Managing intertextuality
meaning, plagiarism and
power
Perry Share BA (Mod) PhD
Department of Humanities, Institute of Technology, Sligo
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements of the
Masters of Arts in Management in Education
Waterford Institute of Technology
June 2005
Declaration
I hereby declare that this dissertation is my own work and has not been
previously submitted as an exercise for a degree or any other qualification.
Signed _______________________
Dr Perry Share
ii
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................... iii
Contents .............................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................... iv
1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 2
2 Methodology ................................................................................... 4
3 The copying culture ....................................................................... 9
4 Plagiarism in the academy ......................................................... 21
5 The academic experience ......................................................... 24
6 Managing plagiarism ................................................................... 34
7 Assessment issues .......................................................................... 45
8 Pedagogy, plagiarism and power ............................................ 47
Reference list .................................................................................... 51
Appendix 1 – Plagiarism questionnaire ........................................ 58
Appendix 2 – Plagiarism exercise.................................................. 60
Appendix 3 – Digital students ........................................................ 68
Appendix 4: Plagiarism regulations, Trinity College Dublin ...... 69
Appendix 5 Plagiarism Code of Practice, NUIG law ................. 71
Appendix 6: Information on plagiarism, Dublin City University 74
iii
Acknowledgements
During the course of this research I have made a number of presentations and facilitated
workshops on the topic of plagiarism and intertextuality. These took place at:

Assessment workshops at the Castlebar and Galway campuses of the Galway
Mayo Institute of Technology and at the Institute of Technology, Sligo
[delivered together with Majella Mulkeen] [2003-2005]

Research seminar series, Institute of Technology, Sligo, March 2004.

All Ireland Society for Higher Education conference, Trinity College Dublin,
September 2004

One-day plagiarism workshop, Waterford Institute of Technology, May 2005

eLearning Summer School, Dublin Institute of Technology, June 2005
I would like to thank all those who took part in those discussions, who provided
invaluable data for this research. I have greatly enjoyed discussing plagiarism and
related issues with the participants in these events.
In addition I would like to thank all those within a number of tertiary institutions who
completed anonymous questionnaires on the topic of plagiarism.
Much of the material presented in this thesis is based on the presentations listed above.
I would like to acknowledge the support of my dissertation supervisor Dr Anne Jordan.
Most importantly I would like to acknowledge the practical and emotional support of
Michelle Share during the lengthy period during which this research took place .
iv
Abstract
Recent technological development in particular the emergence of the Internet as an
information source and repository, has led to increased concern about the phenomenon
of plagiarism in the contemporary academy.
This thesis examines the issue of plagiarism. It seeks to recast the discussion in terms of
‘managing intertextuality’. Intertextuality refers to how our contemporary cultural
environment is marked by duplication, interpenetration of texts and the circulation and
recirculation of images, sounds and words in multiple forms and formats. Students and
academic staff are immersed in this world of meaning, yet strive to make sense
intellectual practices that were founded within a very different context.
The thesis draws extensively on the multidisciplinary literature of plagiarism and
pedagogy. It makes use of a small-scale survey of Institute of Technology teaching staff
to identify current definitions, concerns and strategies. This process has been
accompanied by a process of dialogue with teaching staff in a variety of institutions. A
range of Irish university policy documents related to plagiarism is analysed.
The work examines in detail the challenges posed to academic management by
plagiarism, and considers the strengths and weaknesses of plagiarism detection
software. Pedagogical and assessment issues are also discussed.
The thesis concludes that the issue of plagiarism raises very real issues related to power
in Irish education. It is only when pedagogical issues are addressed within a more
democratic and participatory educational system that the challenges posed by
intertextuality can be fully addressed.
v
We admire the unique then we reproduce it: faithfully, fatuously, faithlessly,
fortuitously. Who and which and where may be the real McCoy, those are uneasy
questions. With fancy footwork we may fight rearguard actions to hold the natural
arm’s length from the artificial and keep the one-of-a-kind out of the clinch of the
facsimile, but the world we inhabit is close with multiples
(Schwartz, The culture of the copy, p. 16)
1
1 Introduction
This thesis focuses on the broad cultural context within which we might, as people
involved in teaching and learning, understand the phenomenon of plagiarism. I come to
this topic as a person involved in teaching and learning, and in academic management,
but also as a sociologist and as a person who has long been involved in reading and
talking about media and communication.
In particular I have had an interest in notions of creativity, intellectual property [IP] and
in how different forms of media and culture interact. One term for such interaction is
intertextuality, coined by Bulgarian/French social theorist Julia Kristeva to express how
texts or images from cultural or media products can be appropriated, migrated and
reused in a variety of contexts (Chandler, 2003). There is nothing markedly new about
intertextuality, for example it is replete in the works of William Shakespeare or James
Joyce, but it has been more recently a major element of the development of the mass
media, and of other contemporary cultural forms such as architecture and fashion. It is a
topic of particular salience as the media and cultural industries experience a phase of
technological and institutional convergence (Tovey & Share, 2003: 429-430).
In June 2004 I attended the conference Plagiarism: Prevention, practice and policy at
Newcastle-on-Tyne, organised by the JISC Plagiarism Advisory Service based at
Northumbria University. This was the first major event in Britain or Ireland to focus
specifically on the issue of academic plagiarism within the digitised environment. Much
of the interest was in plagiarism detection techniques and software and there was also an
extensive focus on policy and procedural responses. What was largely missing from the
discussions was any consideration of the broader cultural context for the emergence of
plagiarism. This confirmed to me that my own interest reflected an important lacuna in
our understanding of the phenomenon of plagiarism.
The keynote address at the conference was by Professor Russ Hunt of St Thomas
University in Canada (Hunt, 2004b). I found much of what Professor Hunt had to say
resonated with my own ideas about the issues related to plagiarism. Interestingly, his
own work addresses the issue of intertextuality, particularly as it forms a key element of
academic writing. For example in a recently published paper (Hunt, 2004a) entitled ‘It
was in the computer’ he refers to the ways that ‘professional readers’ approach texts in a
‘dialogic’ or ‘point-driven’ way. This process:
involves placing the text in an imagined social context. That social context, for
academic writing, is predominantly composed of other texts, which, of course, in
turn invoke their own contexts. This rich process creates a rhetorical situation in
which the way ideas and information are joined, subordinated, organized, framed,
and proffered is as important as the ideas and information themselves - or more so.
Hunt argues that contemporary students lack the experience or skills to be able to do
this, partly as a result of their immersion in digital forms of information. I would
support this, to some extent, from my own experience. But I would also like to suggest
2
that students are often very skilled in interpreting other forms of intertextuality:
particularly those communicated through the culture and entertainment industries. These
are industries where, as we will see, intertextuality is hotly debated and often celebrated.
The challenge for educators today is to enter into a discussion with learners about
intertextuality and how it should be understood. In terms of the plagiarism issue, I
suggest (following a comment Hunt made at the Newcastle conference) that it makes a
lot of sense to stop talking about plagiarism per se – it is a term with very negative
connotations and much emotional baggage – and to talk about ‘managing
intertextuality’. This, I suggest, is a matter of understanding some things about the
nature of contemporary communication; about the ethics of writing and research; about
the peculiar nature of the academic community; and ultimately about the purposes of
education itself. Nevertheless, in this thesis I will use both the terms ‘plagiarism’ and
‘intertextuality’, as the former term is the one that academics currently use to define and
describe the phenomenon under investigation.
The thesis attempts, within the limited space available, to explore some of the issues
related to intertextuality in the academic environment. The next chapter, Chapter 2,
outlines the methodological approach that I have adopted. Chapter 3 reflects a review of
the literature on plagiarism and intertextuality. In particular it explores some of the ways
that texts (including sounds and images) circulate, are used and reused and
interpenetrate within contemporary culture. Chapter 4 turns our attention to the
academic context, and looks at some of the trends, issues and responses in relation to
plagiarism. Chapter 5 reports on the findings of a small-scale piece of research that
involved academic staff within three institutions in the Institute of Technology sector.
Chapter 6 examines the issues related to the management of plagiarism within the
academic environment. Chapter 7 looks at the topic of assessment, which lies at the
centre of an informed response to plagiarism. Chapter 8 draws together the threads of
the discussion and locates the issues of plagiarism, intertextuality and academic writing
within the broader canvas of power relations in the academic arena.
It is hoped that the thesis will provide an overview of the topic of plagiarism, suggest
some ways that we might better understand the phenomenon and point towards avenues
of future research. Plagiarism is revealed as a complex phenomenon, one that is not
easily addressed through the ‘technological fix’ of detection software, or even the
enactment of complex and comprehensive institutional policies, though such responses
may have a place. A better understanding of the broad contemporary cultural context for
the making and remaking of meanings, together with a critical assessment of power
relations in the academy, may provide a basis for an engagement with the issue of
plagiarism that might help academics to avoid some of the frustrations that a more
isolated and narrow response inevitably engenders.
3
2 Methodology
The research for this thesis was pursued through a variety of methods. The methods
were chosen in the light of available time and resources; the previous experience of the
researcher; ethical considerations; and a desire to obtain information from a number of
resources.
Briefly, the methods included:

a comprehensive review of available literature in the field, drawing on both
print and on-line media

delivery of a number of workshops on the topic, in order to test ideas and to
gather a broad range of opinions and experiences in relation to the topic

administration of a brief questionnaire to a range of staff of three Institutes of
Technology

an analysis of existing and available institutional policies in relation to
plagiarism within three Irish universities

