procedural guidance,” “crisis response,” and “reputation rescue,” as described on the ZENMO LAW website (ZENMO LAW, 2025), targeting Chinese students accused of misconduct in Western institutions. In Chinese higher education, academic misconduct cases are typically handled through opaque administrative procedures, often without student participation or formal hearings (Zhang, 2024; Jiang & Xue, 2021). In contrast, Western institutions increasingly employ quasi-legal adjudication systems that require students to advocate for themselves in academic misconduct hearings (Bricault, 2007; Orr & Orr, 2021). Chinese international students, facing unfamiliar procedural expectations, potential language barriers, and high stakes (e.g., expulsion, deportation), may experience anxiety and confusion, making them more likely to seek external procedural support (Denisova-Schmidt, 2024). While ghostwriting platforms have received attention for their discursive strategies to deflect blame (Chen & Liu, 2024; Crook & Nixon, 2021), no study to date has examined how these consulting-oriented agencies construct legitimacy. These actors do not explicitly breach institutional rules, but they intervene in the interpretation and management of academic misconduct processes. Their proximity to formal adjudication, especially in transnational education, raises important questions about how they present their roles, assert authority, and navigate ethical ambiguity. This is particularly relevant in a global landscape marked by regulatory uncertainty and institutional inconsistency (Osipian, 2012; Santos-d’Amorim et al., 2022). This study addresses this gap by analyzing how these agencies discursively construct legitimacy. Rather than focusing on whether their practices are ethical or compliant, we examine the rhetorical strategies they use to portray themselves as professional, necessary, and student-centered. In doing so, we contribute to emerging scholarship that considers academic integrity not only as a matter of rule enforcement, but as a space shaped by market forces, cultural asymmetries, and contested narratives of legitimacy (Kezar & Bernstein-Sierra, 2024). Discursive l egitimation: A n analytical f ramework Academic misconduct consulting agencies operate in ethically and procedurally unclear areas. While they do not write papers or complete assignments for students, they do provide services such as helping draft appeal letters, preparing for misconduct hearings, and offering advice on how to communicate with universities. These services are not clearly banned by university rules, but they raise concerns because they are closely tied to formal disciplinary processes. In this situation, whether these agencies are seen as legitimate does not depend on formal rules alone. Instead, it depends on how they present themselves and how others perceive them. As Suchman (1995) puts it, legitimacy means that people generally see an organization’s actions as acceptable and appropriate within the values and norms of a given society. For private companies working in higher education, this sense of acceptability is often built through the way they use language, especially when there are no clear legal or ethical guidelines to follow (Vaara, Tienari, & Laurila, 2006; Gustafson & Pomirleanu, 2021). Rather than applying frameworks developed for analyzing contract cheating websites, which often emphasize stigma management (Chen & Liu, 2024; Rowland et al., 2017), we adopt a broader perspective focused on discursive legitimation. Academic misconduct consulting agencies are not widely stigmatized, nor do they explicitly violate academic rules. Instead, their public representations seek to construct a sense of institutional alignment, professional necessity, and student-centered justification. A discursive legitimacy approach allows us to capture how such meanings are constructed textually. Building on Van Leeuwen’s model, we adapted the framework into an operational coding scheme for our dataset. This allowed us to identify how agencies construct legitimacy by invoking authority (e.g., quoting policies or experts), appealing to moral values (e.g., fairness or student well-being), offering logical justifications (e.g., procedural clarity), or narrating cautionary tales and redemptive journeys. Table 1 below outlines the four major discursive strategies and their corresponding subtypes, which guided our analysis. To examine these rhetorical strategies, we employ the Discursive Legitimacy Analysis (DLA) framework, originally proposed by Van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999). This model identifies four primary strategies used to legitimize actions: authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis. Each strategy mobilizes a different source of credibility, such as authority figures, moral values, logical reasoning, or storytelling, to render actions acceptable in the public sphere. Table 1 summarizes the core logic of each strategy and its subtypes. These four strategies were not mutually exclusive; in many cases, a single agency webpage employed multiple forms of justification simultaneously. In the following section, we analyze how these discursive elements were mobilized across different agency websites, illustrating the rhetorical architecture through which they seek to establish credibility and moral acceptability. Table 1. Discursive strategies for constructing legitimacy: Types, definitions, and sub-strategies Type Definition Sub-strategies Rationalization Providing theoretical grounds to establish legitimacy Instrumental (goal orientation, means orientation, and effect orientation) and theoretical (experiential, scientific, definition, explanation and predication) Authorization Reference to authority Custom (conformity and tradition), authority (personal and impersonal), and commendation (expert and role model) Moralization Using moral arguments to establish a basis for legitimacy Evaluation, abstraction, comparison Mythopoesis Legitimizing through storytelling by showing a connection to the past or future Moral tales, cautionary tales, single determination, and overdetermination Research design “Discourse analysis, broadly defined, is the study of the ways that language is organized in texts and contexts” (Barton, 2003, p. 57). Building upon this understanding, we will focus on examining the textual content of academic misconduct consulting agencies on their websites. Websites are considered a crucial platform for organizations to construct, maintain, and repair their self-image, offering audiences a comprehensive view of their services and products (Ghorbanzadeh & Sharbatiyan, 2022). Through this medium, we can capture in more detail how academic misconduct consulting agencies utilize discourse to legitimize themselves. Drawing on this, we used the DLA framework as a guide and employed qualitative content analysis to ultimately inductively develop a conceptual framework that explains the legitimation strategies employed by academic misconduct consulting agencies in their discourse. Data collection We employed a purposive sampling strategy to systematically identify websites of academic misconduct consulting agencies (in Mandarin), using search engines as our primary sampling tool. Given that purposive sampling is commonly used in qualitative research to ensure the selection of information-rich cases relevant to the research question (Patton 2002, p.243), this approach was deemed appropriate for investigating the online presence of such agencies. Recognizing that prior studies on consumer search behavior indicate users rarely navigate beyond the first page of search results (Jansen and Spink 2009), we adopted an extended sampling frame to ensure theoretical saturation. Based on established practices in digital ethnography and prior research experience (Tragantzopoulou et al., 2024), we systematically collected data from the first six pages of search results on two widely used search engines: Google, a leading international search engine, and Baidu, the dominant search engine in Mainland China. This approach allowed us to capture a more comprehensive dataset while addressing potential limitations associated with search engine ranking algorithms and regional search result discrepancies. We selected the Chinese keywords “学术不端听证会” (“academic misconduct hearing”) and “学术不端指控” (“academic misconduct allegations”) to more accurately identify academic misconduct consulting agencies’ websites. Data collection was conducted from October 1 to October 4, 2024. To ensure consistency in data collection and to focus on our specific research topic (academic misconduct consulting agencies as commercial organizations), we established the following exclusion criteria: (1) personal blogs (to avoid privacy violations); (2) individual articles; (3) websites that were inaccessible due to broken links, and (4) websites unrelated to our research topic. We obtained search results from both search engines using the keywords ( n = 263), and then screened each website based on our exclusion criteria. After screening, we compiled the results and removed any duplicates within or between the two search engines, leaving us with 11 academic misconduct consulting agencies’ websites (Figure 2). To collect the textual data from these websites, we utilized the “Diffbot” tool (https://app.diffbot.com/extract/) to extract text from the academic misconduct consulting agencies’ websites. For websites where text extraction failed, we developed a custom script using PyCharm 2024.2.0.1 to capture the text, ultimately obtaining the complete textual data for all academic misconduct consulting agencies’ websites (see Supplementary Materials). The data were converted into TXT format for analysis. Data analysis Data were analyzed through the lens of DLA. In the first phase, we input all 11 texts into Nvivo 12.0, thoroughly read through the entire dataset, and then coded all instances of discursive legitimation strategies (using quantitative and qualitative content analysis). During the analysis, each instance of language was treated as a potential act of discursive legitimation (each sentence is to be encoded and numbered: for example, the third sentence in Sample 1 will be coded as “1-3”). In the second phase, we categorized the types of legitimation strategies used by academic misconduct consulting agencies based on the DLA framework, setting aside those instances that could not be clearly identified. In the third phase, we discussed the discursive elements that did not fit within the existing DLA framework, conceptualized them, and developed a framework to explain the legitimation strategies used by academic misconduct consulting agencies. Results Our findings indicate that all four of Van Leeuwen’s discursive legitimation strategies are employed by academic misconduct consulting agencies’ websites (as illustrated in Figure 3). The most frequently used discursive legitimation strategies are expert authority within the authorization category and instrumental rationalization within the rationalization category, both of which were found on all 11 websites examined (100%). Following closely, moral tales under mythopoesis were also widely utilized, with 91% of the websites employing this strategy. In contrast, moralization strategies were less commonly used, with six websites (55%) employing evaluation and seven (64%) using abstraction. Theoretical rationalization was the least utilized strategy, appearing on only four websites (36%). We identified an additional type of discursive legitimation strategy not encompassed by Van Leeuwen’s framework—emotionalization. This type of discourse, sometimes observed in political texts (Chilton, 2004, p. 114–116), was widely used by academic misconduct consulting agencies’ websites, with nine out of 11 websites (82%) employing it. This suggests that, compared to more traditional legitimation strategies used by collaborative institutions, academic misconduct consulting agencies may adopt a more diverse and heterogeneous range of discursive legitimation strategies. To further elaborate on how these specific discursive strategies are applied, we conducted a qualitative content analysis, which will be explained in detail in the following section. Analysis Moralization: Guardians of a cademic i ntegrity and a dvocates for s tudent r ights Evaluation Our study shows that academic misconduct consulting agencies do not actively create moral justifications for themselves. Instead, they tend to reinforce existing values and rules related to academic integrity by using terms such as “explicit” (明确的) and “core” (核心的) to repeatedly emphasize and highlight their stance. These terms, linked to discourses on moral values, contribute to the legitimization process and construct an image of these agencies as “guardians of academic integrity.” Moreover, this moralization discourse strategy reflects that, unlike contract cheating agencies, these agencies do not consider themselves immoral or in need of cleansing their reputation through denial (negative discourse). Rather, they employ positive discourse, using verbs like “uphold” (坚持) and “affirm” (确认) to emphasize their “self-identity.” Example (1) We consistently uphold the AIS’s ten principles: 1. Affirm that academic integrity is the core value of the institution…10. Base the goals of academic integrity programs on other core values, including student self-management, inclusion, community responsibility, fundamental fairness, and intellectual virtues related to successful academic research. [7-23] (我们始终坚持AIS 10大准则：1.确认学术诚信是机构的核心价值观……10. 