7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGE\>'REVRQ,DQ5@
2Q-DQXDU\
$FFHVVGHWDLOV$FFHVV'HWDLOV>VXEVFULSWLRQQXPEHU@
3XEOLVKHU5RXWOHGJH
,QIRUPD/WG5HJLVWHUHGLQ(QJODQGDQG:DOHV5HJLVWHUHG1XPEHU5HJLVWHUHGRIILFH0RUWLPHU+RXVH
0RUWLPHU6WUHHW/RQGRQ:7-+8.
-RXUQDORI+LJKHU(GXFDWLRQ3ROLF\DQG0DQDJHPHQW
3XEOLFDWLRQGHWDLOVLQFOXGLQJLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUDXWKRUVDQGVXEVFULSWLRQLQIRUPDWLRQ
KWWSZZZLQIRUPDZRUOGFRPVPSSWLWOHaFRQWHQW W
5HWULEXWLRQGHWHUUHQFHDQGUHIRUPWKHGLOHPPDVRISODJLDULVP
PDQDJHPHQWLQXQLYHUVLWLHV
:HQG\6XWKHUODQG6PLWKD
D
)DFXOW\RI(GXFDWLRQ0RQDVK8QLYHUVLW\&KXUFKLOO$XVWUDOLD
2QOLQHSXEOLFDWLRQGDWH-DQXDU\
7RFLWHWKLV$UWLFOH6XWKHUODQG6PLWK:HQG\
5HWULEXWLRQGHWHUUHQFHDQGUHIRUPWKHGLOHPPDVRISODJLDULVP
PDQDJHPHQWLQXQLYHUVLWLHV
-RXUQDORI+LJKHU(GXFDWLRQ3ROLF\DQG0DQDJHPHQW٢
7ROLQNWRWKLV$UWLFOH'2,
85/KWWSG[GRLRUJ
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Vol. 32, No. 1, February 2010, 5––16
Retribution, deterrence and reform: the dilemmas of plagiarism
management in universities
1469-9508
1360-080X
CJHE
Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management
Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, Nov 2009: pp. 0––0
Wendy Sutherland-Smith*
Journal
W.
Sutherland-Smith
of Higher Education Policy and Management
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Churchill, Australia
Universities face constant scrutiny about their plagiarism management strategies,
policies and procedures. A resounding theme, usually media inspired, is that plagiarism
is rife, unstoppable and university processes are ineffectual in its wake. This has been
referred to as a ‘‘moral panic’’ approach (Carroll & Sutherland-Smith, forthcoming;
Clegg, 2007) and suggests plagiarism will thwart all efforts to reclaim academic integrity
in higher education. However, revisiting the origins of plagiarism and exploring its
legal evolution reveals that legal discourse is the foundation for many plagiarism
management policies and processes around the world. Interestingly, criminal justice
aims are also reflected in university plagiarism management strategies. Although
universities strive for deterrence of plagiarism in a variety of ways, the media most
often calls for retribution through increasingly tougher penalties. However, a primary
aim of the justice system, sustainable reform, is not often reported in the media or visible
in university policies or processes. Using critical discourse analysis, this paper examines
the disjunction between media calls for increased retribution in the wake of moral
panic and institutional responses to plagiarism. I argue that many universities have not
yet moved to sustainable reform in plagiarism management.
Keywords: criminal law; critical discourse analysis; media discourse; plagiarism
management; reform; retribution; sustainability; university policy and process
The discourse of plagiarism
Plagiarism is not a recent phenomenon. In England in the 1500s, literary writers and poets
were protesting their loss of ownership over the ‘‘original’’ works they created, as once the
texts were produced and disseminated the rights of the work passed to the commissioning
patron. At this time, the courts of England witnessed a series of legal battles during which
the creators of literary works argued that their intellectual labour warranted legal protection
in the form of proprietary rights (Rose, 1993; Sutherland-Smith, 2008).
As a result, the copyright laws of England were born in the Statute of Anne in 1710.
Although the English Statute of Anne (1710) did not protect authors per se, it is important
because it legally recognised the idea of literary property or authorial ownership over texts
(Sutherland-Smith, 2008). Indeed, the legislation regards the creator of the work as the
father or begetter of the work and the work itself as the child. With the concept that works
could be owned by their creator, came the notion that any use of the author’’s work should
be attributed to the originator of the work. Failure to do so was likened to kidnapping the
words or ideas of the author. The analogy is clear –– taking the words or ideas of another
*Email: wendy.sutherland-smith@education.monash.edu.au
ISSN 1360-080X print/ISSN 1469-9508 online © 2010 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the
L H Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management
DOI: 10.1080/13600800903440519
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
6
W. Sutherland-Smith
without attribution is similar to kidnapping the child of another. Plagiarism, as an offence
in law, emerged.