observation and discussion in a range of Institutes of Technology in the
researcher’s role as external examiner and participant in quality assurance
processes
This chapter will briefly outline the rationale and process related to each of these
approaches and will briefly consider the ethical implications of the research process and
the limitations of the research as presented.
Literature review
The purpose of a literature review is to identify, collate and assess the range of
published and (where applicable) other literature related to a topic, in order to identify
key themes and bodies of knowledge. The literature review for this research was
conducted via internet searches, library catalogue searches and in following up ‘leads’
from the reference lists of utilised material.
It became evident that there was no easily accessible published research on the topic of
plagiarism within the Irish academic environment. It is a topic that appears to have
attracted little scholarly or even administrative attention. For example a recent
collection of papers on teaching and learning in Irish higher education (O’Neill et al,
2005) does not refer in any detail to the topic of plagiarism. As a consequence the
material reviewed was largely drawn from Australasia, the United States and Great
Britain. Resources were unfortunately not available for a consideration of non-English
language sources.
The material from the literature review was collated, annotated, reviewed and relevant
information selected according to the emergent themes of the literature. This has
subsequently been combined in a narrative format structured around a number of key
emergent themes.
4
Of particular importance for this project was the collection of appropriate visual
material. This was important for a two reasons:
1. a key issue that emerged was the centrality of visual quotation within popular
culture, for example in practices that ranged from fine art to advertising
2. the visual material was a important element in the development of presentations
on the topic of plagiarism at workshops and conferences. Visual content (for
example within PowerPoint presentations) is popular with audiences and helps
to maintain interest and stimulate debate
Workshops
Initial interest in the topic of plagiarism emerged some years ago when the researcher
and a colleague (Majella Mulkeen) were involved in the delivery of a 2-day workshop
on the topic of assessment. The issue of plagiarism was discussed as a minor element on
the second day of the workshop. It quickly became apparent that the issue was of some
significance to many participants, particularly those who were moving from a
traditional, exam-focused method of assessment towards more innovative approaches
that involved increased levels of continuous assessment. A common concern was that
the identity of the author of such work could not be guaranteed and that academic
quality and integrity were at stake.
As the researcher became involved in carrying out the initial stages of the research, and
discussing it with colleagues, it became apparent that the delivery of seminars and
workshops on the topic were potentially useful as a way to explore ideas and generate
debate.
As the researcher was involved both in academic management and in the mentoring of
staff in the area of teaching and learning, the approach shared some of the attributes of
action research, though it was not overtly couched within an action research paradigm.
Action research has been described as: ‘a process which alternates continuously
between inquiry and action, between practice and “innovative thinking”– a
developmental spiral of practical decision-making and evaluative reflection’ (Winter
and Munn-Giddings, 2001: 5, quoting Hart, 2000). In this case the researcher was, for
example, actively involved in issues of plagiarism in his role as external examiner and
was in a position to discuss the topic with individual lecturers and to help bring about
positive changes in relation to assessment practice. Similarly, delivery of workshops in
the area sought to bring about change at the institutional level in relation to the
development of plagiarism management policies.
Questionnaires
Questionnaires are a well-established method of data-collection within the social
sciences. There is an extensive literature on all aspects of questionnaire design,
administration and analysis that will not be rehearsed here for lack of space. As May
2001: 97) points out ‘the type of population, the nature of the research question and
resources available will determine the type of questionnaire to be used’.
5
For this research the survey population included lecturers in academic environments. It
was decided to focus in particular on Institutes of Technology [ITs], partly for reasons
of access and convenience, but also as it was perceived that the ITs were more actively
involved in more innovative assessment methods – and the tensions that they generated
– than were many of the universities. As those within the survey population shared (to
an extent) an institutional and pedagogical background with the researcher, it was felt
that many background assumptions about curriculum and delivery could be made.
A key element was that lecturers within the IT system typically have heavy teaching
workloads of 16-18 hours per week and are thus very pressed for time. Thus a short (2
sides of one A4 sheet) and self-explanatory questionnaire design was adopted. The
questionnaire was piloted on a small number of staff in the researcher’s own
department; some minor changes were made to the questionnaire as a consequence.
The resources available to the researcher helped to determine the sampling process. The
main resource constraint was time. As a Head of Department the researcher was willynilly involved in all aspects of academic management, as well as numerous external
obligations. This severely constrained the time that could be dedicated to the
administration of questionnaires.
It was decided to make use of a purposive sampling approach (May, 2001: 95).
Purposive sampling is utilised ‘whereby a selection of those to be surveyed is made
according to a known characteristic’. The aim was to obtain the views of a number of
Institute of Technology academics actively involved in teaching across a range of
disciplines. The sampling process identified a number of people actively involved in
teaching and learning issues (though not necessarily plagiarism) and a sampling of
academics who had no particular stated interest in the topic. The sample does make any
claim to be representative of the whole population of lecturers in Institutes of
Technology or in any specific IT.
Through this process a total of approximately 150 blank questionnaires were
distributed. Sixty-three usable forms were returned, from the staff of three Institutes, as
indicated below (Table 1). In order to maintain the confidentiality of those involved, no
further information will be provided in relation to the identity or characteristics of the
institutions from which they were derived.
Table 1
Study population
Institute A
32
Institute B
17
Institute C
14
Total
63
The numerical data from the questionnaires was entered into an Excel spreadsheet
which was utilised to generate graphs and charts as necessary. The textual material was
6
manually sorted into appropriate representative categories and used to provide
illustrative material in the narrative where appropriate.
Analysis of existing institutional policies
An initial aim of the research was to obtain a comprehensive collection of institutional
policies and procedures in relation to plagiarism of all Institutes of Technology within
the state. This did not prove to be possible within the time constraints. The researcher
was also made aware that a member of staff at an IT had already attempted such a
process and had failed to generate any useful feedback suggesting either that: a) there
were no such policies in existence; or b) that Institutes were not keen to disseminate
such material. Subsequent discussions held by the researcher with IT staff suggest that
many Institutes are indeed currently in the process of developing or reviewing their
policies in this area.
In order to examine the nature of institutional policy in the area of plagiarism, a number
of such policy statements were accessed through the websites of relevant institutions, all
from the Irish university sector. The resultant corpus of policy material (reproduced in
Appendices 4 to 6) is in no way claimed to be representative; rather it is useful as an
illustration of the range of approaches being adopted by institutions. The policy
statements were analysed in terms of identifying key common themes and approaches
and in listing apparent strengths and weaknesses.
Observation and discussion
The researcher acts as external examiner to a number of institutions in the tertiary sector
and has also been involved in the quality assurance process (eg new course evaluation
panels) in a number of institutions. This has allowed for extensive observation and
discussion with key stakeholders in relation to the topic of the research. As outlined
above, it has also allowed for active involvement in the shaping of responses to the
issues of plagiarism and assessment. No attempt has been made to maintain or present
any written record of these observations or discussions: rather they have informed the
research in a more general sense.
Ethical issues
Plagiarism is often defined as a form of ‘cheating’. As outlined later in this thesis it is
an issue that is often couched in terms of morality and ethics. It is also a matter that
relates to the professional practice of both academics and administrators, and to the
future careers of students and graduates. It is therefore a potentially highly sensitive
issue. The researcher is aware that even those institutions that have developed robust
and transparent processes of responding to plagiarism are very reluctant to release even
global figures in relation to incidence.
It was therefore important to maintain confidentiality in relation to the data-gathering
and analysis exercise. All questionnaires were completed anonymously. Each was
accompanied by a covering letter or verbal explanation outlining the purpose of the
7
research and no individuals were pressured to participate in any way. Completed
questionnaires were stored in a secure location and access was not provided to external
persons. The identity of the institutions concerned has not been revealed in the research
report.
It is hoped that the input of time by participants will result in a more informed teaching
and learning environment that will help to enhance their professional lives. In this way
the research process can return something to those who make it possible through the
provision of their time and energy. In this way it is hoped that there can be a positive
response to the question posed by Winter and Munn-Giddings (2001) ‘can research
have an immediate practical benefit in the place where it is undertaken?’ It is hoped that
this research will make some small contribution to a better understanding of teaching
and learning practices in the Irish tertiary sector.
Limitations of the research
Like any research methodology, this one has its limitations. The most serious limitation
is in relation to the range of stakeholders consulted. Those with a stake in the social
processes around plagiarism include academic managers such as Registrars, Heads of
School and Department and Student Affairs managers; teaching staff including
lecturers, tutors and learning advisors; and, of course, students.
Most research into the topic of plagiarism tends to focus on teaching staff – and this
thesis is no different. This remains a limitation, one that mainly stems from logistical
and resource constraints. The review of institutional policies is a gesture in the direction
of the management perspective; similarly a small amount of data on student views of
their position in the academic system is presented in Chapter 8. But a fuller exploration
of the views and practices of each of these stakeholder groups would be necessary for a
comprehensive overview of the plagiarism issue. It is hoped that such research can be
completed in the near future.
8
3 The copying culture
Figure 1
Kill Bill - Innovation or plagiarism?
Writing in 2003 of Quentin Tarantino’s fourth film Kill Bill Vol. 1 (Figure 1) reviewer
Jeff Shannon of Amazon.com remarked that it was ‘either brilliantly (and brutally)
innovative or one of the most blatant acts of plagiarism ever conceived’1. And - if it was
the latter – so what? Each option is seen as positive in its own way. For the reality is
that intertextuality (of which plagiarism is but one sort) is a fundamental element of
modern and (especially) postmodern popular culture.
In March 2002 US rap artist Eminem and his record company were sued by French jazz
musician Jacques Loussier for allegedly infringing on the copyright of Loussier’s work
Pulsion - in Eminem’s track Kill you. What was unusual was not that the action was
taken – there are numerous such examples of (usually fairly obscure) artists taking on
major cultural figures in such ways – but that numerous other artists did not follow suit.
Eminem’s music, like that of many of his contemporaries, is essentially and purposively
derivative. In the short period since then, the ‘mash up revolution’ (Cruger, 2003; DJ
Shir Khan, 2004) has seen the recombination of existing music tracks enter the
mainstream of the popular music industry, exemplified by the global success of various
versions of Kelis’s song Milkshake, which topped the popular music charts worldwide
during the summer of 2004.
Postmodern fine artists deliberately use techniques of reproduction as a way to
‘challenge the conception of originality underlying traditional conceptions of art’
(Pfohl, 2000: 193). The practice of ‘double-coding’ plays with the concepts of signifier
and signified (Barthes, 1973) to evoke a response from an audience already located in a
media and message-saturated world. It is almost as if everything and anything that can
It has been further noted that a speech in the sequel, Kill Bill Vol. 2, ‘is actually lifted almost verbatim’
from the book Great comic book heroes by Jules Feiffer (Philip French, ‘Looks good, feels bad’
Observer[review section] p. 9, 5 June 2005)
1
9
be said, has been said. The only remaining creative option is to rejig and manipulate
existing narratives, images and texts.
Despite the explicit links between such ‘borrowing’ and postmodernism, this approach
is nothing new. Many notable creative people, from pop artist Andy Warhol (Figure 2)
to filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, have revelled in the magpie-like borrowing of images
and symbols.