将学术诚信计划的目标作为其他核心价值观的基础，包括学生自我管理、包容、社区责任、基本公平以及与成功的学术研究相关的知识美德。) Abstraction Other cases abstract their practices as a form of advocacy for student rights. As outlined on the websites of academic misconduct consulting agencies, if students lack support during hearings, they risk expulsion or even deportation. These agencies frame academic misconduct as an academic “predicament,” (困境) “challenge,” (难题) or “crisis,” (危机) using verbs such as “overcome,” (摆脱) “assist,” (助力) and “resolve” (解决) to modify these nouns. The goal is to imply specific qualities of the consultant provided (protection of student rights) and to praise these actions from a value-oriented perspective, thus encouraging the process of legitimization. Example (2) We provide appeal services for international students globally, genuinely resolving students’ difficulties and assisting them in overcoming academic predicaments. [10-17] (为全球留学生提供申诉服务，切实解决同学们的难题，助力同学们跳出困境。) Example (3) Professional experience in handling international students’ academic crisis, and unwavering efforts to advocate for international students with fairness and justice, striving for their legitimate rights and interests. [6-24] (处理留学生学术紧急案情的专业经验和公平公正为留学生群体发声、争取合理权益的不懈努力。) Authorization: Experienced appeal experts and highly recognized educational institutions Expert authority Compared to previous literature (Trinh & Vu, 2023), we found that academic misconduct consulting agencies do not construct legitimacy by quoting intellectual megastars, or just adding their names between brackets. Instead, they establish authority and provide a source of legitimacy by emphasizing the cultural capital of their staff, portraying them as experts. This cultural capital includes: 1) academic qualifications (e.g., master’s or doctoral degrees); 2) the prestige of the institutions (graduating from top global universities); and 3) work experience (accumulated experience in appeals during academic misconduct hearings). Example (4) Jenny, a Knowledge Management master’s graduate from Nanyang Technological University, specializes in appeals for UK hearings. With 6 years of experience in the international education sector, she is familiar with various educational systems and can tailor appeal letters according to the specific requirements of different countries and institutions. Her strong writing skills are demonstrated by her academic project, which received an A- grade, and she is capable of producing high-quality appeal documents. [4-8] (Jenny，南阳理工大学知识管理硕士，擅长英国听证会…等申诉，6年留学生教育行业工作经验，熟悉各国教育体制，能够根据不同国家、不同学校的不同要求来撰写申诉邮件，写作能力强，学术项目曾获得A-成绩，能够写出高质量的申诉文案。) The discursive legitimization of academic misconduct consulting agencies is detailed. Experts providing services emphasize their detailed credentials, such as expertise in law, education, and management (highlighting their familiarity with the procedures of academic misconduct hearings or their ability to design rebuttal evidence chains for students). Some cases even highlight the experts’ personal traits, such as meticulousness (思维缜密) and keen insight (敏锐). This suggests that academic misconduct consulting agencies, which operate in a morally ambiguous space, tend to emphasize the identity of experts in their legitimization strategies, as it appears more persuasive and trustworthy. Institutional Authority In establishing institutional authority, academic misconduct consulting agencies do not rely on strategies such as quoting or paraphrasing authoritative sources. Instead, they employ discourse to transfer symbolic capital. For example, some agencies legitimize their services by emphasizing membership in official associations or by highlighting accreditation from recognized bodies. Others use more ambiguous phrases like “media endorsement (媒体认可),” “industry expertise (业内实力),” or “certified credentials (资质认证)” as rhetorical devices. Although these terms lack specificity, using such labels helps shape students’ perceptions of the agencies’ professionalism and authority, thus serving as a discursive resource for legitimacy. Example (5) JU is a certified member of the National Career Development Association (NCDA) in the United States…as an educator, has the capability to inspire and enhance the personal skills of its student clients. [3-57] (JU是美国职业生涯发展协会（NCDA）认证会员……作为教育者，有实力激励和提升学生客户个人能力。) Rationalization: Shaping an exceptionally high success rate for appeals and emphasizing the critical timing for rebuttals Instrumental rationalization Emphasizing effect-oriented strategies is another way that academic misconduct consulting agencies seek to gain legitimacy. This orientation aligns with philosophical traditions such as utilitarianism and pragmatism, which define truth in terms of practical usefulness. By highlighting the effectiveness of their actions (appealing to academic misconduct hearings), these agencies advance their legitimacy. In specific cases, we found that academic misconduct consulting agencies often stress how appeal outcomes can help students avoid academic crises before hearings. This focus on outcome effectiveness is typically expressed with verbs like “avoid (避免),” “reduce (减少),” or “eliminate (消除),” paired with nouns such as “punishment (惩罚),” “expulsion (开除),” or “consequences (影响).” Additionally, all academic misconduct consulting agencies enhance the perceived effectiveness of their action outcomes by providing internal evidence, such as highlighting high appeal success rates, which further promotes their legitimacy. Example (6) Simulating hearing scenarios and mock interviews with school staff to maximize the reduction or elimination of punishments. [3-16] (模拟听证会现场，模拟学校老师约谈，最大程度降低或消除处分。） Example (7) Over 10,000 cases handled in the U.S. and Canada, with a 100% success rate in crisis management. [5-8] (美国、加拿大10,000+累计服务案例，100%危机处理成功率。) Theoretical rationalization We observe that only a small number of academic misconduct consulting agencies adopt theoretical rationalization as a discursive strategy to establish their legitimacy. In these cases, such platforms do not legitimize their services by directly defining what they offer. Instead, they focus on describing the actors involved in these practices (i.e., students) to construct their own legitimacy. These services often frame the question of “why choose academic misconduct consultant” by emphasizing that specific actions taken by students, such as filing an appeal during academic misconduct hearings, are considered “appropriate” for their position as students. Based on this reasoning, they underscore the importance of seizing the opportunity to appeal and the professional expertise required in the appeals process, thereby implicitly suggesting the legitimacy of seeking academic misconduct consultant services. Example (8) Once a disciplinary decision is issued, the school will provide appeal options in the formal notice, such as scheduling an interview within a specified timeframe, submitting an appeal letter, or attending a hearing. Therefore, it's crucial to seize these appeal opportunities. [11-33] (处分下达，学校会在正式通知里提供appeal申诉的选择，比如在规定时间内面谈、提交上诉信申诉信或参加听证会等，因此一定要抓住申诉的机会。) Mythopoesis: The “hero” who turns the tide and the “director” who orchestrates the dire outcome Moral tales Storytelling is the most common discursive legitimation strategy employed by academic misconduct consulting agencies. Moral tales in particular are constructed around protagonists engaged in legitimate social practices or in the restoration of institutional order (van Leeuwen, 2007, p.105). These agencies frequently portray students as facing academic “crises” and frame their own services as essential interventions to resolve such situations. By narrating successful outcomes, such as helping students avoid expulsion or overturn disciplinary decisions, they position themselves as supportive actors who guide students through institutional processes. Through these narratives, academic misconduct consulting agencies frame themselves as “heroes” advocating for students’ rights and academic futures. Example (9) Student X, a Chinese student, pursued an undergraduate degree at the University of Warwick. After graduating, she returned to her home country. However, a few months after graduation, she faced an unprecedented academic integrity appeal crisis... The professor accused Student X of using AI technology in her assignment... Our professional team engaged in in-depth communication with Student X, learning about her situation and the case details. The student candidly admitted to using AI technology in her assignment... We guided her through the process of developing an explanation strategy... In the end, Student X was acquitted, receiving no administrative penalties or grade deductions. [7-34, 39, 44] (学生X是一位来自中国的学生，曾在华威大学攻读本科学位。毕业后，她回到了祖国，然而，在毕业后的几个月里，她突然面临了一场前所未有的学术诚信申诉之困……教授认为X同学在作业中使用了AI技术进行写作……我们的专业团队与X同学展开了深入的沟通，了解她的情况和案件细节。学生坦诚承认在作业中使用了AI技术……我们带领X同学展开了解释策略的制定……X同学被判无罪，没有受到任何行政处罚，也没有扣分。) Cautionary tales Another discursive legitimation strategy employed by academic misconduct consulting agencies to legitimize their services is the use of cautionary tales, which emphasize the severe consequences of not utilizing these services. We found that such agencies often center their tales around a student who has committed academic misconduct. Through a case review, they recount the process by which this (anonymous) student engaged in academic misconduct, subsequently revealing the student’s disastrous outcome (such as expulsion, loss of visa, or even loss of immigration status). On this basis, the academic misconduct consulting agencies attribute the student’s downfall to missing the opportunity to submit an appeal on time, thereby implying that their services are essential for mitigating academic crises, further enhancing their legitimacy. Example (10) Student S maintained excellent academic performance throughout their years of study abroad, until a family crisis severely affected their studies. In an attempt to complete an assignment, Student S plagiarized online content, which was reported by their professor. However, due to missing the deadline to appeal at the hearing, Student S was ultimately expelled from the university, lost their student status, and subsequently lost their visa. [5-31] (S同学留学的这几年一直保持良好的成绩，直到家庭发生了变故导致S的学习受到严重影响，为了完成作业，S同学在一次作业中抄袭了网上的内容，被老师举报。但由于S同学错过了听证会的申诉时机，最终被学校开除， 不仅退学还失去了签证。) Additional findings: Emotionalization as a discursive strategy We have identified a category of discursive legitimation strategies that falls outside the established theoretical framework and has not yet been mentioned in similar literature. This strategy, while sharing similarities with the mythopoesis of cautionary tales (in that it emphasizes terrible consequences for students), does not involve constructing a narrative or setting up a protagonist. Typically, this strategy appears on the landing pages of academic misconduct consulting agencies’ websites. After further discussion, we classified this as “emotionalization.” Specifically, social actors use discourse to evoke various emotions, triggering psychological reactions in the audience. This is often achieved through discourse mechanisms that construct and demonize an “enemy” or an “other.” This process involves two key elements: 1) Nomination Strategies: Using specific linguistic labels to identify the “other” and describe what they are. 2) Argumentative Strategies: Emphasizing what the “other” does through descriptions of their actions (Reyes, 2011). In our case, academic misconduct consulting agencies typically present two choices: “passively accept your fate (躺平)” or “actively appeal (积极申诉),” thus creating a clear binary opposition. The option of “passively accept your fate” is framed in a highly negative and threatening light. This can be understood as a nomination strategy, where “passively accept your fate” is labeled as a negative and passive response. Additionally, these agencies often highlight the consequences of choosing to “passively accept,” such as “facing academic sanctions,” “having a permanent stain on your academic record,” or “being deported.” These are descriptions of specific actions and their negative outcomes. Such consequences serve as argumentative strategies that list a series of material processes (i.e., real-world negative consequences) to amplify fear, making the choice to “actively appeal” seem like the only rational option. This approach effectively leverages fear to capture the students’ attention and legitimizes the necessity of seeking consultant services. Example (11) Faced with an academic crisis, do you choose to passively accept your fate or actively appeal? If you passively accept, you will face academic penalties, have a permanent stain on your academic record, lose the chance to remedy your failing grade, lower your GPA, be unable to graduate on time, and potentially be deported. You may not complete your degree as planned, affecting your future plans, and end up with only a diploma, with your foreign degree unrecognized. [10-4] (遇到学业危机 你选择躺平认命还是积极申诉？躺平认命，受到学校处罚，学习档案留下污点，挂科后没有补救机会，拉低GPA，无法顺利毕业，被迫遣返回国，难在预计时间毕业，影响后续规划，只有Diploma，留学学历不被承认。) Discussion This study provides one of the first empirical analyses of how academic misconduct consulting agencies discursively construct their legitimacy within the landscape of global higher education. Drawing on the DLA framework and extending it through the newly identified category of emotionalization, our findings reveal that these agencies employ a range of rhetorical strategies, including moralization, authorization, rationalization, mythopoesis, and emotionalization, to present themselves as professional, necessary, and student-centered. Importantly, while their services, such as assisting with appeals and guiding students through misconduct procedures, are not explicitly banned by most institutional policies, our study does not aim to determine whether such actions violate formal regulations. Rather, we explore how these agencies narrate their roles and justify their presence in ethically and procedurally unsettled contexts. Our key contribution lies in developing a refined framework of legitimation strategies tailored to the context of academic misconduct consulting, offering both conceptual extension to existing DLA framework and empirical insight into a previously underexplored domain of academic integrity. Unlike contract cheating providers, whose discursive strategies often revolve around stigma deflection and moral distancing (Crook & Nixon, 2021 ; Chen & Liu, 2024 ), academic misconduct consulting agencies do not deny or neutralize wrongdoing. Rather, they emphasize their alignment with institutional values and portray themselves as cultural and procedural mediators. In doing so, they sidestep moral condemnation and instead claim moral authority by affirming shared norms such as academic integrity, student wellbeing, and procedural fairness. This aligns with emerging work on educational commercialization that suggests not all market actors seek legitimacy by rejecting norms; some instead seek inclusion within the normative order (Verelst et al., 2024 ). Our analysis shows that among the five legitimation strategies observed (moralization, authorization, rationalization, mythopoesis, and emotionalization), authorization (specifically, expert authority) and instrumental rationalization were the most frequently employed. This suggests that these agencies foreground both the cultural capital of their consultants (e.g., academic credentials, institutional affiliations) and the effectiveness of their services (e.g., high success rates, tailored appeal strategies) as key sources of credibility. In this regard, the legitimation strategies used by academic misconduct consulting agencies differ from those described in studies of contract cheating (Medway et al., 2018 ; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2016 ), where anonymity, client vulnerability, and moral ambiguity often dominate the discursive landscape. A particularly novel contribution of this study is the identification of emotionalization as a distinct strategy of legitimation. This strategy does not rely on narrative resolution or moral coherence, as seen in mythopoesis, but instead mobilizes fear, urgency, and binary framings (e.g., “appeal or be expelled”) to influence student decision-making. While affective rhetoric has been observed in political and crisis communication (Hoggett & Thompson, 2012 ), its function in academic service marketing remains under-theorized. We suggest that emotionalization in this context operates as a form of affective governance (Protevi, 2009 ), wherein emotional reactions are channeled to justify action, particularly under conditions of uncertainty and asymmetry. To integrate these findings, we propose a DLA framework tailored to academic misconduct consulting agencies (see Fig. 3 ). This framework expands Van Leeuwen’s typology by mapping five macro-strategies (moralization, authorization, rationalization, mythopoesis, and emotionalization) onto specific rhetorical tactics such as expert authority, moral tales, and amplifying fear. Together, these strategies shape how these agencies construct themselves as professional, authoritative, and necessary in the context of international higher education. By identifying and naming these discursive strategies, our framework helps clarify how academic misconduct consulting agencies construct an appearance of professionalism, necessity, and alignment with institutional values. Rather than labeling such services as inherently unethical or wholly acceptable, we argue for a more nuanced understanding of how they gain legitimacy in loosely regulated spaces. This issue is particularly important for international students, who often lack familiarity with local academic norms, face linguistic and cultural barriers, and are especially vulnerable during misconduct investigations. These conditions