It is of particular note that plagiarism is most often described as an act of misconduct
or an offence by institutions such as universities or publishing companies. When writers
like Dan Brown, author of The DaVinci Code, are accused of plagiarism, the legal right to
sue accompanies the accusation and formal court hearings usually follow. Similarly, the
construction of plagiarism policies and processes in many universities indicates that legal
notions of plagiarism are embedded in the discourse. The act of plagiarism is described as
an ‘‘offence’’ and procedures laid out in policies follow the processes of legal hearings, during
which evidence is presented, weighed, a decision made and consequences follow the
decision. Sometimes rights to ‘‘appeal’’ are also laid out in policy, as they are in court
procedures. The key point is that institutional discourse surrounding plagiarism in universities
is founded in the language of law. What needs to be questioned is the limited action such
textual construction can have on the vision of appropriate or possible ways to manage
plagiarism.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) allows written texts, such as plagiarism policies and
media reports, to be interrogated in order that textual meanings can be explored. Fairclough’’s (1992) model of critical discourse analysis is useful as the inter-relationships
between the policy, discursive and social practice domains, such as university and broad
public spheres, can be examined. The model provides a framework to understand the often
unconscious shaping of people ‘‘by social structures, relations of power and the nature of
the social practice they are engaged in’’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 72). For example, using
CDA theory, Tim Atkinson (2008) studied the language of university mission statements
from the viewpoint of ‘‘discursive institutionalism’’ to analyse the ways in which ‘‘actors
use language and symbols to structure their environments through ‘‘discourse practices’’’’
(2008, p. 361). His research indicates that higher education institutions need to question
their ‘‘static cultural––cognitive patterns’’ and critique whether they serve ‘‘to promote
higher education ideology or work against discourse that promotes organizational change
and evolution’’ (Atkinson, 2008, p. 361). He concluded that university mission statements
are ‘‘symbolic representations of our connections to the universal academic community’’
(p. 385), through a discursive ‘‘set of shared beliefs on an institutional scale’’ (p. 383).
Similarly, this paper, through critical discourse analysis, scrutinises the discourse of university plagiarism policies and media interpretations of university plagiarism, to question
such ‘‘static cultural’’ interpretations of the phenomenon.
Methodology
The language of university policies and the media’’s reporting of plagiarism are examined
using CDA as a theoretical framework. Specifically, the discourse contained in plagiarism
policies in six universities, representing three different national categories, is analysed: the
Group of 8 (Australia), the Russell Group (United Kingdom) and the Ivy League (United
States of America). Universities listed in each national category were then compared
against the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) world rankings for the top 200
universities worldwide from 2007 to 2008. Using THES rankings, the top six universities
for each category were selected as representative of the category, as each of the six universities
is recognised internationally as a high-quality, world-ranked institution with a reputation
for academic excellence (see Appendix 1 for a full list of such institutions). These institutions have a vested interest in maintaining international public confidence that they are
seats of learning in which academic integrity is valued and upheld.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
7
Table 1. Range of outcomes available if plagiarism is proven.
No. of universities with this outcome
n = 16
n = 14
n = 18
n = 18
n = 15
n = 11
n = 13
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
n = 17
n = 14
Outcome specified by the university policy
Reprimand the student (sometimes with requirements that
the student complete plagiarism avoidance workshops,
seminars or online tutorial help)
Fine the student a monetary amount
Fail the student in the particular assessment piece to which
the academic misconduct relates
Fail the student in the unit to which the academic
misconduct relates
Fail the student in all academic units for the academic year
Suspension or cancellation of any university scholarships,
bursaries or awards granted to the student
Suspend the student from study for a period (usually not
exceeding 12 months)
Expel the student from the university
Rescind any degree granted to the student or downgrade a
degree (e.g. from Honours to Pass)
The eighteen plagiarism policies were accessed through each institution’’s public website,
including any details about plagiarism management processes and penalties. Policies were
downloaded and analysed using critical discourse analysis theory (Fairclough, 1992;
1995). Individual words used to define plagiarism, describe university approaches to managing plagiarism and the range of ‘‘outcomes’’ available were tabled and compared
(Appendix 2; Table 1). In addition, 164 media reports on plagiarism from the higher
education sections of two Australian national newspapers, The Age and The Australian,
from 2004 to 2008 were also collated and the language used to describe plagiarism
(Appendix 3) was analysed. The purpose of such analysis was to gain understanding of the
ways in which the media portrayed plagiarism and academic misconduct in tertiary institutions to the general public over a period of time. Such comparison affords a broader
perspective of the contextual and social domains in which plagiarism policies are seen to
operate, therefore helping to understand the public perceptions of university performance
in managing academic integrity issues such as plagiarism.