Figure 2
Warhol’s soup can: plagiarism or satire?
Païni and Cogeval (2000: 18-19) say of Hitchcock that his films:
resonate with numerous iconographic themes descended from Symbolism and
Surrealism . . . in turn Hitchcock has become an extraordinary “purveyor of
images” to late 20th century art. A great many contemporary visual artists have
drawn on the filmmaker’s motifs to create artistic offspring that would doubtless
have astounded him
Artists who provided visual inspiration for the filmmaker include Magritte, Munch and
Duchamp, while those influenced by him include Cindy Sherman, Eldon Garnet and
Willie Doherty. Contemporary fine artists who express the ‘sample culture’ include the
British sound/video artist Mark Leckey and the American DJ, composer, collagist and
sculptor Christian Marclay (Tate Modern, 2003) and, in Ireland, the painter John Paul
McAree (McKervey & Long, 2002).
Other art forms have also embodied practices of ‘borrowing’, such as the incorporation
of ‘folk’ tunes in classical music by composers such as Dvořák or O’Riada (Swanson,
2000: 139). In literature and writing the ‘borrowing’ of plots, characters and lines was
widespread amongst Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Schwartz (1996: 311-315)
lists numerous celebrated authors and public figures who also happened to be
plagiarists, including Coleridge, Poe, Martin Luther King and Laurence Sterne (‘who
10
borrowed so thoroughly for his fiction, sent his mistress love letters copied from those
he sent his wife years before’). More recently, the mythical events of the Harry Potter
stories have been adapted from fairy stories extant in western folklore, such as that of
Cinderella (Wheeler, 2002).
Fashion is a field where inspiration is routinely drawn from the ‘looks’ of the past:
perhaps no more so than in the current enthusiasm for ‘retro’ dressing. As the New
York Metro on-line magazine notes:
it may come as a shock to customers, but most designers regularly dispatch staff
worldwide to scour vintage depots in search of inspiration. (The fashion world is
stalled in a staunch postmodernism, where success is measured in the ability to
synthesize various influences and make them commercially viable.) These
designers buy up bags, belts, or even a coat and then limit their pilfering to the
details: the stitching here, perhaps, or a buttonhole there. But they usually stop a
hemline short of producing a direct copy (Larocca, 2002)
The practice is only condemned when the ‘borrowing’ is seen to go too far: as in French
fashion designer Nicolas Ghesquiere’s blatant copying in 2002 of a 1973 work by the
late Californian designer Kaisik Wong (Figure 3). This is where, according to I.D.
magazine (Chen, 2003: 79) ‘referencing something becomes ripping it off’.
Nevertheless Ghesquiere was unperturbed by the expose of his plagiarism: he was
reported as saying: “Yes, I made a mistake. Now my team and I laugh about it”
(Garnett, 2003). It has had no negative impact on his career: indeed it has probably
made a positive contribution to his profile.

Wong 1973
Ghesquiere 2002
Figure 3
Ghesquiere’s ‘stitch-by-stitch’ copy of Wong’s 1973 vest
Seen even by the fashionistas as blatant copying
11
Such is the ubiquity of intertextuality in contemporary culture that one critic (Petersen,
2000: 167) has remarked that:
the traditional distinction between originality - having ideas - and plagiarism stealing them - privileges notions of authenticity, individual creativity, and, most
especially, priority or precedence. Plagiarists are, by definition, second. Yet with
the increasingly unchecked circulation of ideas, this all-or-nothing emphasis on
having an idea first . . . [has] itself become pointless, except in the field of public
relations
Contemporary postmodern culture rejects the tenets of the individually creative
Romantic Author (Woodmansee & Jaszi cited in Livingston-Webber, 1999: 268) and
rather is interested in the ‘realignment of [existing] elements in transformative
recombination’ (Livingston-Webber, 1999: 265). Such recombinatory activity, whether
in dance music, The Simpsons, TV advertising, zine culture or Hollywood film2, is a key
element of the cultural context within which contemporary discussions of intertextuality
and plagiarism must be located. But, as we see in the next section, it is not only in the
areas of entertainment and cultural production that such practices are institutionalised.
Institutionalised copying
Outside of the arts and media, textual copying and appropriation are routinised in other
aspects of culture. Government ministers give speeches – using the first person – that
are written for them by civil servants or speechwriters; writers of leading textbooks add
their name (or brand) to material written by research assistants. ‘Celebrities’ (eg
columnist and celebrity adulterer Terri Keane) and sportstars (eg footballer and
controversialist Roy Keane) routinely have their words or their lives recreated under
their name by ‘ghostwriters’. Most notorious, in recent history, was the admitted
plagiarism of postgraduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi’s work on Iraqi intelligence
forces by operatives of the British government in the compilation of their ‘Iraq dossier’
(‘UK dossier that lifted sections of thesis criticised’, Irish Times 6 Feb 2004).
None of these practices is viewed in a particularly negative way (except perhaps by
subordinates whose efforts are unaccredited) and in many cases is seen as both routine
and necessary. This is what Martin (1994) calls ‘institutional plagiarism’. He sees it as
‘a feature of systems of formal hierarchy, in which credit for intellectual work is more a
consequence than a cause of unequal power and position’. There are those that are in a
position to get others to do some or all of their intellectual labour for them, just as they
can get their housekeeping or nannying done by domestic staff.
At a more prosaic level it is obvious to anybody working in an Irish academic
environment that copyright legislation is – notwithstanding the display of warning
notices – being thwarted on a massive scale through bulk photocopying of images, sheet
music, articles, chapters and often entire books. It is estimated by the global publishing
industry that 300 billion pages of text are illegally photocopied per annum, representing
a potential loss to publishers of over US$15 billion (PASA, nd). Such activity is clearly
As Dorothy Parker once remarked ‘The only ism Hollywood believes in is plagiarism’
[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Dorothy_Parker/]
2
12
visible to students, as they are provided with such materials by tutors and lecturers. It is
only very recently (c.June 2005) that Irish tertiary educators appear to have come to an
agreement in relation to the proper licensing of such activity.
Similarly, while an issue of copyright and piracy rather than of plagiarism, businesses in
Ireland and elsewhere are known to engage extensively in unauthorised copying of
software. It is estimated by the Business Software Alliance that 41% of software in use
in Irish businesses is illegally copied: a loss of a potential US$71 million (‘Software
piracy cost highlighted’, Irish Times 8 July 2004). Piracy on such a scale indicates that
such copying is widely seen as an acceptable, perhaps economically necessary, practice.
The increased use of websites by businesses of all sizes and types has also stimulated
copying and borrowing in their design and development: as the ‘look and feel’ of
commercial websites increasingly becomes standardised (as has already happened with
software and TV formats) it is easy to detect possible instances of plagiarism in website
design (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Standardised ‘look and feel’ or website plagiarism?
Another ‘acceptable’ face of plagiarism can be found in the use of others’ materials in
lectures and other teaching activities – often in the form of what Howard (1999: 89-91)
calls ‘patchwriting’ – that is ‘copying from a source text and then deleting some words,
altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym substitutes’.
Lecturers commonly provide information in lectures, and in associated handouts or
webpages, that is not adequately sourced, nor indeed referenced at all. There are
apocryphal stories of such handouts being submitted by disgruntled students to
plagiarism detection services, with interesting results!
13
At primary or secondary level attribution of sources is even less likely. The process is
accentuated when students slavishly copy material from overheads or, as happened in
one case that I directly experienced, a secondary school biology teacher handed
completed student ‘fieldwork projects’ to her pupils to memorise, for exam purposes, as
a record of their own ‘research’ activities.
Aspects of what might be called plagiarism also constitute a fundamental aspect of the
academic writing process as described by Haviland and Mullin (1999). In the
production of academic papers and funding grant applications academics routinely draw
on the input of others – circulating drafts; incorporating comments made at seminar
presentations; making use of amendments suggested by anonymous referees; treating
already successful papers or funding submissions as templates. Hunt reports that his
research on writing practices at a Canadian bank workplace found similar processes at
play: workers ‘regularly found themselves participating in an ecology of documents in
which texts were passed among many hands to be edited, reshaped, rethought, touched
up, repurposed’ (Hunt, 2004c).
Academic researchers often ‘repurpose’ their material in a similar way: they deliver a
similar paper in a number of contexts – as a conference presentation, a journal article, a
chapter in a book, a lecture - without necessarily drawing attention to the lack of
originality3. Such activities are not only seen as legitimate, but are actively rewarded in
a competitive academic context: they provide for extra lines in the academic’s
Curriculum Vitae and may provide additional publication ‘points’ for the academic’s
employing institution. But when such actions are carried out by students they may well
be defined as plagiarism or collusion.
We can see that in many institutional spheres of contemporary life: in entertainment, art,
politics, business and academia, activities that could be labelled plagiarism are
recognised as acceptable, even necessary and routine. These are legitimated forms of
intertextuality. In some cases they are regulated by clearly understood mechanisms of
intellectual property rights, licensing or contracts; but in other cases the practices take
place in quasi-legal and rapidly changing normative contexts. There is no certainty
about the management of intertextuality in the ‘real’ world; thus it is a challenge for
educators to enforce a simple and absolute concept of plagiarism within their own
world. There is a particular challenge for educators to provide a rationale for their claim
that plagiarism by students is a deviant act, when those same students can easily see that
numerous others – perhaps even their own lecturers and tutors – engage quite
shamelessly in the exercise.
Asserting the value of intellectual property
Whilst many artists have made free with the world of signs, and others have routinely
‘borrowed’ material for their own purposes, countercurrents have been developing
amongst those who make their money from intellectual property [IP]: particularly those
who own and control global consumer brands. In her best-selling book No logo Naomi
3
I recently experienced this at an international academic conference I attended. A US academic presented
a paper that had already been published in an academic journal. This exercise of self-plagiarism was at no
time alluded to by the presenter.
14
Klein (2000: 176) points out:
we have almost two centuries worth of brand-name history under our collective
belt, coalescing to create a sort of global pop-cultural Morse code. But there is just
one catch: while we may all have the code implanted in our brains, we’re not really
allowed to use it. In the name of protecting the brand from dilution, artists and
activists who try to engage with the brand as equal partners in their “relationships”
are routinely dragged into court for violating trademark, copyright, libel or “brand
disparagement” laws – easily abused statutes that form an airtight protective seal
around the brand, allowing it to brand us, but prohibiting us from so much as
scuffing it.
In a world where intellectual property – from one’s personal image to computer code –
is becoming ever more central to commerce, companies such as Disney, McDonalds and
Mattel (makers of Barbie dolls, Figure 5) are acting to exert greater control over what
they regard as their exclusive property (Klein, 2000: 177-178; Rand, 1995: 76;
Livingston-Webber, 1999: 268).

Figure 5
Barbie the suicide bomber.
The sort of cultural appropriation not appreciated by Mattel – the doll’s manufacturers. But do
they have a right to threaten artists with legal action for subverting their brand image?
In 2003 British visual artist James Cauty was the subject of ‘cease and desist’ letter
from the Royal Mail due to his use of images from postage stamps in his Black smoke,
stamps of mass destruction exhibition. Music star Madonna is the subject of a lawsuit
from Samuel Bourdin, son of late French photographer Guy Bourdin, alleging that she
used images from the photographer’s works in her video Hollywood (Beck, 2004)
15
(Figure 6). In possibly the most bizarre such case musician Mike Batt (onetime
songwriter to the Wombles) paid over stg£100,000 to settle an action by the John Cage
Trust that Batt’s work One minute silence (which ‘sounded’ as suggested in the title)
infringed on the copyright of Cage’s similarly silent (but longer) 1952 piece 4’33”
(‘Copycat commandoes’ The Age (Melbourne) 25 September 2003).