make them more likely to perceive such agencies as legitimate sources of help. Conclusion This study offers the first empirical examination of how academic misconduct consulting agencies discursively construct legitimacy in a transnational higher education context. Moving beyond the stigma-deflection strategies identified in contract cheating literature, we reveal that these agencies employ a broader repertoire of legitimation strategies: including moralization, authorization, rationalization, mythologization, and emotionalization. By applying and extending the DLA framework, we propose a refined framework that captures the symbolic and affective labor these agencies perform to gain trust and institutional alignment. Rather than breaking academic rules, these agencies build their legitimacy by highlighting their professional background, alignment with academic values, and understanding of university procedures. They operate in areas where policies are unclear but not explicitly regulated. Our findings contribute to scholarship on academic integrity and the commercialization of higher education by identifying new rhetorical mechanisms used by emerging actors in ethically unsettled domains. Limitations and Future Directions This study has two key limitations. First, the sample size is small due to the limited online visibility of academic misconduct consulting agencies, which remain an emerging phenomenon. Future studies may adopt web scraping or multilingual search techniques to access a broader dataset. Second, while our analysis focuses on discursive legitimacy, it does not make ethical evaluations. Further research from applied ethics or policy perspectives could assess the moral boundaries of such services. Looking ahead, future research should examine the sociocultural underpinnings of these agencies. Drawing on sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) and academic integrity literature (McCabe et al., 2001), scholars could explore how language, cultural context, and institutional environments shape the agencies’ legitimation strategies. Comparative cross-national analyses and discourse-linguistic methods may reveal regional variations and adaptation mechanisms. Such work would deepen our understanding of how these actors navigate diverse academic systems, contributing to global conversations on the commercialization and governance of academic integrity. Declarations Disclosure statement No potential conflicts of interest was reported by the author(s). Ethical considerations This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of theauthors. References Adam John Privitera. (2023). Is there a foreign language effect on academic integrity? Higher Education , 88 , 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01134-5 Aitchison, C., & Mowbray, S. (2015). Doctoral writing markets: Exploring the grey zone. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 297–301). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_39-1 Amigud, A., & Lancaster, T. (2019). 246 reasons to cheat: An analysis of students’ reasons for seeking to outsource academic work. Computers & Education , 134 (1), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.017 Barton, E. (2003). Linguistic discourse analysis: How the language in texts works. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices (p. 57). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609526-8 Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., Green, M., Partridge, L., & James, C. (2013). “Teach us how to do it properly!” An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education , 39 (7), 1150–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777406 Bricault, D. (2007). Legal bases for dealing with academic dishonesty. College and University , 82 (4), 15–17. Carmichael, J. J., & Eaton, S. E. (2023). Admissions fraud in Canadian higher education. In S. E. Eaton, J. J. Carmichael, & H. Pethrick (Eds.), Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education (pp. 23–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21796-8_2 Center for China & Globalization. (2024). The development of Chinese students studying abroad (2023-2024) . Center for China & Globalization. http://www.ccg.org.cn/archives/84288 Chen, K. H., & Liu, J. C. (2024). Overcoming stigma: How academic ghostwriting companies neutralize their services in Chinese and English markets. Higher Education , 88 , 1255–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01168-9 Chilton, P. A. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice (pp. 114–116). Routledge. Contreras, A., & Gollin, G. (2009). The real and the fake degree and diploma mills. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 41 (2), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.3200/chng.41.2.36-43 Crook, C., & Nixon, E. (2021). How internet essay mill websites portray the student experience of higher education. The Internet and Higher Education , 48 , 100775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100775 Curtis, G. J. (2023). Contract cheating: Introduction. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_108-2 Curtis, G. J., & Clare, J. (2017). How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders? Journal of Academic Ethics , 15 (2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9278-x Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2024). Academic integrity and international students: An inclusive approach. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1187–1200). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_130 Du, Q. (2018). Research on the construction of academic integrity system in Chinese colleges and universities. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research , 290 , 238–240. https://doi.org/10.2991/icedem-18.2018.60 Eaton, S. E., Chibry, N., Toye, M. A., & Rossi, S. (2019). Interinstitutional perspectives on contract cheating: A qualitative narrative exploration from Canada. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0046-0 Fatemi, G., & Saito, E. (2019). Unintentional plagiarism and academic integrity: The challenges and needs of postgraduate international students in Australia. Journal of Further and Higher Education , 44 (10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2019.1683521 Ghorbanzadeh, D., & Sharbatiyan, M. (2022). The role of website features in creating value co-creation behaviors and enhancing the brand image and reputation of higher education institutions. Interactive Technology and Smart Education , 21 (1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-12-2021-0225 Gow, S., & Sun, Q. (2024). Academic integrity in China: Challenges for policy, practice, and quality assurance in higher education. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 975–999). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_175 Gustafson, B. M., & Pomirleanu, N. (2021). A discursive framework of B2B brand legitimacy. Industrial Marketing Management , 93 , 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.009 He, C., Xu, J., & Zhou, L. (2023). Understanding China’s construction of an academic integrity system: A grounded theory study on national level policies. Learned Publishing , 36 (2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1540 Hoggett, P., & Thompson, S. (2012). Politics and the emotions . Bloomsbury Publishing. Hu, Z., & Wu, Y. (2013). An empirical analysis on number and monetary value of ghostwritten papers in China. Current Science , 105 (9), 1230–1234. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24098932 Jansen, B. J., & Spink, A. (2009). Investigating customer click through behaviour with integrated sponsored and nonsponsored results. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising , 5 (1/2), 74. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijima.2009.021951 Jian, H., Marion, R., & Wang, W. (2018). Academic integrity from China to the United States: The acculturation process for Chinese graduate students in the United States. Ethics & Behavior , 29 (1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1468760 Jiang, H., & Xue, Y. (2021). Perceptions of faculty leadership in university governance: A case study. Chinese Education & Society , 54 (5-6), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2021.1990626 Kezar, A. (2008). Universities in the marketplace, academic capitalism, remaking the American university: Market smart and mission centered. The Journal of Higher Education , 79 (4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772111 Kezar, A., & Bernstein-Sierra, S. (2024). Commercialization of higher education. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Springer International Handbooks of Education (pp. 1867–1887). Springer Nature (Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_59 Lancaster, T. (2020). Academic discipline integration by contract cheating services and essay mills. Journal of Academic Ethics , 18 , 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09357-x Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development . Oxford University Press. Li, T., & Wu, Y. (2016). Pragmatism in China - Chinese pragmatism. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Humanity, Education and Social Science . https://doi.org/10.2991/ichess-16.2016.9 Li, X., Zhao, J., & Yan, W. (2022). Integrity levels of Chinese college students: An analysis of influencing factors. Frontiers in Education . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.843674 Ma, Y., McCabe, D. L., & Liu, R. (2013). Students’ academic cheating in Chinese universities: Prevalence, influencing factors, and proposed action. Journal of Academic Ethics , 11 (3), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9186-7 McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior , 11 (3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1103_2 Medway, D., Roper, S., & Gillooly, L. (2018). Contract cheating in UK higher education: A covert investigation of essay mills. British Educational Research Journal , 44 (3), 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3335 Miron, J., McKenzie, A., Eaton, S. E., Stoesz, B., Thacker, E., Devereaux, L., Persaud, N., Steeves, M., & Rowbotham, K. (2021). Academic integrity policy analysis of publicly-funded universities in Ontario, Canada: A focus on contract cheating. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy , 197 , 62–75. https://doi.org/10.7202/1083333ar Mok, K. H., Ke, G., & Tian, Z. (2018). Massification and privatization of higher education in East Asia. In W. O. Lee, P. Brown, A. L. Goodwin, & A. Green (Eds.), International Journal of Educational Development (pp. 44–51). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.02.003 Mu, D., & Chen, A. (2017). Academic hegemony: The academic corruption tacitly permitted by China seeing from the major research plan. Journal of Safety and Crisis Management , 7 (1), 29–32. https://doi.org/10.14251/jscm.2017.1.29 Orr, J. E., & Orr, K. (2021). Restoring honor and integrity through integrating restorative practices in academic integrity with student leaders. Journal of Academic Ethics , 21 , 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09437-x Osipian, A. L. (2012). Grey areas in the higher education sector: Legality versus corruptibility. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal , 2012 (1), 141–190. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2012/iss1/6 Pan, M., Stiles, B. L., Tempelmeyer, T. C., & Wong, N. (2019). A cross-cultural exploration of academic dishonesty: Current challenges, preventive measures, and future directions. In Prevention and Detection of Academic Misconduct in Higher Education (pp. 63–82). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7531-3.ch003 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed., p. 243). Sage Publications. Protevi, J. (2009). Political affect: Connecting the social and the somatic . University Of Minnesota Press. Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society , 22 (6), 781–807. Rowland, S., Slade, C., Wong, K.-S., & Whiting, B. (2017). “Just turn to us”: The persuasive features of contract cheating websites. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 43 (4), 652–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1391948 Sanni-Anibire, H., Stoesz, B. M., Gervais, L., & Vogt, L. (2021). International students’ knowledge and emotions related to academic integrity at Canadian postsecondary institutions. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00088-4 Santos-d’Amorim, K., Wang, T., Lund, B., & Macedo Dos Santos, R. N. (2022). From plagiarism to scientific paper mills: A profile of retracted articles within the Sicelo Brazil collection. Ethics & Behavior , 34 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2141747 Shafaei, A., Nejati, M., Quazi, A., & von der Heidt, T. (2015). “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” Do international students’ acculturation attitudes impact their ethical academic conduct?. Higher Education , 71 (5), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9928-0 Sivasubramaniam, S., Kostelidou, K., & Ramachandran, S. (2016). A close encounter with ghost-writers: An initial exploration study on background, strategies and attitudes of independent essay providers. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0007-9 Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2009). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. In Johns Hopkins University Press eBooks . Johns Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.56021/9780801879494 Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review , 20 (3), 574. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 Tragantzopoulou, P., Fixsen, A., Ridge, D., & Cheshire, A. (2024). “You are not alone, we’ve got you”: Power plays, devotion, and punishment on healthy eating and pro-eating disorder websites. Qualitative Health Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241238628 Trinh, M. H., & Vu, T. A. (2023). Nationalism in discursive legitimation: An analysis of the Vietnamese communist party’s “bamboo diplomacy” discourse on digital journalism. Discourse & Society , 35 (3), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265231217063 Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Laurila, J. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization Studies , 27 (6), 789–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606061071 van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication , 1 (1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies , 1 (1), 83–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001001005 Verelst, S., Simons, M., & Berghmans, M. (2024). The play of education and market: A literature review on the roles commercial actors play for K-12 education. Policy Futures in Education . https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241240238 Washburn, J. (2008). University, inc: The corporate corruption of higher education . Basic Books. Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China , 9 (2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03397011 ZENMO LAW. (2025, July 25). Zenmo academic integrity . ZENMO LAW. https://reurl.cc/VW1XVQ Zhang, Y. (2023). Academic cheating as planned behavior: the effects of perceived behavioral control and individualism-collectivism orientations. Higher Education , 87 , 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01024-w Zhang, Y. (2024). Who should be held accountable? An analysis of academic misconduct cases in Chinese higher education and the challenges of the transformative process. Region - Educational Research and Reviews , 6 (5), 144. https://doi.org/10.32629/rerr.v6i5.2164 Zhang, Y., & Ni, F. (2024). Approaches to learning and contract cheating: Exploring the mediating roles of authorship perceptions. Studies in Higher Education , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2352055 Zou, Q., Ma, J., & Sheng, X. (2019). A survey of medical ghostwriting in China. Learned Publishing , 32 (4), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1256 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7234434","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":492016618,"identity":"8de3320f-e239-4919-8d82-16693fdd6182","order_by":0,"name":"Gengyan Tang","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3221-3134","institution":"University of Calgary","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gengyan","middleName":"","lastName":"Tang","suffix":""},{"id":492016619,"identity":"fd3e9ca6-7e36-472b-a428-1db8a52fd978","order_by":1,"name":"Sarah Elaine Eaton","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0607-6287","institution":"University of Calgary","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"Elaine","lastName":"Eaton","suffix":""},{"id":492016620,"identity":"fffad99d-39e3-47d1-858b-32d3e76a34e6","order_by":2,"name":"Wei Cai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Calgary","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wei","middleName":"","lastName":"Cai","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-28 13:33:02","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7234434/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7234434/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87901192,"identity":"8ca23bdd-f10c-4352-be54-c2ad62ba5f8e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66609,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 2. \u0026nbsp;Flow diagram for identifying academic misconduct consulting agencies’ websites\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7234434/v1/d6d3a4524e39f1e358c8d782.png"},{"id":87901193,"identity":"29e28784-8237-4367-939d-0da5a35669c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":52080,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 3. Quantitative content analysis results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7234434/v1/267ee4f62933441052f427c0.png"},{"id":87901202,"identity":"8b2a0804-64ce-4a4e-ba99-344e2c3da5e8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:15:44","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":171519,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 3. The discursive legitimation strategies framework for academic misconduct consulting agencies\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7234434/v1/4e845f2d18d9b012aa122559.png"},{"id":87903388,"identity":"806aa8f5-85f7-4b34-bd58-65e194745f10","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:31:44","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1020092,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7234434/v1/a30d478e-18ef-4fb4-82d0-7f61593d61a9.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiscursive legitimation strategies of academic misconduct consulting agencies in Mainland China\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn 2021, the number of Chinese students studying at overseas higher education institutions reached 1.021 million. During the 2022-2023 academic year, Mainland China remained the largest source of international students for countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Germany, New Zealand, South Korea, and Malaysia (Center for China \u0026amp; Globalization, 2024). However, due to differences in educational systems, Chinese international students may experience not only cultural shock when studying abroad but also face risks related to academic behavior due to misunderstandings of educational policies. Academic integrity has become a particular area of concern (Bretag et al. 2013; Adam John Privitera, 2023). A survey of international students studying in Canada found that, although expectations around academic integrity may be similar between students\u0026rsquo; home countries and Canada, there remain differences in understanding concepts such as resubmission or self-plagiarism (Sanni-Anibire et al., 2021). These differences may lead to an increased incidence of academic misconduct (Fatemi \u0026amp; Saito, 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Mainland China, many universities have established independent departments to handle incidents of academic misconduct related to students (Li, Zhao, \u0026amp; Yan, 2022). However, in practice, the measures taken by Chinese universities differ from those in many other countries\u0026mdash;specifically, Chinese universities do not typically hold academic misconduct hearings. Investigations into academic misconduct in Chinese universities are often conducted by administrative staff and always based on regulations. Students often lack participation, the right to defend themselves, or are even kept silent during this process (Du, 2018). The heterogeneous nature of academic integrity cultures presents adaptive challenges for Chinese students in understanding and addressing issues related to academic integrity (Jian, Marion, \u0026amp; Wang, 2018; Pan et al., 2019;\u0026nbsp;Shafaei et al., 2015). These challenges in understanding and self-advocacy are particularly evident when Chinese students are studying abroad, alleged to have engaged in academic misconduct, and are then expected to attend academic misconduct hearings and defend themselves, often lacking the necessary support structures and feeling lost in the process.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn anecdote (from a search on a Chinese-language search engine regarding academic integrity-related news) led the first author to stumble upon commercial agencies that specifically offer \u0026ldquo;academic misconduct consultant\u0026rdquo; to Chinese international students. The agencies claim they can help Chinese international students respond to urgent academic misconduct allegations and represent them in appeals, helping them avoid the negative consequences of such allegations. Although these agencies present themselves as advocates for students\u0026rsquo; rights, they operate in a space of ethical ambiguity. On one hand, they may help students navigate complex institutional procedures and protect their rights during misconduct proceedings; on the other hand, their involvement in crafting appeal documents, managing student narratives, or advising on procedural loopholes raises questions about whether they are upholding or undermining the values of academic integrity. Understanding how these agencies construct their legitimacy discourse can illuminate how they negotiate this tension between providing support and potentially enabling questionable practices.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough previous research has shown that commercial pressures in higher education contribute to increased academic misconduct (Curtis \u0026amp; Clare, 2017; Eaton et al., 2019), little attention has been given to companies that offer consulting services specifically to students accused of misconduct. These agencies provide strategic advice, emotional support, and assistance during disciplinary processes. Despite their growing visibility, we know little about how such services publicly present and justify their roles in the academic context. This study offers one of the first in-depth analyses of how these commercial agencies construct legitimacy through their public language. We use the term \u0026ldquo;academic misconduct consulting agencies\u0026rdquo; to refer to private service providers, primarily operating online, that support students accused of academic misconduct by offering procedural guidance and communication strategies rather than producing academic content.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo better understand this underexplored phenomenon, we examine how such agencies in Mainland China frame their legitimacy through discourse. Specifically, we analyze (1) what discursive strategies they use on their websites, and (2) how these strategies are implemented. By doing so, this study makes a meaningful contribution to academic integrity studies. It draws attention to a previously overlooked type of commercial actor. Through one of the first analyses of how these agencies seek to establish legitimacy via the descriptions on their websites, the study provides empirical insight into an emerging phenomenon. By examining how legitimacy is discursively constructed in a context where ethical boundaries and policy frameworks remain unsettled, it lays the groundwork for further discussion on how academic institutions might understand and respond to such agencies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcademic misconduct in higher education is often linked to its commercialization. To inform our study, we draw on two areas of literature: first, research on how commercialization has shaped different forms of academic misconduct; and second, studies on academic misconduct in Mainland China, which help us to identify gaps in the current knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercialization of higher education: A persistent challenge in academic integrity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigher education institutions around the world are increasingly shaped by market-oriented logics, emphasizing competition, branding, and financial return over traditional academic values (Slaughter \u0026amp; Rhoades, 2009; Kezar \u0026amp; Bernstein-Sierra, 2024). This has led to the commodification of knowledge and the reframing of students as consumers (Washburn, 2006), creating conditions in which various commercial services such as ghostwriting, editing, or credential services have proliferated. These developments are closely associated with increased concerns over academic misconduct, including contract cheating, diploma mills, and degree fraud (Curtis, 2023; Lancaster, 2020; Contreras \u0026amp; Gollin, 2009; Carmichael \u0026amp; Eaton, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile research has examined student motivations and institutional responses to contract cheating (Amigud \u0026amp; Lancaster, 2019; Miron et al., 2021), far less attention has been paid to commercial services that operate outside formal regulation and within ethically ambiguous domains. For example, doctoral writing support and academic coaching often blur the lines between legitimate assistance and unauthorized collaboration (Aitchison \u0026amp; Mowbray, 2015).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;These cases highlight the growing presence of actors who do not directly violate academic rules but nonetheless shape how students approach assessment and misconduct, raising questions about legitimacy, regulation, and discourse. However, how these commercially driven services operate in culturally and institutionally specific contexts such as\u0026nbsp;Mainland\u0026nbsp;China remains underexplored.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe commercialization of higher education in Mainland China: A neglected dimension of academic integrity studies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Mainland China, the commercialization of higher education has unfolded alongside long-standing traditions of educational pragmatism, centralized evaluation systems, and exam-based credentialism (Li \u0026amp; Wu, 2016; Yang, 2014; Mok, 2018). These pressures have given rise to a vibrant academic service market that includes ghostwriting, graduate school application consulting, and \u0026ldquo;academic emergency response\u0026rdquo; services (Zou et al., 2019; Mu \u0026amp; Chen, 2017). Early empirical data showed more than 1,800 full-time ghostwriters producing over 8,000 academic papers per year (Hu \u0026amp; Wu, 2013), and recent studies have examined student cheating behaviors (Ma, McCabe, \u0026amp; Liu, 2013), policy enforcement (He, Xu, \u0026amp; Zhou, 2023; Gow \u0026amp; Sun, 2024), and contract cheating motivations (Zhang \u0026amp; Ni, 2024; Zhang, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, virtually no research has examined academic misconduct consulting agencies that assist students in navigating academic misconduct proceedings, particularly those offering services to Chinese international students studying abroad. These agencies, based in Mainland China and operating primarily online, do not complete assignments on behalf of students. Instead, they provide consulting-oriented services such as appeal letter drafting, hearing preparation, policy interpretation, and strategy development. Their services are marketed using terms such as \u0026ldquo;procedural guidance,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;crisis response,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;reputation rescue,\u0026rdquo; as described on the ZENMO LAW website (ZENMO LAW, 2025), targeting Chinese students accused of misconduct in Western institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Chinese higher education, academic misconduct cases are typically handled through opaque administrative procedures, often without student participation or formal hearings (Zhang, 2024; Jiang \u0026amp; Xue, 2021). In contrast, Western institutions increasingly employ quasi-legal adjudication systems that require students to advocate for themselves in academic misconduct hearings (Bricault, 2007; Orr \u0026amp; Orr, 2021). Chinese international students, facing unfamiliar procedural expectations, potential language barriers, and high stakes (e.g., expulsion, deportation), may experience anxiety and confusion, making them more likely to seek external procedural support (Denisova-Schmidt, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile ghostwriting platforms have received attention for their discursive strategies to deflect blame (Chen \u0026amp; Liu, 2024; Crook \u0026amp; Nixon, 2021), no study to date has examined how these consulting-oriented agencies construct legitimacy. These actors do not explicitly breach institutional rules, but they intervene in the interpretation and management of academic misconduct processes. Their proximity to formal adjudication, especially in transnational education, raises important questions about how they present their roles, assert authority, and navigate ethical ambiguity. This is particularly relevant in a global landscape marked by regulatory uncertainty and institutional inconsistency (Osipian, 2012; Santos-d\u0026rsquo;Amorim et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study addresses this gap by analyzing how these agencies discursively construct legitimacy. Rather than focusing on whether their practices are ethical or compliant, we examine the rhetorical strategies they use to portray themselves as professional, necessary, and student-centered. In doing so, we contribute to emerging scholarship that considers academic integrity not only as a matter of rule enforcement, but as a space shaped by market forces, cultural asymmetries, and contested narratives of legitimacy (Kezar \u0026amp; Bernstein-Sierra, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiscursive\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003el\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eegitimation: A\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eanalytical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ef\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eramework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcademic misconduct consulting agencies operate in ethically and procedurally unclear areas. While they do not write papers or complete assignments for students, they do provide services such as