University contextualisation of plagiarism
All 18 universities in the study have consistently located plagiarism in disciplinary or
academic misconduct regulations of university policy provisions. Plagiarism management
processes are generally passed by the Academic Board or Academic Council of each
university and therefore have university-wide standing and apply to all staff and students
across the particular institution. Hence, plagiarism is not something that is able to be
defined or administered differently across the institution, and there is an expectation in the
discourse of the regulations that there is consistency in managing plagiarism across faculties,
schools and departments.
These institutions use legal discourse in framing plagiarism, particularly the language
of criminal law. Interestingly, institutions agree that plagiarism is an offence (n = 18),
whether it be categorised as ‘‘misconduct’’ (n = 15) or ‘‘lack of honesty’’ (n = 3). Words to
describe plagiarism clearly align with words used in criminal law in these three nations:
misconduct (n = 15); dishonesty/lack of honesty (n = 12); misdemeanour (n = 8); theft/
intellectual theft (n = 7); misappropriation (n = 6); deceit (n = 3); cheating (n = 2) and
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
8
W. Sutherland-Smith
stealing (n = 1). Universities vary considerably in the extent to which they describe plagiarism.
Some universities give short definitions of plagiarism with little further explanation as to
its construction, yet other universities’’ plagiarism policies contain long and detailed explanations of actions that constitute plagiarism, reasons why the university considers plagiarism
to be an offence and details of materials to help students avoid plagiarism. For example,
some universities note that the amount of plagiarism appearing in a text may give the
plagiarism management personnel guidance as to whether the act is plagiarism or ‘‘careless
scholarship’’ –– the general assumption appearing as ‘‘the more extensive the plagiarism, the
more likely it was intentional’’ (Go8 university). Other universities list many possible
sources of plagiarism, such as ‘‘published and unpublished documents, designs, music,
sounds, images, photographs, computer codes in print and/or electronic media’’ (Ivy
League university).
The word most often used to describe a person against whom plagiarism is alleged is
‘‘offender’’ (n = 16), with some institutions using the word ‘‘accused’’ (n = 2). These words
are used only in criminal law to describe the person charged with a criminal act. They do
not appear when describing the action of one person suing another, as happens in civil law
cases. Therefore, the words ‘‘accused’’ and ‘‘offender’’ are located specifically within the
lexical field of criminal law and imbue connotations of wrongdoing. This is an important
point in terms of the construction of student identity, as ‘‘we are trapped by our discourse
within our construction of reality’’ (Leask, 2006, p. 187). For example, the very discourse
describing students as plagiarism ‘‘offenders’’ positions them as ‘‘wrongdoers’’ even before
any allegations are proven, which could cause some students considerable anxiety. The
processes described in university policies are mainly in the form of ‘‘disciplinary’’/‘‘misconduct’’
(n = 14) or ‘‘committee’’ (n = 4) hearings, although most universities have preliminary stages
through which plagiarism must be established before proceeding to formal hearing. These
preliminary processes are often at the level of individual academic or Head of unit deciding on the evidence available, whether the student has a case to answer. If the decision is
that there is no case of plagiarism to answer, the academic may dismiss the allegation,
counsel the student, recommend resubmission of work and a range of other outcomes.
Where a case to answer is established, those processes are described in formal language,
with some universities reverting to highly formal register, such as ‘‘herein stated’’ and
‘‘aforementioned’’, when outlining the processes for formal ‘‘prosecution of the case’’. Such
language is still found in the law, but rarely used outside it unless in literature and writing
where the effect of heightened formality is desired. Overall, universities described in great
detail the processes by which plagiarism is managed, and most (n = 16) provided details as
to any appeal rights available to aggrieved parties. The high level of formal vocabulary
used in the discourse of plagiarism policies is indicative of legal processes and designed to
convey a sense of the full weight of university process. The language is in contrast to that
used to describe university graduate attributes policies; for example, where the vocabulary
chosen is more engaging and less intimidating.
Where plagiarism is found to have occurred, university regulations stipulate the range
of outcomes as ‘‘penalties’’ (n = 17) and one university uses the term ‘‘sanctions’’ (n = 1).
Again, this is the discourse of criminal law, as civil law cases use words such as ‘‘outcomes’’ to describe the consequences of the court’’s decision. Indeed, the term ‘‘sanction’’ is
used only in criminal law for penalties applicable to the accused person. Universities tend
to prescribe a range of ‘‘penalties’’, which are listed in Table 1, although not all universities
incorporate all penalties listed.