Madonna
Bourdin

Bourdin
Madonna
Figure 6
Madonna’s images: do they do more than ‘refer to Bourdin’? (Beck, 2004: 46)
Image source: www.guybourdin.org/hollywood/
According to Pfohl (2000: 196) ‘copyright law reifies existing ways of perceiving art,
and in so doing, stifles, rather than encourages, creativity’. Conversely ‘[the means of]
self-expression is often appropriation and redefinition of the images of popular culture’.
Indeed there is merit in the use and reuse of ideas, concepts, knowledge, language and
symbols: according to Moulton and Robinson (2002) ‘building new ideas from old
ideas, using existing components and combining them in new ways, might be creativity,
not plagiarism’. This is certainly what Tarantino, Warhol and Eminem believe – as do
numerous DJs, bloggers and fine artists. But what you can do depends on the discursive
field within which you operate. What might be admired in the realm of a reflexive and
winkingly-ironic postmodern popular culture may elicit a very different response in the
rather more rarefied (but, significantly increasingly marketised) world of academia
(LaFollette, 1992). It may also raise the ire of IP owners and their legal representatives.
16
The vigorous pursuit of intellectual property rights on a global level, finding its ultimate
expression in the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)
agreement, has led to an equally vigorous so-called ‘@nticopyright’ movement
(Livingstone-Webber, 1999). Combatants include the band Negativland, who famously
took on U2 and their record company Island Records (negativland.com) as well as the
‘authors’ of numerous print and web-based zines and blogs (weblogs) who routinely
take existing text and images and recombine them into new forms – usually critical in
some way of the original source (Livingston-Webber, 1999).
The @nticopyright movement has increasingly moved away from ultimately fruitless
confrontation with multinational owners of IP towards more creative solutions such as
the Creative Commons initiative (Figure 7) that is developing new types of licensing to
facilitate collaborative creativity. Their slogan ‘skip the intermediaries’ encourages
direct contact between IP owners without the involvement of lawyers or licensing
bodies leading to, it is claimed, new types of collaborative creativity
(creativecommons.org).
Figure 7
Creative Commons
‘creative works set free for certain uses’
The IP environment has been fundamentally challenged by digital technology and
modern media structures. The convergence between both media forms (all of which –
whether painting, film or song - can be converted to a stream of binary code) and media
industries (companies such as Vivendi or AOL TimeWarner span numerous industries)
has dissolved many of the boundaries that were created and sustained by specific
technologies and business forms (Tovey & Share, 2003: 429-430). Indeed Mirow and
Shore (1997, cited in Carroll, 2002: 15) suggest that the process of digitisation has
17
altered the nature of the ‘ownership’ of texts. Web-based material exists in a blurred
space between ‘public’ and ‘private’, challenging former notions of intellectual property
(Turnitin.com, 2004).
This is the environment within which media-savvy students live: one where
downloading music is a ubiquitous activity of debatable legal status; where weblogs
incorporate masses of ‘copyrighted’ material and where amateur designers and visual
artists gleefully alter existing images with Photoshop (www.fark.com). Once again,
there is a challenge in trying to evolve a relevant discussion of academic plagiarism
within this dynamic environment.
Plagiarism: a problem of morality or of ethics?
whether theft, lie, fraud, freeloading, deafness to the voice of God, cultural
vandalism, or whatever combination, plagiarism is a falsification of self (Swanson,
2000: 141)
We have seen that intertextuality is ubiquitous within western culture. But we also
recognise, in some quarters, an increasing realisation of the value of IP and attempts to
enforce (and in response to resist) exclusive ownership and control over ideas and
images. But this does not really help us to address the question: is plagiarism a good or
a bad thing? As Moulton and Robinson (2002) point out, this is an area of considerable
ethical complexity. The unattributed use of others’ words or ideas is not universally
perceived as a bad thing within our culture. Indeed there is a strong argument that our
notions of intellectual property and the ownership of ideas is a culturally specific one.
Swanson (2000: 136) suggests that ‘in much of the world the idea of collective
accretion of ideas and form is dominant, and the construct of individual creativity that
dominates in the US and Europe is not emphasized’. Within Western culture itself there
is evidence that the notion of individual ‘ownership’ of texts is a relatively recent one
(Goldschmidt, 1943, cited in Chandler, 2003).
Permission, under specific circumstances, to borrow, adapt and reuse ideas is
entrenched within IP legislation, such as copyright and patenting law. The process of
using others’ ideas or words then is not morally circumspect in itself. Rather, as
Swanson (2000: 133) argues: ‘plagiarism is an ethical question (in the sense that it
pertains to prohibitions of specific groups)’. But ethics are a social construct, developed
within specific social and historical contexts. Thus to recognise an ethical basis for our
judgements about plagiarism is to admit that the concept itself is contingent and open to
critique: it is not a moral absolute.
Consciousness of plagiarism, and the extent to which it is seen to be problematic, varies
according to a number of institutional factors. Thus in relation to the field of design,
Swanson (2000: 136) remarks that:
when a designer appropriates a form or visual idea from the work of another
designer we deem it plagiarism. When designers appropriate forms from ‘fine
artists’ the reaction is mixed. When designers appropriate forms from nondesigners/non-artists it is called “recognition of the vernacular”
18
The images created by ‘ordinary people’ (not designers) are seen as open to assimilation
by designers, but not those of their colleagues within the industry. As with many other
facets of plagiarism, the issue of power comes to the fore.
On the one hand plagiarism is a type of theft: it deprives the ‘real’ authors of a work of
credit for that work. The ‘victim’ may be seen to be the individual creator, or even the
society as a whole, which is deprived of the rigorous construction of new ideas and
expression. But is this any more than an analogy? It is arguable that ideas, or even the
language they are expressed in, are less tangible – less real? – than other forms of
property. As Moulton and Robinson (2002) point out, there is a major difference
between intellectual and other types of property:
if words and ideas were merely property, and plagiarism merely a form of theft,
then there would be nothing wrong with buying the rights to authorship from
another, as in the case of commercial term-paper services. The original authors sell
their claim to authorship for money. The plagiarist who uses these services is not
stealing the credit from another person because the original author does not want
the credit. But credit for authorship is not something that can be sold or given
away. Credit for authorship is so undetachable that even the reverse of stealing,
falsely attributing one’s own work to another, is also wrong; it constitutes forgery.
In relation to ideas origination, not ownership, is the key. Authorial credit is like virtue
or guilt – an attribute that cannot be readily transferred.
There is also a question of scale. As Swanson (2000: 135) remarks in relation to
‘ordinary’ theft: ‘does anyone believe that taking a couple of pencils home from your
work at a large corporation is the exact equivalent of taking pencils from a blind man
selling them on the street?’. Similarly, there may be degrees of seriousness and moral
culpability in relation to plagiarism. This becomes an important issue when responding
to it (LaFollette, 1992: 50; Carroll, 2002: 73-80)
Australian communications academic Robert Briggs has also addressed the ethical
dimensions of plagiarism. He suggests (2003: 19) that ‘the rush to condemn acts of
plagiarism risks riding roughshod over a problem that may turn out to be a far more
complex – behaviourally, ethically, conceptually, even linguistically – than has been
previously granted’. Briggs notes that to equate acts of plagiarism with ‘cheating’ or
‘theft’ is to adopt a ‘heavy-handed’ moralising tone that may actually prevent the issue
from being examined in a useful and productive way. Similar arguments, that focus on
plagiarism as part of the writing process, have been made by Hunt (2002), Levin (2003)
and Clerehan and Johnson (2003).
As an alternative to the ‘morality’ approach, Briggs suggests an understanding based on
‘ethics’. This he sees as an approach that: ‘focuses on highly contextualised practices
and decisions, seeing all decisions and practices in terms of their many, potential and
not always foreseeable consequences and outcomes’ (2003: 20). An ethical stance calls
for a response, not of condemnation or judgement, but of understanding and problemsolving. This is quite a challenging stance, in an area where moral judgements may be
rapidly made, where emotions run high and where attempts towards understanding have
the potential to raise complex and difficult issues in relation to knowledge, pedagogy
and power. Or, as Lunsford (1999: x) puts it, the issue of plagiarism can reveal: ‘the
19
deeply repressed and unspoken formalist, positivist, and individualist ideological
assumptions underlying the seemingly simple need for exclusionary ownership of
intellectual property’.
Once again, the issue of plagiarism reveals dimensions of some complexity. We have
already seen that in the broader culture the practice can be acceptable or even rewarded.
Legal understandings and practices around the allied area of IP are fluid and contested;
and it is no easier to say that plagiarism is unambiguously ‘bad’ or immoral. An
approach rooted in ethics leads us to consider in a sophisticated way the contextual
issues that help to socially construct the category of ‘plagiarism’ as a particular subset
of intertextuality. This approach asks us to consider the broader cultural milieu, as
sketched above. It also of necessity points us toward an examination of practices of
teaching and learning. For, as Briggs (2003: 21) suggests: ‘[what is] wrong with
plagiarism is not simply that one has stolen “someone else’s” work but rather that such
an act demonstrates that one has yet to master the skills of the discipline’. Perhaps then
the practices of unattributed borrowing are connected to how education is conducted.
This is an important issue that we turn to next.
20
4 Plagiarism in the academy
Interestingly plagiarism is not considered in two of the most influential textbooks on
third-level teaching and assessment: Brown et al (1997) and Ramsden (1992). A
popular teaching text by Fry et al (2003: 290-293) addresses plagiarism only as an
aspect of the teaching of computer programming and does not provide for a broader
discussion of the topic. Biggs’s 1999 volume Teaching for quality learning at
university, which has become something of a ‘bible’ in relation to tertiary teaching,
raises the topic (pp. 129-130) only in relation to ‘international students’ – seen to be
more likely to plagiarise than their western colleagues4.
This apparent myopia is somewhat at variance with the high degree of concern that
some of those in the field of teaching and learning have expressed in relation to the
issue. It is not my intention to enter into a complex discussion of teaching and learning
matters here. Rather it is to point to some of the factors that may influence the incidence
of plagiarism and that may underpin the apparent increase in the practice.
It is commonly accepted that the process of massification of third-level education has
had implications for teaching and learning. In Ireland, as elsewhere in the western
world, entry into post-secondary education has become a mainstream and majority
activity for significant sectors of the population. Those who now enter the tertiary
system may bring with them a far more diverse set of motivations and experiences than
was the case when a university or college education was available only to a narrow
social elite.
Of particular concern in recent times has been the question of student engagement with
the education system. It is argued that for a number of reasons students are now less
likely to treat the third level college as a ‘greedy institution’. Rather their interests may
be complex and multi-faceted, incorporating complex spectra of study, paid work,
travel, commuting, social life and caring responsibilities (McInnis, 2003). One outcome
of such complexity is an apparent crisis of retention – particularly marked in the
Institute of Technology sector in Ireland (Flanagan et al, 2000) and in similar
institutions in other countries.
Another manifestation may be in changing approaches to teaching and learning,
including assessment. It is argued that students increasingly reflect the managerialist
and marketised approach of higher education policymakers (Marginson & Considine,
2000) and are adopting an increasingly utilitarian approach to their education (James,
2001). Academic work is seen as a means to an end in a competitive environment,
rather than a set of skills and values to be fostered and valued for its sake. At the same
time, argues Hinkson (2002), the free sharing of ideas within academia is increasingly
displaced by self-interest.
The supposed propensity of ‘international’ (generally a euphemism for Asian) students to plagiarise has
been challenged by many of those directly involved in teaching development and support with such
students. See for example Buranen, 1999; Melles, 2003; Leask, 2004; and Graham & Leung, 2004. The
Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia, Denise Bradley, has gone so far as to suggest that
‘There is a dark stain of racism lying beneath some of the public outcry about plagiarism’ (Bradley,
2003).
4
21
It is one thing to posit that such changes are linked with a greater incidence of
plagiarism: another to demonstrate the validity of such a connection. According to
research by Cox et al (2001, cited in Carroll, 2002: 18) British university staff and
students cite poor time management as the main reason the latter engage in plagiarism,
with staff more likely to identify this as the main cause. This has been supported by at
least one subsequent small-scale study in a British institution (Dennis, 2004). This
factor may reflect an increasing involvement by students in ‘outside’ activities, driven
by economic necessity or consumerist desires.
A second major reason for increasing levels of plagiarism may be the increased ease
with which students can carry it out: in particular the opportunities afforded by digital
technologies such as CD-ROMs and the World Wide Web. As well as fostering a
‘borrowing’ culture, as outlined above, the web, in particular, just makes copying
simpler. It is quicker and easier to cut and paste, edit and reformat material in digital
form than it is to laboriously handwrite or type material from printed sources (Hansen,
2003: 777). Added to this is the speed and efficiency with which search engines can
find material on just about any topic (Figure 8). Carroll (2002: 14) reports that
academics believe print-based plagiarism to still be the most widespread, but little
evidence is forwarded for this claim, and it may well be that university staff are just not
as au fait with the digital world as their students. There is certainly a huge range of
literature – some of it evidence-based - that suggests web-based plagiarism is a major
threat.
Figure 8
It’s easy to find material on the net!
EssayFinder.com will happily sell you an essay on the ethics of plagiarism
22
A third, and key reason underpinning the practice of plagiarism (if not a factor in its
apparent increase) may be the inability of tertiary teaching and assessment practices to
respond to broader cultural shifts in the creation and dissemination of knowledge, as
manifested in the communication, media and entertainment industries. Contemporary
communication products are typified by speed, intertextuality, visual impact, real-time
synchronicity and constructed forms of ‘reality’ that have nothing to do with ‘realism’
or authenticity (Turnbull, 2005). Students who live in a postmodern media-saturated
culture - where information is both valuable but increasingly banal and evanescent - are
often faced with demands to produce written work that is bounded by narrative
structures and expressive styles that are as old as (or older than) the printed word.
In a world where the visual is ever more influential, and where design is a marker of
value, academic work remains resolutely text-based: and text of a most traditional kind
(certainly not txt msgng!). While the collaborative, the communal and the tribal is
celebrated in contemporary youth culture (Maffesoli: 1996) the individual Romantic
creation is still seen by academic discourse as the locus of authenticity. It should be no
surprise that a student of the 21st century is perhaps more likely to produce a clip-art
festooned, idiosyncratically spelled and derivative rant than a carefully-crafted essay,
meticulously-referenced and with a unitary narrative thread.
These cultural shifts may suggest why plagiarism is seemingly endemic within global
tertiary educational systems. In the US it has been reported by Plagiarism.org (a site
provided by iParadigms, a retailer of anti-plagiarism software, who admittedly have a
vested interest in boosting the figures) that between 36% and 100% of (American)
college students have plagiarised from Internet sources (Plagiarism.org, 2004).Carroll
(2002: 13) reports more cautious figures of 15-30% and points to difficulties in clearly
defining what constitutes plagiarism. Such a high level of incidence raises real
challenges for educators, for within the current context:
by its nature plagiarism threatens the value and integrity of what is being taught. It
threatens students’ engagement with learning and, unless addressed, could
undermine the worth of awards students earn (Carroll, 2002: 13-14)
It is important therefore to establish how educators perceive and respond to the
challenges of intertextuality. This is the subject of the next chapter.
23
5 The academic experience
Characteristics of the study sample
This chapter reports on the results of the questionnaire administered to a purposive
sample (n=63) of academic staff within three Institutes of Technology. The study
sample represents a broad range of experience, with new to very established lecturers
and a variety of discipline areas (Table 2). Business, humanities and computing were
well represented, engineering and construction studies less so; the science area was the
least represented. Due to time constraints, no systematic attempt has been made to
match the sample against the total teaching population.
Table 2
Disciplines represented amongst study sample
accounting
5
adult education/ learning support
3
apprenticeship
2
architecture + construction
4
art + design
3
business
6
communications + information studies
4
computing
9
engineering
3
humanities/social studies
7
law
2
library education
2
education manager
1
media and languages
2
nursing
3
science
4
tourism
3
Total
63
24
Years teaching at third level: 0-35 years [a small number of respondents were in ‘nonteaching’ roles, eg library, learning support]
Mean years teaching: 11.2 years
Defining plagiarism
There was a considerable degree of consensus within the study sample as to what
constituted plagiarism. Key elements amongst the academics’ definitions included the
following elements or phrases:

copying (‘blatant’, ‘wholesale’)/‘cogging’

another’s work

stating/claiming as your own

without attribution/referencing

without consent/permission

disguised use

passing off

claiming originality

not giving credit

theft/stealing/taking

lack of understanding of context

use of another’s intellectual property/copyright material

deliberate
Exposure to plagiarism
The academics were asked whether they had experienced plagiarism at their own
institution. The results are indicated in Table 3. The majority (79%) had experienced
plagiarism while the remainder (21%) indicated that they had not.
Table 3
Extent to which academics have experienced plagiarism at current educational institution (n=63)
no.
%
yes
50
79
no
13
21
total
63
100
25
Respondents were then asked to indicate the extent to which they had experienced acts
of plagiarism (Table 4). Eleven respondents had not experienced plagiarism, though
some of these suggested that they had encountered the practice in contexts other than
the institution where they now taught. The mean number of times that respondents had
experienced plagiarism was three times.
Table 4
Frequency of academics’ experience of plagiarism (n=63)
(percentages may add up to more than 100 due to rounding)
no.
%
once
10
16
2-5
24
38
6-10
3
5
10+
15
24
never
11
17
no answer
1
2
total
63
102
Incidences of plagiarism
In order to explore the types of activity that academics had experienced and had
consequently defined as plagiarism, respondents were asked to indicate one example of
a case of plagiarism they had come across (Table 5). The responses indicated quite a
broad range of practices, reflecting many aspects of the definitions of plagiarism
previously outlined. Responses included (not all responses have been listed):
Table 5
Examples of plagiarism experienced by academic staff
‘making an exact copy of a program created by another student – then
changing a few details – eg the author’s name!’
‘material copied directly from the internet/web pages – no adjustments made,
very blatant’
‘material was presented in a project that was not referenced. when source was
checked out significant paragraphs had been used verbatim with no
references given for such direct quotes’
‘a submitted project when cross-referenced and checked proved to have been
used elsewhere’
26
‘copying MCQ answers in exam from person in front’
‘student presented a project for a start-up business that already existed. the
content of the business plan was not his own and some material was directly
downloaded from the internet’
‘2 assignments submitted were identical’
‘drawings copied from another student – looked the same’
‘Chinese student learned off chapter of textbook, wrote it out in exam, could
not understand why she did not get 100%!’
‘student submitted essay that had been submitted a number of years earlier’
‘student fairly obviously got someone to rewrite an essay on which she had
done badly’
‘student submitted work on a subject and I happened to remember something
I had read on the subject, went back to it and discovered a large amount had
been copied exactly’
‘ “chunking” of textbook material into assignment’
‘use of essay bought from the web’
‘5 students doing an assessment together copying it to individual floppy disks
and making minor word alterations’
‘projects (PowerPoint presentations) created by an external agency’
‘chapter in a thesis was a copy off a website’
‘unauthorised use of my materials/documents, slightly altered, reproduced in
altered format – by a colleague!’
‘work undertaken by my husband for his PhD was plagiarised by US
academic’
‘web template and animated gifs used in MSc artefact and not acknowledged
by source’
‘2 students presented same PowerPoint presentation – exact same content,
different colours and styles’
‘2 students photocopied their report and presented it as their own, which
probably indicates that they think the lecturer is not even going to read it or
that lab reports have no importance at all [respondent’s emphasis]
The data indicates a broad variety of activities that the respondents have identified as
plagiarism. These can be categorised as follows:

copying of one student’s work by another

copying web-based material

absent or inadequate referencing of sources

resubmitting work presented elsewhere, either by the student or another
27

learning material from another source by heart, and then presenting it in an exam