helping draft appeal letters, preparing for misconduct hearings, and offering advice on how to communicate with universities. These services are not clearly banned by university rules, but they raise concerns because they are closely tied to formal disciplinary processes. In this situation, whether these agencies are seen as legitimate does not depend on formal rules alone. Instead, it depends on how they present themselves and how others perceive them. As Suchman (1995) puts it, legitimacy means that people generally see an organization\u0026rsquo;s actions as acceptable and appropriate within the values and norms of a given society. For private companies working in higher education, this sense of acceptability is often built through the way they use language, especially when there are no clear legal or ethical guidelines to follow (Vaara, Tienari, \u0026amp; Laurila, 2006; Gustafson \u0026amp; Pomirleanu, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRather than applying frameworks developed for analyzing contract cheating websites, which often emphasize stigma management (Chen \u0026amp; Liu, 2024; Rowland et al., 2017), we adopt a broader perspective focused on discursive legitimation. Academic misconduct consulting agencies are not widely stigmatized, nor do they explicitly violate academic rules. Instead, their public representations seek to construct a sense of institutional alignment, professional necessity, and student-centered justification. A discursive legitimacy approach allows us to capture how such meanings are constructed textually. Building on Van Leeuwen\u0026rsquo;s model, we adapted the framework into an operational coding scheme for our dataset. This allowed us to identify how agencies construct legitimacy by invoking authority (e.g., quoting policies or experts), appealing to moral values (e.g., fairness or student well-being), offering logical justifications (e.g., procedural clarity), or narrating cautionary tales and redemptive journeys. Table 1 below outlines the four major discursive strategies and their corresponding subtypes, which guided our analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine these rhetorical strategies, we employ the Discursive Legitimacy Analysis (DLA) framework, originally proposed by Van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999). This model identifies four primary strategies used to legitimize actions: authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis. Each strategy mobilizes a different source of credibility, such as authority figures, moral values, logical reasoning, or storytelling, to render actions acceptable in the public sphere. Table 1 summarizes the core logic of each strategy and its subtypes. These four strategies were not mutually exclusive; in many cases, a single agency webpage employed multiple forms of justification simultaneously. In the following section, we analyze how these discursive elements were mobilized across different agency websites, illustrating the rhetorical architecture through which they seek to establish credibility and moral acceptability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Discursive strategies for constructing legitimacy: Types, definitions, and sub-strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"661\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eType\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDefinition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 292px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSub-strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRationalization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProviding theoretical grounds to establish legitimacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 292px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstrumental (goal orientation, means orientation, and effect orientation) and theoretical (experiential, scientific, definition, explanation and predication)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthorization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReference to authority\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 292px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCustom (conformity and tradition), authority (personal and impersonal), and commendation (expert and role model)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoralization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsing moral arguments to establish a basis for legitimacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 292px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvaluation, abstraction, comparison\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMythopoesis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 258px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLegitimizing through storytelling by showing a connection to the past or future\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 292px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoral tales, cautionary tales, single determination, and overdetermination\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Research design","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Discourse analysis, broadly defined, is the study of the ways that language is organized in texts and contexts\u0026rdquo; (Barton, 2003, p. 57). Building upon this understanding, we will focus on examining the textual content of academic misconduct consulting agencies on their websites. Websites are considered a crucial platform for organizations to construct, maintain, and repair their self-image, offering audiences a comprehensive view of their services and products (Ghorbanzadeh \u0026amp; Sharbatiyan, 2022). Through this medium, we can capture in more detail how academic misconduct consulting agencies utilize discourse to legitimize themselves. Drawing on this, we used the DLA framework as a guide and employed qualitative content analysis to ultimately inductively develop a conceptual framework that explains the legitimation strategies employed by academic misconduct consulting agencies in their discourse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData collection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe employed a purposive sampling strategy to systematically identify websites of academic misconduct consulting agencies (in Mandarin), using search engines as our primary sampling tool. Given that purposive sampling is commonly used in qualitative research to ensure the selection of information-rich cases relevant to the research question (Patton 2002, p.243), this approach was deemed appropriate for investigating the online presence of such agencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecognizing that prior studies on consumer search behavior indicate users rarely navigate beyond the first page of search results (Jansen and Spink 2009), we adopted an extended sampling frame to ensure theoretical saturation. Based on established practices in digital ethnography and prior research experience (Tragantzopoulou et al., 2024), we systematically collected data from the first six pages of search results on two widely used search engines: Google, a leading international search engine, and Baidu, the dominant search engine in Mainland China. This approach allowed us to capture a more comprehensive dataset while addressing potential limitations associated with search engine ranking algorithms and regional search result discrepancies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe selected the Chinese keywords \u0026ldquo;学术不端听证会\u0026rdquo; (\u0026ldquo;academic misconduct hearing\u0026rdquo;) and \u0026ldquo;学术不端指控\u0026rdquo; (\u0026ldquo;academic misconduct allegations\u0026rdquo;) to more accurately identify academic misconduct consulting agencies\u0026rsquo; websites. Data collection was conducted from October 1 to October 4, 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure consistency in data collection and to focus on our specific research topic (academic misconduct consulting agencies as commercial organizations), we established the following exclusion criteria: (1) personal blogs (to avoid privacy violations); (2) individual articles; (3) websites that were inaccessible due to broken links, and (4) websites unrelated to our research topic. We obtained search results from both search engines using the keywords (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 263), and then screened each website based on our exclusion criteria. After screening, we compiled the results and removed any duplicates within or between the two search engines, leaving us with 11 academic misconduct consulting agencies\u0026rsquo; websites (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo collect the textual data from these websites, we utilized the \u0026ldquo;Diffbot\u0026rdquo; tool (https://app.diffbot.com/extract/) to extract text from the academic misconduct consulting agencies\u0026rsquo; websites. For websites where text extraction failed, we developed a custom script using PyCharm 2024.2.0.1 to capture the text, ultimately obtaining the complete textual data for all academic misconduct consulting agencies\u0026rsquo; websites (see Supplementary Materials). The data were converted into TXT format for analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were analyzed through the lens of DLA. In the first phase, we input all 11 texts into Nvivo 12.0, thoroughly read through the entire dataset, and then coded all instances of discursive legitimation strategies (using quantitative and qualitative content analysis). During the analysis, each instance of language was treated as a potential act of discursive legitimation (each sentence is to be encoded and numbered: for example, the third sentence in Sample 1 will be coded as \u0026ldquo;1-3\u0026rdquo;). In the second phase, we categorized the types of legitimation strategies used by academic misconduct consulting agencies based on the DLA framework, setting aside those instances that could not be clearly identified. In the third phase, we discussed the discursive elements that did not fit within the existing DLA framework, conceptualized them, and developed a framework to explain the legitimation strategies used by academic misconduct consulting agencies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur findings indicate that all four of Van Leeuwen\u0026rsquo;s discursive\u0026nbsp;legitimation strategies are employed by academic misconduct consulting agencies\u0026rsquo; websites (as illustrated in Figure 3). The most frequently used\u0026nbsp;discursive\u0026nbsp;legitimation strategies are expert authority within the authorization category and instrumental rationalization within the rationalization category, both of which were found on all 11 websites examined (100%). Following closely, moral tales under mythopoesis were also widely utilized, with 91% of the websites employing this strategy. In contrast, moralization strategies were less commonly used, with six websites (55%) employing evaluation and seven (64%) using abstraction. Theoretical rationalization was the least utilized strategy, appearing on only four websites (36%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe identified an additional type of discursive\u0026nbsp;legitimation strategy not encompassed by Van Leeuwen\u0026rsquo;s framework\u0026mdash;emotionalization. This type of discourse, sometimes observed in political texts (Chilton, 2004, p. 114\u0026ndash;116), was widely used by academic misconduct consulting agencies\u0026rsquo; websites, with nine out of 11 websites (82%) employing it. This suggests that, compared to more traditional legitimation strategies used by collaborative institutions, academic misconduct consulting agencies may adopt a more diverse and heterogeneous range of discursive legitimation strategies. To further elaborate on how these specific discursive strategies are applied, we conducted a qualitative content analysis, which will be explained in detail in the following section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMoralization: Guardians of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ea\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ecademic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003entegrity and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ea\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003edvocates for\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003etudent\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eights\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvaluation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur study shows that academic misconduct consulting agencies do not actively create moral justifications for themselves. Instead, they tend to reinforce existing values and rules related to academic integrity by using terms such as \u0026ldquo;explicit\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(明确的)\u0026nbsp;and \u0026ldquo;core\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(核心的)\u0026nbsp;to repeatedly emphasize and highlight their stance. These terms, linked to discourses on moral values, contribute to the legitimization process and construct an image of these agencies as \u0026ldquo;guardians of academic integrity.\u0026rdquo; Moreover, this moralization discourse strategy reflects that, unlike contract cheating agencies, these\u0026nbsp;agencies do not consider themselves immoral or in need of cleansing their reputation through denial (negative discourse). Rather, they employ positive discourse, using verbs like \u0026ldquo;uphold\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(坚持)\u0026nbsp;and \u0026ldquo;affirm\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(确认)\u0026nbsp;to emphasize their \u0026ldquo;self-identity.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (1)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;We consistently uphold the AIS\u0026rsquo;s ten principles: 1. Affirm that academic integrity is the core value of the institution\u0026hellip;10. Base the goals of academic integrity programs on other core values, including student self-management, inclusion, community responsibility, fundamental fairness, and intellectual virtues related to successful academic research. [7-23] (我们始终坚持AIS 10大准则：1.确认学术诚信是机构的核心价值观\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;10. 将学术诚信计划的目标作为其他核心价值观的基础，包括学生自我管理、包容、社区责任、基本公平以及与成功的学术研究相关的知识美德。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbstraction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther cases abstract their practices as a form of advocacy for student rights. As outlined on the websites of academic misconduct consulting agencies, if students lack support during hearings, they risk expulsion or even deportation. These agencies frame academic misconduct as an academic \u0026ldquo;predicament,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(困境)\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;challenge,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(难题)\u0026nbsp;or \u0026ldquo;crisis,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(危机)\u0026nbsp;using verbs such as \u0026ldquo;overcome,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(摆脱)\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;assist,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(助力)\u0026nbsp;and \u0026ldquo;resolve\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(解决)\u0026nbsp;to modify these nouns. The goal is to imply specific qualities of the\u0026nbsp;consultant\u0026nbsp;provided (protection of student rights) and to praise these actions from a value-oriented perspective, thus encouraging the process of legitimization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe provide appeal services for international students globally, genuinely resolving students\u0026rsquo; difficulties and assisting them in overcoming academic predicaments. [10-17]\u0026nbsp;(为全球留学生提供申诉服务，切实解决同学们的难题，助力同学们跳出困境。