Clearly, the discourse of criminal law is the mainstay of many universities’’ framing of
plagiarism management policies and processes. There is considerable usage of words of
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
9
retribution from criminal law –– penalties and punishments abound –– but there is little in
policy to suggest that the potential ‘‘offender’’ is to undertake any reform or rehabilitation
(other than attending anti-plagiarism workshops or completing online tutorials in plagiarism
avoidance). It is unclear whether students who are advised by disciplinary panels to complete
such measures are then required to inform the responsible plagiarism management authority
(the Academic Conduct Officer, Head of unit or panel) that this has occurred, or whether it
is expected that mere completion of such self-help exercises will solve the problem. It is
also unclear whether students accused of plagiarism across disciplinary areas or in doubledegree enrolments are advised that acknowledgement and citation practices are disciplinespecific, which can be confusing for students. For example, the footnote referencing
systems used in Law are quite different to the in-text systems used in many Arts subjects,
so students in combined degrees must alter their attribution conventions moving between
faculties.
Universities also charge academic staff and students with the responsibility for appropriate citation practice education. This raises questions about the university’’s responsibilities
in a number of ways. Universities must provide sufficient training for staff (including casual
and part-time academic staff involved in teaching and assessment), particularly where
anti-plagiarism software programs are used. It is not sufficient for the institution to merely
place the additional workload of teaching students about citation and attribution concepts
and mechanics without attention to the need for staff professional development in this area
and also the additional time taken to fulfil such requirements. There is also some discord
between the detection of plagiarism by individual academics and institutional responsibilities
for ensuring that all staff, including casual and part-time academic staff, is sufficiently
aware of their responsibilities. An audit across academic integrity and plagiarism issues in
Australia and New Zealand in 2005 (Phillips, 2005) found that ‘‘while individual lecturers
are required to identify and address suspected plagiarism, and disciplinary procedures are
in place for serious breaches, there is a lack of information about what staff should do, and
a lack of consistency about what staff actually do’’ (p. 2). Some of the policies examined
do not contain information about where and how tenured and sessional staff are to become
familiar with their responsibilities or seek training in the use of anti-plagiarism software,
should the institution require its use.
Universities also place the burden of understanding plagiarism and attribution conventions on students. There are myriad information-laden web-based self-help tutorials and
workshops on related sites for the universities in this study. Many are excellent resources
and can be helpful. Nevertheless, the lack of additional, detailed individual assistance
about the techniques of engaging in academic writing conventions, particularly for
students studying in off-campus or distance modes, raises issues of equity for plagiarism
management policy makers.
Analysis indicates that universities have construed plagiarism within the ambit of legal
discourse and the policies and processes used to describe plagiarism management –– from
detection to outcome. The focus in the language of universities is deterrence, detection
and often retribution in the form of ‘‘penalties’’ when proven. Media articles also portray
plagiarism in the tertiary sector in legal language.
The end of academic integrity: media discourse about plagiarism
One hundred and sixty-two articles from the Higher Education sections of two national
newspapers, The Australian and The Age, carried plagiarism-related articles between 2003
and 2008. The purpose in collecting articles over a five-year period is to ascertain with
10
W. Sutherland-Smith
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
Table 2. Total number of articles in the higher education
section of two national Australian newspapers.
Year
The Australian
The Age
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
25
11
22
17
26
17
11
16
10
7
Total
101
61
what consistency newspapers report plagiarism and whether the language of reporting
changes over time. Table 2 illustrates that plagiarism has been consistently reported in the
national media, with peaked reporting occurring during incidents such as the University of
Newcastle plagiarism case1 reported from 2003 to 2005.
Although there are peaks and troughs in the numbers, plagiarism has been reported in
the national media each year from 2004 to 2008. A closer scrutiny of the articles themselves reveals that the discourse describing plagiarism incidents is often charged with
emotion, closely aligned to the language of criminal law and reflects notions of retribution
and punishment. Headlines include dire predictions about the state of academic integrity at
Australian universities, such as ‘‘Black marks: plagiarists swarm unis’’ (November 20,
2006); ‘‘Plagiarism is rife!’’ (January 17, 2003) and ‘‘Only those who’’ve never done it say
cheats don’’t prosper’’ (November 8, 2006). This language itself suggests that our seats of
higher learning are over-run with students who are determined to plagiarise. Words such
as ‘‘cheating’’, ‘‘theft’’, ‘‘fraud’’ and ‘‘misconduct’’ appear in the bodies of articles to describe
plagiarism, which are aligned with the language used by universities to characterise
plagiarism. Unlike universities, however, which often separate the terms ‘‘plagiarism’’ and
‘‘cheating’’, the media tend to use the terms ‘‘plagiarism’’ and ‘‘cheating’’ interchangeably,
creating the impression that plagiarism and cheating are the same. This point is worth further
discussion, as many universities have taken great pains to outline why cheating is different
from plagiarism and prescribe different outcomes for the offence of cheating and the act of
plagiarism. Differentiation between plagiarism and cheating is often based on the premise
that cheating is a deliberate and calculated act which deserves punitive responses, whereas
plagiarism may be inadvertent and requires a more educative response (e.g. see Monash
University, Go8, 2008).