unauthorised input from third parties in student work

reproducing large amounts (‘chunks’) of material from textbooks

unauthorised student collaboration

unauthorised use of respondent’s work by colleagues/other academics

use of existing templates or formats
The variety suggests that, while there are commonalities amongst practices perceived as
plagiarism, there is also a complexity that makes an unambiguous response problematic.
Responding to plagiarism
A particular interest of this research is to examine the extent to which academics feel
confident in responding to what they perceive to be instances of plagiarism. The
questionnaire sought information on two aspects of this response: first, how individual
academics themselves had responded to cases of plagiarism; second, how they
perceived the response of their institution.
Personal responses
The quantity of information provided here was quite extensive, so an attempt will be
made to categorise the main forms of response (Table 6). Some individual lecturers
engaged in quite complex and multi-layered responses, the full sophistication of which
is inevitably lost in this categorisation process.
Table 6
Responses to incidences of plagiarism
(Respondents could indicate more than one option)
type of action
mentions
referred to Course Leader/Head of Department/Head of School
15
dealt with privately through discussion with student
13
student awarded reduced mark for piece of work
9
student interviewed by lecturer
9
no information given/not applicable
8
allowed student to resubmit without penalty
8
zero mark awarded for piece of work
8
no apparent action taken
8
provided information on plagiarism to whole class
3
instigated/referred to formal disciplinary proceedings/committee
3
allowed student to resubmit with maximum of 40% available
2
failed subject
2
28
changed method of assessment
2
issue unresolved
2
student had to repeat year
2
student withdrew from course
2
discussed with colleagues
1
referred to external advice
1
The data indicates that the most commonly adopted strategy (used either alone or in
conjunction with others) was to refer the matter upwards towards senior levels of
management (most commonly Head of Department or Head of School). Almost as
common was an informal strategy of talking to the student concerned. This approach
often involved an appreciation that the student was not aware of or did not properly
understand appropriate academic practices of attribution. A range of penalties from a
reduced mark for the assignment in question (the most common marking strategy) to a
zero mark were reported. A significant number took no action at all. It is notable that
more swingeing responses, such as referral to formal disciplinary processes, failing of
subject, student withdrawal or repeating the year were rarely mentioned.
Institutional responses
Respondents were also asked ‘how well does your institution support staff who
encounter incidences of plagiarism?’ The responses are outlined in Table 7.
Table 7
Institutional support in relation to plagiarism (n=63)
(percentages may add up to more than 100 due to rounding)
no.
%
excellent support
1
2
good support
11
17
some support
25
40
no support
13
21
no answer/don’t know
13
21
total
63
101
Fewer than a fifth of respondents felt that they received ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ support
from their institution. Similarly a fifth expressed the view that they received (or would
receive) ‘no support’. These figures should be of some concern to academic
29
management within the Institute of Technology sector. On the other hand, it could be
reported that approximately 60% of academics felt that they were receiving some level
of support in relation to plagiarism issues: this suggests strongly that there is a
consciousness about the issue within the institutions surveyed.
The feeling of support varied across institutions. This is reflected in Figure 9 which
directly compares the level of perceived support across the three Institutes of
Technology surveyed. It may be seen that while staff in Institutes B and C reflect a lack
of confidence in the level of institutional support, those in Institute A expect a much
greater positive level of support in dealing with plagiarism. Further research would be
required to explore the reason for this variation, but it is the case that this particular
Institute has a level of formalised learning support that is not available in the other two
Institutes.
% of respondents
45
40
Institute A
35
Institute B
30
Institute C
25
20
15
10
5
0
missing
excellent
good
some
none
Figure 9
Institutional support in relation to plagiarism, by institution
Institutional support for ‘dealing with’ plagiarism
Within the level of institutional support, respondents were asked how they dealt with
incidences of plagiarism (Table 8). Not surprisingly, a range of responses was reflected
(not all responses have been listed):
30
Table 8
Perceptions amongst study sample of how Institute responded to issues of plagiarism
Level of perceived support
Comment
excellent support
‘staff are encouraged to be extremely harsh and serious in
dealing with the students involved. Full penalties can be
invoked and are supported by the Head of Department
and School’
good support
‘issue is currently being addressed by Academic Council’
good support
‘college is now more “customer focused” and is less
likely to face up to students if you cannot show 100% that
material is plagiarised’
some support
‘usually incidents of plagiarism are dealt with directly
with students concerned. I have not seen any policy –
college or School – re plagiarism’
some support
‘plenty of advice on what it is and the consequences but
no follow through if you report an incident the advice is
generally to get the student to resubmit’
some support
‘no policy ie various procedures and no consistency’
some support
‘we’re all at sea and it’s very much left to our own
judgement’
no support
‘always have the sense that management will not support
staff when faced with a challenge by a student’
no support
‘it has been suggested to me that a firm stance on
plagiarism is not advised given management fear of
litigation from students and the difficulty of proving
same’
no support
‘while people are prepared to discuss the incident, they
are not willing to do anything abou6t it and the student
can get away with it’
no support
‘issue should be referred to neutral person (referee) rather
than lecturer’
no support
‘this institute supports plagiarism by failing to do
anything about it in cases of proven acts … students are
regularly passed at appeal behind the back of lecturers’
missing
‘deal with it myself’
missing
‘no idea. Software available?’
The strong message coming through, even from those who perceive a good level of
institutional support, is that there is a lack of clear procedures, that many cases are dealt
with at a personal or departmental level and that there is a general lack of clarity in
relation to the issue. This reinforces the feedback derived from the previous question in
31
relation to personal responses to incidences of plagiarism. Those who are more critical
of levels of support see a failure of management support, either through fear of
litigation, a strong focus on the student as ‘customer’, or a lack of willingness to ‘do
anything’.
The ideal response?
Respondents were presented in the questionnaire with a hypothetical situation, as
follows:
1.
If an 18-year old first-year student with no mitigating circumstances has been
found to have submitted an article downloaded from the internet as their own
work, what do you think is the appropriate response?
The aim of this question was to elicit the response that the staff member would see as
the most appropriate in this situation. Of course, this is only one of numerous possible
scenarios – Carroll has made use of a range of others in her plagiarism workshops and
presentations (see for example Carroll, 2003: 17). Responses to this scenario included
(Table 9) the following (sample only):
Table 9
Responses to plagiarism scenario
‘bring the error to their attention – it may be that they are unaware of the problem’
‘penalise student by having them resubmit another article. Then reprimand student with
supporting institutional documentation on the institute’s plagiarism regulations’
‘resubmit with maximum mark of 40%’
‘suspension’
‘fail with no avenue to repeat’
‘unless the student is properly advised re plagiarism policies – should s/he be
penalised?’
‘loss of credit points – asked to leave’
‘explain to them about plagiarism and show them how to download work correctly’
‘give student one chance per programme’
‘the candidate should be given the opportunity to explain their actions and the
appropriate response should be clearly defined in the rules of the Institute’
‘written and verbal notification to the student along with a zero mark and the
opportunity to resubmit the work’
32
‘no marks for the assignment and a warning that, if it should happen again, the matter
would be brought to the attention of the Head of School/Department’
‘if it is the first time, (s)he should be asked to resubmit and be given a warning’
‘I would like to think that I could consult the ‘plagiarism policy’ of the college to deal
with this! I would be reluctant to take a ‘heavy handed’ approach. I would like to see a
‘positive’ attitude adopted, ie improve writing skills, workshops on essay writing &c
and as part of this a ‘plagiarism’ policy could emerge
The responses again indicate a broad range of possible actions in relation to incidences
of plagiarism. These range in severity from expulsion or suspension to friendly advice.
The overwhelming aspects identified relate to:

desire for a clear and known policy framework that lecturers can draw upon

treating the matter seriously

involving more senior members of management

providing advice to the student and ensuring that they know and understand ‘the
rules’

using the incidence of plagiarism as a ‘teaching opportunity’ to discuss issues
with the class as a whole