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (3)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProfessional experience in handling international students\u0026rsquo; academic crisis, and unwavering efforts to advocate for international students with fairness and justice, striving for their legitimate rights and interests. [6-24]\u0026nbsp;(处理留学生学术紧急案情的专业经验和公平公正为留学生群体发声、争取合理权益的不懈努力。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthorization: Experienced appeal experts and highly recognized educational institutions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExpert authority\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompared to previous literature (Trinh \u0026amp; Vu, 2023), we found that academic misconduct consulting agencies do not construct legitimacy by quoting intellectual megastars, or just adding their names between brackets. Instead, they establish authority and provide a source of legitimacy by emphasizing the cultural capital of their staff, portraying them as experts. This cultural capital includes: 1) academic qualifications (e.g., master\u0026rsquo;s or doctoral degrees); 2) the prestige of the institutions (graduating from top global universities); and 3) work experience (accumulated experience in appeals during academic misconduct hearings).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (4)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJenny, a Knowledge Management master\u0026rsquo;s graduate from Nanyang Technological University, specializes in appeals for UK hearings. With 6 years of experience in the international education sector, she is familiar with various educational systems and can tailor appeal letters according to the specific requirements of different countries and institutions. Her strong writing skills are demonstrated by her academic project, which received an A- grade, and she is capable of producing high-quality appeal documents. [4-8]\u0026nbsp;(Jenny，南阳理工大学知识管理硕士，擅长英国听证会\u0026hellip;等申诉，6年留学生教育行业工作经验，熟悉各国教育体制，能够根据不同国家、不同学校的不同要求来撰写申诉邮件，写作能力强，学术项目曾获得A-成绩，能够写出高质量的申诉文案。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe discursive legitimization of academic misconduct consulting agencies is detailed. Experts providing services emphasize their detailed credentials, such as expertise in law, education, and management (highlighting their familiarity with the procedures of academic misconduct hearings or their ability to design rebuttal evidence chains for students). Some cases even highlight the experts\u0026rsquo; personal traits, such as meticulousness\u0026nbsp;(思维缜密)\u0026nbsp;and keen insight\u0026nbsp;(敏锐). This suggests that academic misconduct consulting agencies, which operate in a morally ambiguous space, tend to emphasize the identity of experts in their legitimization strategies, as it appears more persuasive and trustworthy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInstitutional Authority\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn establishing institutional authority, academic misconduct consulting agencies do not rely on strategies such as quoting or paraphrasing authoritative sources. Instead, they employ discourse to transfer symbolic capital. For example, some agencies legitimize their services by emphasizing membership in official associations or by highlighting accreditation from recognized bodies. Others use more ambiguous phrases like \u0026ldquo;media endorsement\u0026nbsp;(媒体认可),\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;industry expertise\u0026nbsp;(业内实力),\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;certified credentials\u0026nbsp;(资质认证)\u0026rdquo; as rhetorical devices. Although these terms lack specificity, using such labels helps shape students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the\u0026nbsp;agencies\u0026rsquo; professionalism and authority, thus serving as a discursive resource for legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (5)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJU is a certified member of the National Career Development Association (NCDA) in the United States\u0026hellip;as an educator, has the capability to inspire and enhance the personal skills of its student clients. [3-57]\u0026nbsp;(JU是美国职业生涯发展协会（NCDA）认证会员\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;作为教育者，有实力激励和提升学生客户个人能力。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRationalization: Shaping an exceptionally high success rate for appeals and emphasizing the critical timing for rebuttals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInstrumental rationalization\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmphasizing effect-oriented strategies is another way that academic misconduct consulting agencies seek to gain legitimacy. This orientation aligns with philosophical traditions such as utilitarianism and pragmatism, which define truth in terms of practical usefulness. By highlighting the effectiveness of their actions (appealing to academic misconduct hearings), these agencies advance their legitimacy. In specific cases, we found that academic misconduct consulting agencies often stress how appeal outcomes can help students avoid academic crises before hearings. This focus on outcome effectiveness is typically expressed with verbs like \u0026ldquo;avoid (避免),\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;reduce (减少),\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;eliminate (消除),\u0026rdquo; paired with nouns such as \u0026ldquo;punishment (惩罚),\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;expulsion (开除),\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;consequences (影响).\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;Additionally, all academic misconduct consulting agencies enhance the perceived effectiveness of their action outcomes by providing internal evidence, such as highlighting high appeal success rates, which further promotes their legitimacy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (6)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimulating hearing scenarios and mock interviews with school staff to maximize the reduction or elimination of punishments. [3-16]\u0026nbsp;(模拟听证会现场，模拟学校老师约谈，最大程度降低或消除处分。）\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (7)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver 10,000 cases handled in the U.S. and Canada, with a 100% success rate in crisis management. [5-8]\u0026nbsp;(美国、加拿大10,000+累计服务案例，100%危机处理成功率。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheoretical rationalization\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe observe that only a small number of academic misconduct consulting agencies adopt theoretical rationalization as a discursive strategy to establish their legitimacy. In these cases, such platforms do not legitimize their services by directly defining what they offer. Instead, they focus on describing the actors involved in these practices (i.e., students) to construct their own legitimacy. These services often frame the question of \u0026ldquo;why choose academic misconduct consultant\u0026rdquo; by emphasizing that specific actions taken by students, such as filing an appeal during academic misconduct hearings, are considered \u0026ldquo;appropriate\u0026rdquo; for their position as students. Based on this reasoning, they underscore the importance of seizing the opportunity to appeal and the professional expertise required in the appeals process, thereby implicitly suggesting the legitimacy of seeking academic misconduct consultant services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (8)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnce a disciplinary decision is issued, the school will provide appeal options in the formal notice, such as scheduling an interview within a specified timeframe, submitting an appeal letter, or attending a hearing. Therefore, it\u0026apos;s crucial to seize these appeal opportunities. [11-33]\u0026nbsp;(处分下达，学校会在正式通知里提供appeal申诉的选择，比如在规定时间内面谈、提交上诉信申诉信或参加听证会等，因此一定要抓住申诉的机会。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMythopoesis:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;hero\u0026rdquo; who turns the tide and the \u0026ldquo;director\u0026rdquo; who orchestrates the dire outcome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMoral tales\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStorytelling is the most common discursive legitimation strategy employed by academic misconduct consulting agencies. Moral tales in particular are constructed around protagonists engaged in legitimate social practices or in the restoration of institutional order (van Leeuwen, 2007, p.105). These agencies frequently portray students as facing academic \u0026ldquo;crises\u0026rdquo; and frame their own services as essential interventions to resolve such situations. By narrating successful outcomes, such as helping students avoid expulsion or overturn disciplinary decisions, they position themselves as supportive actors who guide students through institutional processes. Through these narratives, academic misconduct consulting agencies frame themselves as \u0026ldquo;heroes\u0026rdquo; advocating for students\u0026rsquo; rights and academic futures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (9)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent X, a Chinese student, pursued an undergraduate degree at the University of Warwick. After graduating, she returned to her home country. However, a few months after graduation, she faced an unprecedented academic integrity appeal crisis... The professor accused Student X of using AI technology in her assignment... Our professional team engaged in in-depth communication with Student X, learning about her situation and the case details. The student candidly admitted to using AI technology in her assignment... We guided her through the process of developing an explanation strategy... In the end, Student X was acquitted, receiving no administrative penalties or grade deductions. [7-34, 39, 44]\u0026nbsp;(学生X是一位来自中国的学生，曾在华威大学攻读本科学位。毕业后，她回到了祖国，然而，在毕业后的几个月里，她突然面临了一场前所未有的学术诚信申诉之困\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;教授认为X同学在作业中使用了AI技术进行写作\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;我们的专业团队与X同学展开了深入的沟通，了解她的情况和案件细节。学生坦诚承认在作业中使用了AI技术\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;我们带领X同学展开了解释策略的制定\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;X同学被判无罪，没有受到任何行政处罚，也没有扣分。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCautionary tales\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother discursive legitimation strategy employed by academic misconduct consulting agencies to legitimize their services is the use of cautionary tales, which emphasize the severe consequences of not utilizing these services. We found that such agencies often center their tales around a student who has committed academic misconduct. Through a case review, they recount the process by which this (anonymous) student engaged in academic misconduct, subsequently revealing the student\u0026rsquo;s disastrous outcome (such as expulsion, loss of visa, or even loss of immigration status). On this basis, the academic misconduct consulting agencies attribute the student\u0026rsquo;s downfall to missing the opportunity to submit an appeal on time, thereby implying that their services are essential for mitigating academic crises, further enhancing their legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (10)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent S maintained excellent academic performance throughout their years of study abroad, until a family crisis severely affected their studies. In an attempt to complete an assignment, Student S plagiarized online content, which was reported by their professor. However, due to missing the deadline to appeal at the hearing, Student S was ultimately expelled from the university, lost their student status, and subsequently lost their visa. [5-31]\u0026nbsp;(S同学留学的这几年一直保持良好的成绩，直到家庭发生了变故导致S的学习受到严重影响，为了完成作业，S同学在一次作业中抄袭了网上的内容，被老师举报。但由于S同学错过了听证会的申诉时机，最终被学校开除， 不仅退学还失去了签证。)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdditional findings: Emotionalization as a discursive strategy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have identified a category of discursive legitimation strategies that falls outside the established theoretical framework and has not yet been mentioned in similar literature. This strategy, while sharing similarities with the mythopoesis of cautionary tales (in that it emphasizes terrible consequences for students), does not involve constructing a narrative or setting up a protagonist. Typically, this strategy appears on the landing pages of academic misconduct consulting agencies\u0026rsquo; websites. After further discussion, we classified this as \u0026ldquo;emotionalization.\u0026rdquo; Specifically, social actors use discourse to evoke various emotions, triggering psychological reactions in the audience. This is often achieved through discourse mechanisms that construct and demonize an \u0026ldquo;enemy\u0026rdquo; or an \u0026ldquo;other.\u0026rdquo; This process involves two key elements: 1) Nomination Strategies: Using specific linguistic labels to identify the \u0026ldquo;other\u0026rdquo; and describe what they are. 2) Argumentative Strategies: Emphasizing what the \u0026ldquo;other\u0026rdquo; does through descriptions of their actions (Reyes, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn our case, academic misconduct consulting agencies typically present two choices: \u0026ldquo;passively accept your fate\u0026nbsp;(躺平)\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;actively appeal\u0026nbsp;(积极申诉),\u0026rdquo; thus creating a clear binary opposition. The option of \u0026ldquo;passively accept your fate\u0026rdquo; is framed in a highly negative and threatening light. This can be understood as a nomination strategy, where \u0026ldquo;passively accept your fate\u0026rdquo; is labeled as a negative and passive response. Additionally, these agencies often highlight the consequences of choosing to \u0026ldquo;passively accept,\u0026rdquo; such as \u0026ldquo;facing academic sanctions,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;having a permanent stain on your academic record,\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;being deported.\u0026rdquo; These are descriptions of specific actions and their negative outcomes. Such consequences serve as argumentative strategies that list a series of material processes (i.e., real-world negative consequences) to amplify fear, making the choice to \u0026ldquo;actively appeal\u0026rdquo; seem like the only rational option. This approach effectively leverages fear to capture the students\u0026rsquo; attention and legitimizes the necessity of seeking consultant services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (11)\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Faced with an academic crisis, do you choose to passively accept your fate or actively appeal? If you passively accept, you will face academic penalties, have a permanent stain on your academic record, lose the chance to remedy your failing grade, lower your GPA, be unable to graduate on time, and potentially be deported. You may not complete your degree as planned, affecting your future plans, and end up with only a diploma, with your foreign degree unrecognized. [10-4] (遇到学业危机 你选择躺平认命还是积极申诉？