Nonetheless, some journalists present plagiarism as a subset of cheating practices, and
bracket plagiarism alongside identity fraud in exams, contract cheating and other forms of
misconduct. This use of language paves the way for the media to link the ‘‘moral’’ act of
plagiarism to the ‘‘immoral’’ nature of the student who plagiarises; such discourse paints an
image of the student as a tainted creature, not to be trusted (Carroll & Sutherland-Smith,
forthcoming). The media also tends to draw links between acts of plagiarism and ‘‘dishonesty
in life’’, which is supported by studies like that by Nonis and Swift (2001). Their research
with business and law graduates found that students who engaged in plagiarism at university
are ‘‘more likely to engage in dishonest acts in the workplace’’ (p. 69). Acts of dishonesty
in the workplace included taking company merchandise or equipment, giving false reasons
for missing work and ‘‘a host of other dishonest behaviours’’ (p. 73). Linking the act of
plagiarism to the character of the student has long been disputed by researchers in
academic writing, who maintain that often students copy texts in the process of learning to
engage in academic writing processes and they need assistance rather than punishment
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
11
(see Godfrey & Waugh, 2002; Sutherland-Smith, 2005; Thompson, 2005 in Australia;
Ashworth, Freewood & Macdonald, 2003; Carroll, 2002; Clegg & Flint, 2006 in the UK;
and Howard, 1999, 2007, 2008; Vojak, 2006 in the USA for a discussion of ‘‘moral’’ concepts of plagiarism and differentiation between plagiarism and cheating).
Although media discourse generally heralds the use of anti-plagiarism software packages,
such as Turnitin (iParadigms, 2008), as one measure to ‘‘halt cheats in their path’’ (May 21,
2007), newspapers continue to promote the perception in the community that ‘‘plagiarism
is rife’’ and ‘‘cheating is rampant’’ (January 7, 2003) in tertiary institutions. Furthermore,
articles repeatedly suggest that the Internet is a source of plagiarism and cheating and
there is no stopping cyber-dishonesty. A sample of headings across 2004––08 read: ‘‘Web
offers cheats tailor-made assignments (September 30, 2004); ‘‘Age of digital deception’’
(May 31, 2005); ‘‘Students cheating online’’ (June 14, 2006); ‘‘Production-line fakes’’
(April 11, 2007) and ‘‘Cut & paste ‘‘not plagiarism’’’’ (July 16, 2008). These articles outline
the ease with which students can cut and paste Internet material and the work of others
into their assignments, use online services to pay others to engage in ‘‘contract cheating’’
(Lancaster & Clarke, 2007) and academics have little chance of keeping up with this
trend. Some journalists suggest plagiarism management in higher education is outdated
and give the impression that nothing can be done to counteract the tsunami of plagiarism
brought about by technologies such as the Internet. Media discourse fuels a public perception that universities are crawling with dishonest students, which ‘‘lowers standards’’ in
higher education (January 15, 2003). In Australia, the University of Newcastle’’s plagiarism
case in 2003 was kept in the media for two years and only ceased being regularly reported
in the national press with the release of the Independent Commission against Corruption’’s
report on the handling of the incident in June 2005 (ICAC, 2005) and the significant revision
by the university of plagiarism management practices as a result of ICAC recommendations.
Media reporting of plagiarism appears to be in contrast to most academic research findings
about plagiarism in higher education.
Academic research on plagiarism suggests that although plagiarism is present in some
university students’’ work, it is certainly neither rampant nor unstoppable, as suggested by
the media (Cogdell & Aidulis, 2007; Culwin, 2006; Evans, 2006; Sutherland-Smith, 2008;
Szabo & Underwood, 2004; Thompson & Pennycook, 2008). Although some studies
indicate that Internet plagiarism is palpable (Marsden, Carroll & Neill, 2005; O’’Connor,
2002; Zobel & Hamilton, 2002), many research studies indicate that the majority of
university students undertake assessment tasks with no intention of plagiarising the work
of others (Carroll, 2002; Howard, 1999; 2008; Hunt, 2004). Whether inspired by media
reports or not, universities have continually revisited their management practices in
academic integrity issues.