imposing penalties where warranted

paying attention to the context of the student’s behaviour
Conclusion
There are clear indicators here that academics want a clear, predictable, policy
framework within which to operate, supported with suitable teaching materials. They
are also sensitive to the situations that students find themselves in and are prepared to
respond in a sympathetic manner. Where penalties are necessary, they want them to be
applied in a predictable, fair and consistent manner. The questionnaire responses have
been reflected in the comments of participants in workshops and seminars. There is a
clear message here for those involved in devising management responses to the issue of
plagiarism. It is to these matters that we turn in the next chapter.
33
6 Managing plagiarism
The reviewed literature, and the responses of those surveyed for this research, suggest
three main types of response to the issue of plagiarism. These are briefly outlined
below. I will then outline what has been suggested as ‘best practice’ in terms of
‘managing plagiarism’ and will then briefly review a sample of plagiarism policies and
statements within the Irish tertiary sector.
Institutional responses to plagiarism
Response 1: Ignorance is bliss
[plagiarism] is one of those areas in the academy that no one wants to talk about
and is often rewarded for not addressing actively – (an Associate VP of Student
Life cited at Plagiarism.org, 2004)
One response of tertiary institutions is effectively to ignore the ‘problem’ of plagiarism.
Such denial may be expressed through: lack of any or adequate policy statements in
relation to plagiarism; absence of structures for identifying plagiarism; or failure to
provide active support for academic staff who wish to address the issue of plagiarism.
In one New Zealand institution identified by Carroll (2002: 76, citing Walker, 1998)
‘staff showed a “lack of awareness of institutional policies . . . anomalies in those
policies, inconsistencies in the way that they appear to be responding’. This suggests a
failure by the institution in question to deal seriously or in an aligned way with the issue
of plagiarism. Academics at the RMIT University in Melbourne reported that ‘staff
[there] were well aware that some students were plagiarising but many felt that the
problem was insuperable while others felt discipline was inappropriate’ (Zobel &
Hamilton, 2002: 23). Very similar sentiments were expressed by participants at the
Plagiarism: Prevention, practice and policy conference in Newcastle-on-Tyne in 2004
and a fifth of respondents to the survey reported in this thesis indicated that they felt
that their institution provided no support in relation to plagiarism.
A strategy of ignoring plagiarism may stem from a number of causes, including: lack of
time to pursue the issue; a desire to minimise negative publicity for an institution; a
belief that the problem is minimal or non-existent; a perception that individual
academics will not be supported in taking action; a fear of confronting students; or fear
of litigation. Such failure to respond to plagiarism is generally seen in a negative light.
Thus the University of Alberta, Canada, in its on-line guide to plagiarism, argues that
while:
reporting a plagiarizer and filing charges against a student can be a painful, timeconsuming experience for faculty . . . the worst course of action is to turn a blind
eye to students who plagiarize. Ignoring plagiarism undermines the value of
education, it undermines the university, and it undermines the academic
community (University of Alberta, nd)
34
Response 2: Techno-fix
improved crawler technology means that the JISC Plagiarism Detection Service is
able to access a constantly updated copy of the publicly available Internet. This
means that each document submitted is compared against the data content of over
17 million floppy discs or in excess of 38,000 CDs! (UnderCover December 2003,
p. 2)
It is commonly believed that plagiarism has mushroomed with the development of
electronic forms of information; in particular with the emergence of the World Wide
Web in the mid-1990s as a user- and consumer-friendly form of the Internet (Hansen,
2003: 775). From this technologically-determinist perspective it is not surprising that
many have seen the solution to the problem of plagiarism to lie in further use of
technology.
The challenge has been taken up by developers and purveyors of plagiarism-detection
software. Commercial and academic providers have included Turnitin.com (the current
market leader); CopyCatch; Digital Integrity; the Essay Verification Engine (EVE);
JPlag; the Glatt Plagiarism Screening Program; OrCheck and Scriptum (Carroll &
Appleton, 2001: Appendix 2; Carroll, 2002: 66-67; McKeever, 2004). The public sector
has also become involved: for example the JISC Plagiarism Detection Service in the UK
(UnderCover, December 2003). More straightforwardly, many academics (including
this author) have had success in detecting plagiarism through the use of popular search
engines such as Google.
But, as pointed out by Carroll and Appleton (2001: 7) the ‘technological approach by
itself can lead to an academic “arms race” ’. Just as CCTV can have the effect of
displacing crime, rather than eradicating it, the technological approach may simply lead
students to return to more ‘traditional’ print materials, or to sources such as CD ROMs
and databases that are far more difficult for electronic detection software to access.
Turnbull (2005) refers to the weaknesses inherent in the popular Turnitin.com
software5. These include the fact that it cannot penetrate much of the ‘hidden web’ that
is password-protected. This includes commercial databases, commercial full-text ejournals and e-books and many paper mills that are password protected. Nor can the
software identify copied diagrams or graphics. In addition Turnitin.com will also
identify all matching material in its database that is correctly cited – this then entails
further manual checks and interpretation (Allan et al, 2005).
Obviously, the software cannot highlight material that is copied directly from printed
material which is not available on the web, such as printed books, CD ROMs, much
grey literature, old non-electronic essays. Nor will it detect when a student has
paraphrased (with or without attribution) material – it is dependent on strings (of 8
words or more) of exactly matching text. Some of these issues have been addressed by
Turnitin.com, for example through the scanning in of some hard-copy texts, but it is
5
The reliability of Turnitin.com was not impressed on this author when an earlier version of part of this
paper was submitted to the site. Turnitin.com correctly identified properly-attributed quotes from a
variety of web-based sources, but failed to record that a very similar version of the entire paper was
located on the public web at www.aishe.org!
35
always likely that it will fail to embrace all textual material – a massive task that even
Google can only dream of!
Perhaps most importantly, given what has been stated by the academics surveyed, it is
the case that like any reactive response to ‘crime’ or deviance, technological ‘solutions’
tend to focus on the symptoms rather than addressing the social and cultural factors that
underpin any pattern of behaviour. I would suggest that most lecturing staff are more
interested in engaging students in better learning encounters than in engaging through
technological means in what Levin (2003) refers to as a ‘plagiarism witch-hunt’.
Response 3: Address assessment
The third common response to plagiarism is to address how students and their learning
are assessed. This is an important issue that is dealt with separately in the next chapter.
Broader management issues
At this stage it should be clear that any response to plagiarism should ideally be
couched within a holistic management approach. The person who has most
systematically addressed the issue surrounding the management of plagiarism within
academia is Jude Carroll of Britain’s Oxford Brookes University. Her expertise is based
on six years of addressing plagiarism within her institution and more latterly as an
international consultant on the topic (Carroll, 2003). While one could argue that she
neglects the cultural analysis of plagiarism that underpins the argument made in this
thesis, it is the case that she has identified many aspects of good management practice
within the dominant contemporary plagiarism paradigm.
Carroll (2002: 3-4) identifies seven key steps towards the institutional management of
plagiarism. Each is necessary in order to fully address the challenge. The steps are:
1. define plagiarism
2. inform students
3. use assessment to deter plagiarism
4. teach the skills
5. detection
6. punishment
7. institutional policy and culture
These steps are discussed further below and in subsequent chapters.
36
1. Define plagiarism
On the face of it, plagiarism is easy to define. A simple definition suggested by Carroll
(2002: 9) is as follows:
plagiarism is passing of someone else’s work, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, as your own for your own benefit
We have seen that such a definition is broadly agreed to by many academics. Something
similar typically appears in institutional guidelines and regulations.
The reality may be – and is – more complex. Experience of administering the plagiarism
exercise reproduced in Appendix 2 to a number of Institute of Technology lecturers has
revealed that definitions of plagiarism – where we may ‘draw the line’ – can vary
considerably. This is particularly the case when we cross disciplinary boundaries. Each
academic or vocational discipline maintains its own discourse that contains within it
what counts as disciplinary knowledge and may also set the conditions whereby
knowledge is expressed, developed and reproduced. Working practices across
disciplines and occupations (for example architecture and theology, or computing and
sociology) may therefore generate very different conceptions of what amounts to
plagiarism, or where ‘copying’ is acceptable, or may even be expected.
Any institutional response to plagiarism must reflect the diversity of views across
disciplines and must not assume that definitions of, or responses to, plagiarism are
common across all areas. Furthermore, such differences and interpretations must be
openly discussed and addressed, most usefully through practical examples and
scenarios. Recognition of disciplinary variation in itself is not sufficient.
It is also important to address the context within which intertextual practices occur. For
example, one respondent to the academic survey stated: ‘Chinese student learned off
chapter of textbook, wrote it out in exam, could not understand why she did not get
100%!’ This raises a number of important contextual issues. The first relates to
international education and the practice, long established in Australia and Britain and
increasingly viewed as an economic strategy in Ireland, of recruiting students from
overseas, in particular from the countries of Asia.
I have referred earlier to the stereotypical image of the Asian student as plagiariser par
excellence. This image is widely adhered to and has been expressed on a number of
occasions at presentations and workshops I have facilitated on the topic of plagiarism. It
raises a number of issues about how we view and respond to those who may have a
cultural background that differs from our own (see footnote on p. 21). This is of
importance not just in relation to ‘overseas students’, but also to all those with learning
experiences and expectations that may differ from what we are used to (for example
mature age learners, first generation students, or students from non-English speaking
backgrounds).
Another issue relates to where plagiarism might occur. If a student with a ‘photographic
memory’ can reproduce verbatim material from textbooks or lecture notes in the
37
examination context, is this plagiarism?6 Surely this is the ideal of every Leaving
Certificate student in the country! This conundrum inevitably draws attention to the
function of exams and how they may impact on pedagogy – an issue that is outside the
scope of this thesis (though we return to the issue of assessment in the next chapter).
Finally, in a challenging analysis of plagiarism, Australian learning advisors Clerehan
and Johnson (2003) caution against a process that rigidly defines plagiarism. They ask:
‘is it possible that a ‘sharper’ definition of plagiarism might in fact make it harder to
address the issue with students?’ They argue that:
stricter definitions of plagiarism, particularly those which exaggerate notions of
ownership and originality, are primarily driven by technological, administrative and
legal imperatives and as a result do not necessarily support pedagogical goals
(Clerehan & Johnson, 2003: 89)
‘Tight’ definitions of plagiarism, it is suggested, do not mirror the reality of academic
writing and may serve to militate against the very processes that allow students to
become effective writers. For example, the commonly-used injunctions to ‘be original’
and ‘use your own words’ raise a number of key philosophical and stylistic questions
that cannot be easily explained in the abstract: students may need to learn how to
achieve these lofty ends by doing the opposite! Clerehan and Johnson caution against
legalistic definitions and conceptions of plagiarism – especially those that find their
origins in copyright law – and recommend a greater attention to the complex pedagogy
of writing.
Informing students and teaching the skills
If we are able to agree on a definition - or range of definitions - of plagiarism, it is
important that students be made aware of these. All too often this requirement is
apparently met through a brief statement during the induction period – now a standard
feature of all tertiary institutions. The useful advice may be provided during a course
introduction or library tour, even at a study skills session.
This exercise may be virtually worthless. The experience of many learning advisors is
that advice about writing only makes sense when a student is actively involved in the
writing process (Bell & Thom, 2003). In other words, well-meaning advice about
‘referencing properly’ may have no salience to a student who has no idea about why
you might want to engage in this bizarre practice in the first place. Rather, learning
about writing, like most forms of learning, is something that is most effectively done on
an interactive basis in engagement with the task to be mastered, and inevitably involves
trial and error. As teachers of writing skills such as Hunt (2004c) and Bell and Thom
(2003) stress, the writing task must be authentic – students must be involved in the
production of something that has real meaning for them.
The conclusion may be that induction is too soon to introduce the concept of plagiarism.
It is more useful to engage students in activities that help them to understand about the
6
This occurred recently in a final year examination on a subject that I taught. The student in question was
Irish-born and bred!
38
processes of intertextuality and attribution that help to constitute academic writing. One
approach, perhaps suitable for more advanced students who have already experienced
the challenges of academic work, would be to utilise an exercise such as that reproduced
at Appendix 2. Hunt has also developed a range of writing exercises that aim to
introduce students to the notion of wring for a purpose (Hunt, 2004c).
Overall there needs to be much greater attention to processes of academic
communication within Institutes and universities. Many staff of the former are unlikely
to be involved in writing for a critical audience and would also benefit from more overt
concentration on the practice. Support for the development of writing skills needs to be
adequately resourced and incorporated into the support structures for both staff and
students alike (for an argument in favour of the systematic support of lecturers’ writing
skills, and a methodology to achieve this, see Moore et al, 2005).
Detection
In the past the detection of plagiarism was a difficult and often tedious task, sometimes
involving a lengthy period in the library as texts were scanned for offending material
and clues. While a minority of academics may have enjoyed the opportunity to play at
being Hercule Poirot, for many it was a dispiriting exercise that only added to the
burden of academic work.
In recent years, as in many other fields of endeavour, the process has been
revolutionised by digital technology. Not only does the processing power of plagiarism
detection software automate and speed up the process, it also imbues it with a high-tech
and ‘modern’ aura, reflective in many ways of students’ own immersion in the digital
universe, as described by Frand (2000, cited in Turnbull, 2005. See Appendix 3).
Furthermore plagiarism detection is now a multinational business, with the market
dominated by one supplier, the US-based company iParadigms, manufacturers and
promoters of Turnitin.com software.
A number of Irish institutions, including Trinity College Dublin, University College
Dublin and the Dublin Institute of Technology have invested in Turnitin.com software.
It has been adopted by the British JISC [Joint Information Systems Committee] on a
nationwide basis as the centrepiece of its Plagiarism Advisory Service. According to
Turnitin.com’s own publicity (Turnitin.com, 2005), the software is now in use in over
2,500 institutions in over 60 countries.
The promise of a software solution is prima facie very attractive to academic managers.
It provides an off-the-shelf response to a complex problem. The matter can be ‘handed
over’ to the experts in the field, just as an institution may outsource its cleaning and
security services to contractors. There is no need to develop expensive indigenous
resources. The need for staff training is minimal, as guidance can be provided by the
company. Apart from a requirement for students to submit their work electronically,
there is no need for major changes in pedagogy. Investment in Turnitin.com, or a
similar solution, can be displayed as evidence that an institution is ‘doing something’
about the problem of plagiarism. It promises a level of legal certainty in a time when
education stakeholders (students, graduates, parents, staff) are increasingly litigious.
39
On the positive side Allan et al (2005: 2) argue that the use of plagiarism detection
software ‘has catalysed dialogue and debate within the academic staff community and
has been an indirect driver for increased staff education on issues pertaining to
academic integrity and assessment practice’. They argue that the education sphere is
seeing less emphasis on ‘traditional formal education’. As a consequence ‘staff
education in building a learning culture of academic integrity must complement the
education of students’.
Allan et al (2005) point to the extensive back-up required to introduce the Turnitin.com
service. This was in institutions that already had extensive learning support services
(way beyond anything available in Ireland) and that had (as far as this author is aware) a
history of student-focused pedagogy. Massey University (NZ) for example, introduced
the following plagiarism-education resources:

study material for each student paper [subject]

faculty booklets

material offered in student learning centre courses

individual assistance from student learning centres

liaison staff offering assistance to extramural students

individual lecturers providing information during the delivery of some papers
[subjects]