躺平认命，受到学校处罚，学习档案留下污点，挂科后没有补救机会，拉低GPA，无法顺利毕业，被迫遣返回国，难在预计时间毕业，影响后续规划，只有Diploma，留学学历不被承认。)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides one of the first empirical analyses of how academic misconduct consulting agencies discursively construct their legitimacy within the landscape of global higher education. Drawing on the DLA framework and extending it through the newly identified category of emotionalization, our findings reveal that these agencies employ a range of rhetorical strategies, including moralization, authorization, rationalization, mythopoesis, and emotionalization, to present themselves as professional, necessary, and student-centered. Importantly, while their services, such as assisting with appeals and guiding students through misconduct procedures, are not explicitly banned by most institutional policies, our study does not aim to determine whether such actions violate formal regulations. Rather, we explore how these agencies narrate their roles and justify their presence in ethically and procedurally unsettled contexts. Our key contribution lies in developing a refined framework of legitimation strategies tailored to the context of academic misconduct consulting, offering both conceptual extension to existing DLA framework and empirical insight into a previously underexplored domain of academic integrity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnlike contract cheating providers, whose discursive strategies often revolve around stigma deflection and moral distancing (Crook \u0026amp; Nixon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Chen \u0026amp; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), academic misconduct consulting agencies do not deny or neutralize wrongdoing. Rather, they emphasize their alignment with institutional values and portray themselves as cultural and procedural mediators. In doing so, they sidestep moral condemnation and instead claim moral authority by affirming shared norms such as academic integrity, student wellbeing, and procedural fairness. This aligns with emerging work on educational commercialization that suggests not all market actors seek legitimacy by rejecting norms; some instead seek inclusion within the normative order (Verelst et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur analysis shows that among the five legitimation strategies observed (moralization, authorization, rationalization, mythopoesis, and emotionalization), authorization (specifically, expert authority) and instrumental rationalization were the most frequently employed. This suggests that these agencies foreground both the cultural capital of their consultants (e.g., academic credentials, institutional affiliations) and the effectiveness of their services (e.g., high success rates, tailored appeal strategies) as key sources of credibility. In this regard, the legitimation strategies used by academic misconduct consulting agencies differ from those described in studies of contract cheating (Medway et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Sivasubramaniam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), where anonymity, client vulnerability, and moral ambiguity often dominate the discursive landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA particularly novel contribution of this study is the identification of emotionalization as a distinct strategy of legitimation. This strategy does not rely on narrative resolution or moral coherence, as seen in mythopoesis, but instead mobilizes fear, urgency, and binary framings (e.g., \u0026ldquo;appeal or be expelled\u0026rdquo;) to influence student decision-making. While affective rhetoric has been observed in political and crisis communication (Hoggett \u0026amp; Thompson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), its function in academic service marketing remains under-theorized. We suggest that emotionalization in this context operates as a form of affective governance (Protevi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), wherein emotional reactions are channeled to justify action, particularly under conditions of uncertainty and asymmetry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo integrate these findings, we propose a DLA framework tailored to academic misconduct consulting agencies (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This framework expands Van Leeuwen\u0026rsquo;s typology by mapping five macro-strategies (moralization, authorization, rationalization, mythopoesis, and emotionalization) onto specific rhetorical tactics such as expert authority, moral tales, and amplifying fear. Together, these strategies shape how these agencies construct themselves as professional, authoritative, and necessary in the context of international higher education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy identifying and naming these discursive strategies, our framework helps clarify how academic misconduct consulting agencies construct an appearance of professionalism, necessity, and alignment with institutional values. Rather than labeling such services as inherently unethical or wholly acceptable, we argue for a more nuanced understanding of how they gain legitimacy in loosely regulated spaces. This issue is particularly important for international students, who often lack familiarity with local academic norms, face linguistic and cultural barriers, and are especially vulnerable during misconduct investigations. These conditions make them more likely to perceive such agencies as legitimate sources of help.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study offers the first empirical examination of how academic misconduct consulting agencies discursively construct legitimacy in a transnational higher education context. Moving beyond the stigma-deflection strategies identified in contract cheating literature, we reveal that these agencies employ a broader repertoire of legitimation strategies: including moralization, authorization, rationalization, mythologization, and emotionalization. By applying and extending the DLA framework, we propose a refined framework that captures the symbolic and affective labor these agencies perform to gain trust and institutional alignment. Rather than breaking academic rules, these agencies build their legitimacy by highlighting their professional background, alignment with academic values, and understanding of university procedures. They operate in areas where policies are unclear but not explicitly regulated. Our findings contribute to scholarship on academic integrity and the commercialization of higher education by identifying new rhetorical mechanisms used by emerging actors in ethically unsettled domains.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has two key limitations. First, the sample size is small due to the limited online visibility of academic misconduct consulting agencies, which remain an emerging phenomenon. Future studies may adopt web scraping or multilingual search techniques to access a broader dataset. Second, while our analysis focuses on discursive legitimacy, it does not make ethical evaluations. Further research from applied ethics or policy perspectives could assess the moral boundaries of such services. Looking ahead, future research should examine the sociocultural underpinnings of these agencies. Drawing on sociocultural theory (Lantolf \u0026amp; Thorne, 2006) and academic integrity literature (McCabe et al., 2001), scholars could explore how language, cultural context, and institutional environments shape the agencies\u0026rsquo; legitimation strategies. Comparative cross-national analyses and discourse-linguistic methods may reveal regional variations and adaptation mechanisms. Such work would deepen our understanding of how these actors navigate diverse academic systems, contributing to global conversations on the commercialization and governance of academic integrity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclosure statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo potential conflicts of interest was reported by the author(s).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of theauthors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdam John Privitera. (2023). Is there a foreign language effect on academic integrity? \u003cem\u003eHigher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e, 609\u0026ndash;626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01134-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAitchison, C., \u0026amp; Mowbray, S. (2015). Doctoral writing markets: Exploring the grey zone. In T. Bretag (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Academic Integrity\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 297\u0026ndash;301). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_39-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmigud, A., \u0026amp; Lancaster, T. (2019). 246 reasons to cheat: An analysis of students\u0026rsquo; reasons for seeking to outsource academic work. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e134\u003c/em\u003e(1), 98\u0026ndash;107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.017\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarton, E. (2003). Linguistic discourse analysis: How the language in texts works. In C. Bazerman \u0026amp; P. Prior (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eWhat Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices\u003c/em\u003e (p. 57). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609526-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., Green, M., Partridge, L., \u0026amp; James, C. (2013). \u0026ldquo;Teach us how to do it properly!\u0026rdquo; An Australian academic integrity student survey. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1150\u0026ndash;1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777406\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBricault, D. (2007). Legal bases for dealing with academic dishonesty. \u003cem\u003eCollege and University\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(4), 15\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCarmichael, J. J., \u0026amp; Eaton, S. E. (2023). Admissions fraud in Canadian higher education. In S. E. Eaton, J. J. Carmichael, \u0026amp; H. Pethrick (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eFake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 23\u0026ndash;48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21796-8_2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCenter for China \u0026amp; Globalization. (2024). \u003cem\u003eThe development of Chinese students studying abroad (2023-2024)\u003c/em\u003e. Center for China \u0026amp; Globalization. http://www.ccg.org.cn/archives/84288\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, K. H., \u0026amp; Liu, J. C. (2024). Overcoming stigma: How academic ghostwriting companies neutralize their services in Chinese and English markets. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e, 1255\u0026ndash;1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01168-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChilton, P. A. (2004). \u003cem\u003eAnalysing political discourse: Theory and practice\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 114\u0026ndash;116). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eContreras, A., \u0026amp; Gollin, G. (2009). The real and the fake degree and diploma mills. \u003cem\u003eChange: The Magazine of Higher Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 36\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.3200/chng.41.2.36-43\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCrook, C., \u0026amp; Nixon, E. (2021). How internet essay mill websites portray the student experience of higher education. \u003cem\u003eThe Internet and Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 100775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100775\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCurtis, G. J. (2023). Contract cheating: Introduction. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Academic Integrity\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_108-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCurtis, G. J., \u0026amp; Clare, J. (2017). How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Academic Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 115\u0026ndash;124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9278-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDenisova-Schmidt, E. (2024). Academic integrity and international students: An inclusive approach. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eSecond Handbook of Academic Integrity\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1187\u0026ndash;1200). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_130\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDu, Q. (2018). Research on the construction of academic integrity system in Chinese colleges and universities. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e290\u003c/em\u003e, 238\u0026ndash;240. https://doi.org/10.2991/icedem-18.2018.60\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEaton, S. E., Chibry, N., Toye, M. A., \u0026amp; Rossi, S. (2019). Interinstitutional perspectives on contract cheating: A qualitative narrative exploration from Canada. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Educational Integrity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0046-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFatemi, G., \u0026amp; Saito, E. (2019). Unintentional plagiarism and academic integrity: The challenges and needs of postgraduate international students in Australia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Further and Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2019.1683521\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGhorbanzadeh, D., \u0026amp; Sharbatiyan, M. (2022). The role of website features in creating value co-creation behaviors and enhancing the brand image and reputation of higher education institutions. \u003cem\u003eInteractive Technology and Smart Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-12-2021-0225\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGow, S., \u0026amp; Sun, Q. (2024). Academic integrity in China: Challenges for policy, practice, and quality assurance in higher education. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eSecond Handbook of Academic Integrity\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 975\u0026ndash;999). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_175\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGustafson, B. M., \u0026amp; Pomirleanu, N. (2021). A discursive framework of B2B brand legitimacy. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial Marketing Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e93\u003c/em\u003e, 22\u0026ndash;31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.009\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHe, C., Xu, J., \u0026amp; Zhou, L. (2023). Understanding China\u0026rsquo;s construction of an academic integrity system: A grounded theory study on national level policies. \u003cem\u003eLearned Publishing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 217\u0026ndash;238. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1540\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHoggett, P., \u0026amp; Thompson, S. (2012). \u003cem\u003ePolitics and the emotions\u003c/em\u003e. Bloomsbury Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHu, Z., \u0026amp; Wu, Y. (2013). An empirical analysis on number and monetary value of ghostwritten papers in China. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e105\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1230\u0026ndash;1234. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24098932\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJansen, B. J., \u0026amp; Spink, A. (2009). Investigating customer click through behaviour with integrated sponsored and nonsponsored results. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1/2), 74. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijima.2009.021951\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJian, H., Marion, R., \u0026amp; Wang, W. (2018). Academic integrity from China to the United States: The acculturation process for Chinese graduate students in the United States. \u003cem\u003eEthics \u0026amp; Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51\u0026ndash;70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1468760\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJiang, H., \u0026amp; Xue, Y. (2021). Perceptions of faculty leadership in university governance: A case study. \u003cem\u003eChinese Education \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(5-6), 207\u0026ndash;221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2021.1990626\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKezar, A. (2008). Universities in the marketplace, academic capitalism, remaking the American university: Market smart and mission centered. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(4), 473\u0026ndash;481. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772111\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKezar, A., \u0026amp; Bernstein-Sierra, S. (2024). Commercialization of higher education. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eSpringer International Handbooks of Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1867\u0026ndash;1887). Springer Nature (Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_59\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLancaster, T. (2020). Academic discipline integration by contract cheating services and essay mills. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Academic Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e, 115\u0026ndash;127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09357-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLantolf, J., \u0026amp; Thorne, S. L. (2006). \u003cem\u003eSociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, T., \u0026amp; Wu, Y. (2016). Pragmatism in China - Chinese pragmatism. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Humanity, Education and Social Science\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.2991/ichess-16.2016.9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, X., Zhao, J., \u0026amp; Yan, W. (2022). Integrity levels of Chinese college students: An analysis of influencing factors. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.843674\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMa, Y., McCabe, D. L., \u0026amp; Liu, R. (2013). Students\u0026rsquo; academic cheating in Chinese universities: Prevalence, influencing factors, and proposed action. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Academic Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 169\u0026ndash;184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9186-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., \u0026amp; Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. \u003cem\u003eEthics \u0026amp; Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 219\u0026ndash;232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1103_2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMedway, D., Roper, S., \u0026amp; Gillooly, L. (2018). Contract cheating in UK higher education: A covert investigation of essay mills. \u003cem\u003eBritish Educational Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 393\u0026ndash;418. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3335\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMiron, J., McKenzie, A., Eaton, S. E., Stoesz, B., Thacker, E., Devereaux, L., Persaud, N., Steeves, M., \u0026amp; Rowbotham, K. (2021). Academic integrity policy analysis of publicly-funded universities in Ontario, Canada: A focus on contract cheating. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e197\u003c/em\u003e, 62\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.7202/1083333ar\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMok, K. H., Ke, G., \u0026amp; Tian, Z. (2018). Massification and privatization of higher education in East Asia. In W. O. Lee, P. Brown, A. L. Goodwin, \u0026amp; A. Green (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Development\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 44\u0026ndash;51). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.02.003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMu, D., \u0026amp; Chen, A. (2017). Academic hegemony: The academic corruption tacitly permitted by China seeing from the major research plan. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Safety and Crisis Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 29\u0026ndash;32. https://doi.org/10.14251/jscm.2017.1.29\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOrr, J. E., \u0026amp; Orr, K. (2021). Restoring honor and integrity through integrating restorative practices in academic integrity with student leaders. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Academic Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e, 55\u0026ndash;70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09437-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOsipian, A. L. (2012). Grey areas in the higher education sector: Legality versus corruptibility. \u003cem\u003eBrigham Young University Education and Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2012\u003c/em\u003e(1), 141\u0026ndash;190. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2012/iss1/6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePan, M., Stiles, B. L., Tempelmeyer, T. C., \u0026amp; Wong, N. (2019). A cross-cultural exploration of academic dishonesty: Current challenges, preventive measures, and future directions. In \u003cem\u003ePrevention and Detection of Academic Misconduct in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 63\u0026ndash;82). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7531-3.ch003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatton, M. Q. (2002). \u003cem\u003eQualitative research and evaluation methods\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed., p. 243). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eProtevi, J. (2009). \u003cem\u003ePolitical affect: Connecting the social and the somatic\u003c/em\u003e. University Of Minnesota Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(6), 781\u0026ndash;807.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRowland, S., Slade, C., Wong, K.-S., \u0026amp; Whiting, B. (2017). \u0026ldquo;Just turn to us\u0026rdquo;: The persuasive features of contract cheating websites. \u003cem\u003eAssessment \u0026amp; Evaluation in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 652\u0026ndash;665. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1391948\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSanni-Anibire, H., Stoesz, B. M., Gervais, L., \u0026amp; Vogt, L. (2021). International students\u0026rsquo; knowledge and emotions related to academic integrity at Canadian postsecondary institutions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Educational Integrity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00088-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSantos-d\u0026rsquo;Amorim, K., Wang, T., Lund, B., \u0026amp; Macedo Dos Santos, R. N. (2022). From plagiarism to scientific paper mills: A profile of retracted articles within the Sicelo Brazil collection. \u003cem\u003eEthics \u0026amp; Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2141747\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShafaei, A., Nejati, M., Quazi, A., \u0026amp; von der Heidt, T. (2015). \u0026ldquo;When in Rome, do as the Romans do\u0026rdquo; Do international students\u0026rsquo; acculturation attitudes impact their ethical academic conduct?. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e71\u003c/em\u003e(5), 651\u0026ndash;666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9928-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSivasubramaniam, S., Kostelidou, K., \u0026amp; Ramachandran, S. (2016). A close encounter with ghost-writers: An initial exploration study on background, strategies and attitudes of independent essay providers. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Educational Integrity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0007-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSlaughter, S., \u0026amp; Rhoades, G. (2009). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. In \u003cem\u003eJohns Hopkins University Press eBooks\u003c/em\u003e. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.56021/9780801879494\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSuchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 574. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTragantzopoulou, P., Fixsen, A., Ridge, D., \u0026amp; Cheshire, A. (2024). \u0026ldquo;You are not alone, we\u0026rsquo;ve got you\u0026rdquo;: Power plays, devotion, and punishment on healthy eating and pro-eating disorder websites. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Health Research\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241238628\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTrinh, M. H., \u0026amp; Vu, T. A. (2023). Nationalism in discursive legitimation: An analysis of the Vietnamese communist party\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;bamboo diplomacy\u0026rdquo; discourse on digital journalism. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(3), 381\u0026ndash;400. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265231217063\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVaara, E., Tienari, J., \u0026amp; Laurila, J. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(6), 789\u0026ndash;813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606061071\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003evan Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse \u0026amp; Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 94\u0026ndash;112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003evan Leeuwen, T., \u0026amp; Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83\u0026ndash;118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001001005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVerelst, S., Simons, M., \u0026amp; Berghmans, M. (2024). The play of education and market: A literature review on the roles commercial actors play for K-12 education. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Futures in Education\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241240238\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWashburn, J. (2008). \u003cem\u003eUniversity, inc: The corporate corruption of higher education\u003c/em\u003e. Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, R. (2014). China\u0026rsquo;s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers of Education in China\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 151\u0026ndash;162. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03397011\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZENMO LAW. (2025, July 25). \u003cem\u003eZenmo academic integrity\u003c/em\u003e. ZENMO LAW. https://reurl.cc/VW1XVQ\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, Y. (2023). Academic cheating as planned behavior: the effects of perceived behavioral control and individualism-collectivism orientations. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e, 567\u0026ndash;590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01024-w\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, Y. (2024). Who should be held accountable? An analysis of academic misconduct cases in Chinese higher education and the challenges of the transformative process. \u003cem\u003eRegion - Educational Research and Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(5), 144. https://doi.org/10.32629/rerr.v6i5.2164\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, Y., \u0026amp; Ni, F. (2024). Approaches to learning and contract cheating: Exploring the mediating roles of authorship perceptions. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2352055\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZou, Q., Ma, J., \u0026amp; Sheng, X. (2019). A survey of medical ghostwriting in China. \u003cem\u003eLearned Publishing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 325\u0026ndash;334. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1256\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Academic integrity, academic misconduct, discursive legitimation strategies, contract cheating, ghostwriting, academic agencies, higher education, China","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7234434/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7234434/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWhile academic integrity research has extensively examined issues like contract cheating and ghostwriting, less attention has been given to commercial services that operate in ethically uncertain but legally unregulated spaces. This study focuses on academic misconduct consulting agencies based in Mainland China that assist Chinese international students in preparing appeals and defenses during academic misconduct hearings. Despite growing visibility, these agencies remain underexplored in the literature. Drawing on Van Leeuwen\u0026rsquo;s Discursive Legitimacy Analysis framework and extending it with the concept of emotionalization, we conducted a qualitative analysis of website content from 11 such agencies. Our findings reveal that, unlike contract cheating providers who often rely on stigma-deflection strategies, these agencies use a wider range of discursive tactics to establish credibility. These include moralization (emphasizing ethical alignment), authorization (citing professional expertise), rationalization (stressing procedural effectiveness), mythopoesis (sharing illustrative case stories), and emotionalization (using affective language to convey urgency and risk). By presenting themselves as experienced and trustworthy actors, these agencies frame their services as both legitimate and essential for students navigating complex academic procedures abroad. This study contributes to the field of academic integrity by identifying how commercial actors discursively construct legitimacy in spaces where policy guidance is limited. It also invites further inquiry into the implications of such services for academic governance and international student support.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Discursive legitimation strategies of academic misconduct consulting agencies in Mainland China","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-30 08:15:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7234434/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"47222bf5-34e2-48bf-bc3e-3ba90b6a7caa","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":52237088,"name":"Educational Philosophy and Theory"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-30T08:15:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-30 08:15:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7234434","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7234434","identity":"rs-7234434","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}