University responses to plagiarism management issues
Universities have responded to the changing demands of plagiarism management by updating
and continually revisiting academic integrity matters as part of quality assurance and risk management practices. Most often, universities respond to plagiarism through enhanced detection
and deterrence processes, such as university-wide reviews of plagiarism policy and practices or
increased use of detection through software. Responses detailed in revised policy statements or
committee reviews by universities in this study include:
• Reviews of disciplinary processes and procedures;
• Directions to academic staff to keep and maintain academic rigour and standards;
12
W. Sutherland-Smith
• Increasing the number of final exams in units and decreasing assignment work during
semester, in the belief that invigilated exams will reduce plagiarism;
• Instigating ‘‘best practice’’ in teaching measures, which are designed to decrease
•
•
•
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
•
•
•
plagiarism in pedagogical changes to teaching. ‘‘Best practice’’ includes strategies
such as designing and changing assessment tasks each semester, incorporating locationspecific contexts for student responses, and using combinations of oral and written
or computer-marked and written assessment;
Teaching specific ‘‘academic integrity’’ units within courses;
Asking staff to address issues of academic integrity in all units offered within faculties
to increase students’’ awareness;
Providing ‘‘academic honesty’’ website information for student and staff access,
including samples of plagiarised work and non-plagiarised work to indicate the differences in citation practices, definitions, links to policy and self-help tutorials;
Advertising ‘‘assistance’’ mechanisms –– through academic writing workshops,
library information staff or language and learning experts;
Increasing punitive measures –– more and/or harsher punishments; and
Establishing faculty-specific or university-wide student plagiarism registers held by
the Head of Department or Dean’’s office in each department/school/faculty.
Clearly, universities are aware of issues surrounding academic integrity and are tackling
plagiarism management on many levels. Yet, most of these strategies do not move beyond
detection, deterrence and provision of information about plagiarism. The question remains
whether these measures lead towards sustainable plagiarism and academic integrity management practices. Drawing upon Stephen Sterling’’s (2004) notion that ‘‘sustainable education
is essentially transformative, constructive and participatory’’ (p. 35), he argues that universities, like other organisations, are ‘‘living systems’’ (p. 46). Therefore, re-conceiving learning
as grounded in ‘‘the qualities of relationship rather than product’’ (Sterling, 2004, p.43) means
transformative and sustainable learning and teaching practices are central to overcoming
academic dishonesty only when seen as changing and morphing within the living organism
that is the university. When applied to plagiarism management, ‘‘sustainable’’ reform refers
not just to engaging the student with ethically sustainable academic practices, but to engaging the institution in discussion about its overall plagiarism management philosophy and
practices (see Atkins & Herfel, 2006; Mason, 2001).
Universities need to re-examine long-held views that increasing punishment and
detection processes results in deterrence of plagiarism and therefore a decrease in its
appearance. The equation is faulty, as deterring students from engaging in acts of plagiarism
does not necessarily mean they will take a path of academic integrity. In fact, the ‘‘graduating
tactics’’ tied to the consumer attitude of some students may encourage subversive acts of
cheating (Saltmarsh, 2004, p. 445). Although some research has indicated that the ‘‘threat’’
of increased detection has resulted in a drop in the number of cases of plagiarism reported
(Barrett & Malcolm, 2006; Zobel & Hamilton, 2002), this finding does not mean that mere
threats of detection are ‘‘sustainable’’ as an ongoing educational practice. Recent research
points to the need to engage in discussion of learning as ‘‘ethical’’ practice for sustainable
change to occur (Atkins & Herfel, 2006; Cogdell & Aidulis, 2007).
Taking a holistic view of plagiarism throughout universities has shown a measure of
success at universities such as Oxford Brookes and Sheffield Hallam in the United Kingdom;
for example, where a range of actions, including an overhaul of ‘‘previous learning and
assessment regimes’’ (Macdonald & Carroll, 2006, p. 244) have occurred. The researchers
conclude that:
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
13
The key to ensuring that a holistic approach to plagiarism is adopted, where the emphasis is
on promoting scholarly, academic practices rather than focusing on potential problems and
channelling all the institution’’s energies into deterring through detection and punishment. The
latter approach is not the basis for a healthy learning environment whilst the former at least
contributes to it. (Macdonald & Carroll, 2006, p. 244)
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
Although acknowledging that it is too early to tell whether these initiatives are educationally sustainable in the long term, the researchers consider that there has been ‘‘a significant
impact on the way the institution as a whole deals with the issue’’ (Macdonald & Carroll,
2006, p. 236). Taken together with research that indicates ‘‘didactic methods alone ––
codes, pledges, teacher exhortations, and the like –– are unlikely to have any significant
effect’’ (Leming, 1993, p. 69) on plagiarism practices broadly, the quest for sustainable
reform remains a challenge for universities. Focusing on developing plagiarism management strategies grounded in the web of ethical relationships that constitute the living
organism of the university is a responsible place to start.
Conclusion
Universities are aware of the need to address the controversial issue of plagiarism, as well
as broader issues of academic integrity, to maintain public confidence in the reputation of
the institution, its courses and quality of its graduates. Media discourse suggests that
plagiarism has over-run tertiary institutions and tougher penalties and increased surveillance are needed to overcome the phenomenon. There is a strong suggestion that academic
integrity is merely a utopian dream in the face of increased technology-enhanced
academic dishonesty. However, academic research suggests that plagiarism is not the
issue of moral panic portrayed to the general public and institutional processes are working
towards increasingly more effective plagiarism management.
This paper argues that approaching plagiarism cloaked in the traditional discourse of
the law is proving to be only moderately successful in terms of formulation of policies and
processes. Systemic focus on deterrence and punishment is addressing only part of the
issue and the educative value of those approaches alone is questionable. Academic
research suggests plagiarism is multi-layered and requires a variety of strategies within an
overall framework of ethical sustainability. Nevertheless, many institutions are not tackling the thorny problem of sustainable reform in academic integrity issues and the incumbent costs accompanying such wholesale rethinking. Implementing holistic approaches to
plagiarism management, through the adoption of ethical discourse about the relationships
shared by academics, universities and students, offers a foundation to being dialogue
about implementing sustainable reform in university plagiarism management.
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge Linda Mink from Monash University and Jude Carroll, ASKe, Oxford
Brookes University for their invaluable advice and support in the preparation of this paper.
Note
1.
The University of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia was embroiled in a plagiarism management case in 2003. An independent commission (ICAC) was set up to investigate the university’’s
handling of plagiarism after continued media reporting of ‘‘cover ups’’ by senior management. The
commission’’s report was released in June 2005 (see ICAC in the reference list).
14
W. Sutherland-Smith
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
References
Ashworth, P., Freewood, M., & Macdonald, R. (2003). The student lifeworld and the meanings of
plagiarism. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 34(2), 257––278.
Atkins, J., & Herfel, W. (2006). Counting beans in the degree factory. International Journal for
Educational Integrity, 2(1), 3––12.
Atkinson, T. (2008). Textual mapping of imitation and intertextuality in college and university
mission statements: A new institutional perspective. Semiotica, 172(1––4), 361––387.
Barrett, R., & Malcolm, J. (2006). Embedding plagiarism education in the assessment process. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 2(1), 38––45.
Carroll, J. (2002). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education. Oxford: Oxford Centre
for Staff Learning and Development.
Carroll, J., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (forthcoming). Reclaiming the issue of student plagiarism:
The impact of external agents and agencies on universities’’ management of student
plagiarism.
Clegg, S. (2007). Extending the boundaries of research into higher education. In Enhancing higher
education, theory and scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference
[CD-ROM], Adelaide, 8––11 July.
Clegg, S., & Flint, A. (2006). More heat than light: Plagiarism in its appearing. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 27(3), 373––387.
Cogdell, B., & Aidulis, D. (2007). Dealing with plagiarism as an ethical issue. In T.S Roberts (Ed.),
Student plagiarism in an online world: Problems and solutions (pp. 38––59). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Inc.
Culwin, F. (2006). An active introduction to academic misconduct and the measured demographics
of misconduct. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 167––182.
Evans, R. (2006). Evaluating an electronic plagiarism detection service. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 7(10), 87––99.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Godfrey, J., & Waugh, R. (2002). Students’’ perceptions of cheating in Australian independent
schools. Education Australia Online, 1––3.
Howard, R.M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators.
Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Howard, R.M. (2007). Understanding ““Internet plagiarism””. Computers and Composition, 24, 3––15.
Howard, R.M. (2008). Plagiarizing (from) graduate students. In R.M. Howard & A.E. Robillard
(Eds.), Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies (pp. 92––100). Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook.
Hunt, R. (2004). Whose silverware is this? Promoting plagiarism through pedagogy. JISC Plagiarism
Advisory Service Conference, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, 24––28 June.
Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. (2005). Report on investigation into the
University of Newcastle’’s handling of plagiarism allegations. Sydney: ICAC. Retrieved
October 10, 2005, from http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au
iParadigms. (2008). iParadigms: Digital solutions for a new era in information. Retrieved September 29,
2008, from http://www.iparadigms.com
Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2007). The phenomena of contract cheating. In T.S Roberts (Ed.),
Student plagiarism in an online world: Problems and solutions (pp. 144––158). Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Inc.
Leask, B. (2006). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor –– implications for academic staff
development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183––199.
Leming, J. (1993). In search of effective character education. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 63––71.
Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism –– a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional
approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 233––245.
Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of
dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal
of Psychology, 57(1), 1––10.
Mason, M. (2001). The ethics of integrity: Educational values beyond postmodern ethics. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 35(1), 47––69.
Monash University. (2008). Discipline statute 4.1 plagiarism and cheating. Retrieved March 17, 2009,
from http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/academicpolicies/policy/plagiarism.html
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
15
Nonis, S., & Swift, C. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty
and workplace dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Journal of Education for Business,
77(2), 60––77.
O’’Connor, S. (2002). Electronic plagiarism and its impact on educational quality. Paper presented
at the CAVAL Electronic Plagiarism Conference, Melbourne, 6 October.
Phillips, R. (2005). Audit of academic integrity and plagiarism issues in Australia and New Zealand.
Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/project/acode/background.html
Rose, M. (1993). Authors and owners: The invention of copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Saltmarsh, S. (2004). Graduating tactics: Theorizing plagiarism as consumptive practice. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 28(4), 445––454.
Sterling, S. (2004). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Bristol: The Schumacher Society.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). The tangled web: Internet plagiarism and international students’’
academic writing. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 15––29.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the Internet and academic writing: Improving academic
integrity. London: Routledge.
Szabo, A., & Underwood, J. (2004). Cybercheats. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 180––199.
Thompson, C. (2005). ‘‘Authority is everything’’: A study of the politics of textual ownership and
knowledge in the formation of student writer identities. International Journal for Educational
Integrity, 1(1), 1––12. Retrieved February 21, 2009, from http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/
index.php/IJEI
Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2008). Intertextuality in the transcultural contact zone. In
R.M. Howard & A.E. Robillard (Eds.), Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies
(pp. 124––139). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Times Higher Education Supplement. (2007––08). Times Higher Education World Rankings 2007––08.
Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Vojak, C. (2006). What market culture teaches students about ethical behavior. Ethics and Education, 1(2), 177––195.
Zobel, J., & Hamilton, M. (2002). Managing student plagiarism in large academic departments.
Australian Universities Review, 45(2), 23––30.
Appendix 1. Universities by national category of excellence and ranked
as the top six per category according to THES rankings 2007––08.
Australia
1
2
3
4
5
6
United Kingdom
1
2
3
4
5
6
United States
1
2
3
4
5
6
Group of 8
Australian National University
University of Sydney
University of Melbourne
University of Queensland
University of New South Wales
Monash University
Russell Group
University of Cambridge
University of Oxford
Imperial College London
University College London
Kings College
University of Edinburgh
Ivy League
Harvard University
Yale University
Columbia University
University of Pennsylvania
Princeton University
Cornell University
16
W. Sutherland-Smith
Appendix 2. University discourse describing plagiarism/plagiarism processes across
18 institutions in the three categories: Group of 8 (Australia), Russell Group (UK) and Ivy
League (USA).
Downloaded By: [Dobson, Ian R.] At: 08:41 22 January 2010
Word(s)
Academic misconduct
Misdemeanour
Cheating
Misrepresentation
Theft
Dishonest(y)
Breach
Punishment
Penalty
Sanction
Offender
Accused
Guilty
Proven
Not proven
Crime (criminal)
Ownership (authorial)
Unfair advantage
Unethical
Judged
Discipline (disciplinary measures)
Code (of conduct/Honour)
Intention to deceive/deception
Group of 8
Russell Group
Ivy League
6
6
3
4
2
4
6
3
6
0
4
0
6
5
2
3
1
2
2
1
6
1
2
6
5
4
2
1
5
6
2
6
0
4
1
6
6
3
4
3
3
4
0
6
4
3
6
6
5
1
1
5
6
2
6
1
4
1
6
6
1
5
2
0
4
2
6
6
3
Appendix 3. Media discourse describing plagiarism in two national Australian newspapers
2004––08.
Word
Misdemeanour
Theft
Cheating
Dishonest(y)
Fraud(ulent)
Breach(es)
Conspiracy
Guilt(y)
Illegal
Unethical
No. of times used
Sample sentence from the text of the newspaper article
28
92
112
101
Uni heads declare war on the cheats
Academia must solve the plague of plagiarism
A creeping tolerance of degrees of cheating
There is a moral obligation to adhere to prescribed
standards and expectations
To steal someone’’s ideas is comparable to stealing their soul
Plagiarism is enough to end your university career
There is something truly rotten in the state of academe
Engaging in calculated deceit
Unis aim to crackdown on cheating
Plagiarism is cheating and is not ethical practice
86
47
4
67
88
20