study skills staff attached to papers [subjects] to offer students specific
assistance where needed [Allan et al, 2005: 3]
Other institutions provided extensive train-the-trainer activities. It was assessed that use
of Turnitin.com software did not reduce marking time; rather there was a re-focus of
time towards the interpretation of plagiarism reports and the counselling of students.
Technical issues were an issue for some, including uploading of files. Interestingly,
there were some concerns voiced ‘about the impact of Turnitin usage on institutional
brand’ and in relation to students’ intellectual property rights.
This last issue may raise specific issues in the Irish context, where electronic
information (eg uploaded assignments) submitted to plagiarism detection services are
most likely to come under the rubric of the Data Protection Acts. These Acts require
that permission be sought before the use of personal information held in a database. It
may be that students can stipulate that their work not be submitted to detection services
and it is difficult to see how they could be penalised for exercising their legitimate legal
rights. According to the report from one participant at a plagiarism workshop, at least
one Irish institution is asking students to sign away their rights in this regard. In Britain
it appears that students have to be proactive about removing their essay material from
the Turnitin.com database (University of Essex, 2005).This an area that will require
further research from the legal perspective.
Finally, detection is but one step in the issue of addressing plagiarism. Software such as
Turnitin.com only indicates the extent to which strings of eight words in one document
are similar to such strings in (some) other documents. It is up to lecturers and tutors to
40
interpret what each ‘similarity index’ means, and then to decide what to do about it.
Similar challenges are then replicated up the chain of academic authority. As this thesis
has been attempting to suggest, it is in the pedagogical response to such challenges that
the real management issues arise.
Punishment
It should be clear at this stage that the issue of ‘punishment’ is not the major concern of
this discussion. Nevertheless it is the case that some (or many, if researchers such as
McCabe, 2003 are to be believed) students are involved in ‘cheating’. It will suffice
here to outline the key features of an effective regime of sanctions as suggested by
Carroll (2002: 73-80).
Any effective system of sanctions does require that all other elements of the
pedagogical and administrative structure have been effectively introduced. Particularly
in the Irish context, it is very difficult to see how punitive sanctions (such as suspension
or expulsion from a course) can be implemented unless there is a very robust system of
information and guidance already in place.
Carroll stresses that an effective sanctions regime must be seen to display fairness,
clarity and consistency: there must be transparent, accountable and rigorous procedures
for the processing of allegations of plagiarism. There is a requirement for standards of
natural justice to be adhered to. In the Irish context the classic case is Flanagan v. UCD
[Reported at [1988] IR 724] where a charge of plagiarism against a student was rejected
in the High Court as proper procedures had not been followed.
Regulations in regard to plagiarism must be widely and appropriately disseminated; an
appeals process must be established or utilised; decisions must be centrally recorded
and the institution must develop a coordinated and aligned strategy. Given that an
appropriate and demonstrably fair procedure is followed, the determination of
appropriate punishment will depend on the following factors:

extent of plagiarism: may include ‘amount of text plagiarised, the closeness to
the original text, the nature of the material copied, and whether the copied
material was purely descriptive or included results’ (Carroll, 2002: 74). There is
clearly much scope for interpretation here!

intention: this involves a decision about motivation, and relates to issues such as
fraud and deception. It may also relate to factors such as stage of programme,
number of previous offences and the learning background of the student. Again
all these factors are discursive constructions rather than hard ‘facts’

disciplinary conventions: as previously outlined the definition and
understanding of plagiarism can vary greatly across academic disciplines. This is
a factor that must be taken into account in any sanctions regime

impact of punishment: the ‘moral panic’ now attaching to plagiarism, and the
seemingly objective nature of detection software, mean that disproportionate
responses to cases of plagiarism are possible, even likely. This has even greater
repercussions when disciplinary action related to plagiarism may impact on a
41
student’s professional status, for example in vocational areas with strict ‘fitness
to practice’ systems.

consistency of tariffs: as Carroll suggests (2002: 76) ‘over time applying the
above factors to specific cases and sharing views on what constitutes major and
minor plagiarism will lead to an agreed system of “tariffs” [punishments]’.
Similar ‘offences’ should attract similar punishments. The data reported in
Chapter 5 suggests that at the moment Irish academics are applying a wide
variation of ‘punishments’ in response to cases of plagiarism.

publicity: this is a difficult area for institutions. An effective plagiarism
detection policy that results in a large number of ‘successful’ actions against
plagiarisers runs the risk of seriously damaging the institutional reputation and
‘brand’. On the other hand there is a value in publicity as a deterrent to others
and to ensure that the ‘administration of justice’ is carried out in a transparent
manner. Carroll (2002: 80) urges ‘balance’ in this regard. At the Newcastle JISC
plagiarism conference she was not in a position to divulge the incidence of
plagiarism at her own university!

keep assessment and disciplinary procedures separate: this is important, says
Carroll (2002: 82-83), so as not to bring a punitive aspect to pedagogy. A similar
point is made strongly by Clerehan and Johnson (2003) who question whether a
‘sharp’ approach to plagiarism is compatible with an effective pedagogy in any
case.
A coordinated strategy
Carroll (2002: 87) stresses the importance of a clear overall strategy and policy ‘to make
sure that, through working in alignment, [an institution] gains the benefits of synergy
and ensures that all students encounter frequent and consistent messages about
plagiarism’. Such comprehensive institution strategies have been outlined for a British
university (Carroll, 2003); an Australian university (Devlin, 2003); and a group of
Australian and New Zealand institutions (Allan et al, 2005).
Such a strategy requires the following attributes:

a clear commitment at highest level (in the case of the Institute of Technology
sector, this means within the Academic Council and the Registrar’s function)

a clear and appropriate regulatory framework

clearly defined roles and responsibilities – for example specific individuals
should be identified as having a particular role and expertise in relation to
plagiarism

access to support and specialist advice – the UK government has established and
funded the JISCPAS in order to facilitate the management of plagiarism at the
national and institutional level. There is no parallel body in Ireland

an integrated not a reactive approach

targets and timetables for implementation

procedures for monitoring, review and evaluation
42
Policies in Irish institutions
Table 10
Comparison of plagiarism policies at three Irish universities
TCD
NUIG law
DCU
definition of
plagiarism
Yes. Described as
‘fraudulent’ and ‘a
major offence’. Quite
extensive outline of
possibilities of nonintentional plagiarism.
extensive discussion of
how plagiarism might
occur
Yes. Described as
‘fraudulent’.
Recognition of
possibility of nonintentional plagiarism
Yes. Described as ‘very
serious offence’, ‘major
offence’ ‘cheating’
‘utmost gravity’.
Specific mention of
visual materials eg
diagrams and
intellectual property;
software.
group work
mentioned specifically
no mention
reference to ‘collusion’
Internet
mentioned specifically
mentioned specifically
mentioned specifically
– also TV shows,
lectures &c
informing students
departments should
include information in
handbooks
yes – guidelines &c to
be made widely
available
no mention
declaration of
authorship
no mention
departments
recommended to
consider
mentioned specifically
copying from other
students’ work
identified as plagiarism
identified as plagiarism
identified as plagiarism
appointment of
specialist staff
no mention
yes – a ‘small number’
to be identified
no mention
outline of process
brief. Referral to
another section of
College Regulations
outlined in some detail
– clear multi-step
process
cases automatically
referred to Disciplinary
Committee
distinction between
levels of severity of
offence
no mention
yes – ‘major’ and
‘minor’ cases defined
and explained
no mention. Impression
given that all cases are
of ‘utmost gravity’
warning to alleged
plagiarist
no mention
yes – in writing
no mention
evidence of natural
justice processes
not evident
yes. Provision for
written advance
warning and
representation at
interview
no mention
tariff outlined
no mention
yes – 3 levels
yes – but in general
terms
appeal mechanism
no mention
yes
no mention
record keeping
no mention
yes
no mention
statistical
information
generated
no mention
yes
no mention
43
As outlined in Chapter 2, a number of plagiarism policy documents from Irish tertiary
institutions were examined (Table 10). Those analysed included published policies,
regulations and codes of practice from Trinity College Dublin (reproduced at Appendix
4); the Law Department at NUI Galway (Appendix 5); and Dublin City University
(Appendix 6).
The documents were examined to establish the nature of the policy response, informed
by the preceding discussion. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the analysis.
these can be summarised as strengths and weaknesses of the policies. An ‘ideal policy’
might seek to combine the strengths while minimising the weaknesses.
Trinity College Dublin
Strength: extensive discussion of how plagiarism might occur; may be useful in
assisting students to avoid it
Weakness: no outline of disciplinary process: readers referred to another
document
NUI Galway
Strength: detailed outline of all stages of the disciplinary process and the
plagiarism management strategy
Weakness: no mention of group work/collusion
Dublin City University
Strength: straightforward language; references to broad range of media, eg
software, TV
Weaknesses: highly charged and threatening tone; no distinction between levels
of plagiarism; no outline of processes
The NUI document would appear to be the closest to best practice; the DCU document
would be unlikely to facilitate a positive approach to the issue. The TCD document is
good in terms of a more holistic definition of plagiarism.
Conclusion
It is clear that the management of plagiarism is a complex issue. Neither the
development of plagiarism policies and guidelines nor the adoption of plagiarism
detection software is a straightforward process; neither should be seen as a panacea for
the problem of plagiarism. Rather the challenge of managing intertextuality requires a
comprehensive and aligned approach that addresses the issues of pedagogy and
ultimately, I would suggest, power within the academy. It is to these issues that we turn
in the next two chapters.
44
7 Assessment issues
The need to address the broader institutional and pedagogical context has been
recognised by a number of writers on plagiarism and the most recent analyses place the
issue securely within a discourse of pedagogy (Carroll, 2002; Briggs, 2003; Hunt 2002,
2004b; Clerehan & Johnson, 2003). It is recognised that some traditional processes of
teaching and learning help to facilitate or even encourage plagiarism. The perceived
solution is to directly address how teaching and learning is done. This is congruent with
a greatly enhanced (and many would argue long overdue) attention to pedagogy and
assessment matters within the tertiary educational environment. Such a stance could be
framed within a broader discourse of liberal humanism and also represents a softtechnology approach – in contrast to the hard technology of Turnitin.com.
It is argued that a course designed to reduce the opportunities for plagiarism is also one
that is constructively aligned, to use the influential concept popularised by Biggs
(1999). Thus the aims and objectives of the course will align neatly with the learning
outcomes, which will dovetail with the assessment strategies used to foment and
measure learning. According to Carroll and Appleton (2001: 4): ‘by reconsidering
exactly what they are seeking to assess, institutions can make the tasks more relevant to
future employment needs and reduce the opportunities they offer for plagiarism’.
Attention to the features of pedagogy that might encourage plagiarism can lead to better
teaching and learning, and also to better social outcomes.
Thus academics are given useful advice on linking assessment tasks to each other;
devising methods to track student effort (such as asking for drafts of essays); providing
more extensive feedback to students; teaching students how to use and reference on-line
resources; and so on (Carroll, 2002: 26; Zobel & Hamilton, 2002; Devlin, 2003).
Conversely lecturers should avoid leaving marked essays lying around; not allow
students to ‘choose’ topics late in the day; and ensure that students cannot gain credit by
using the work of others.
Comprehensive training of both students and staff is envisaged, with considerable
attention paid to both induction and ongoing development. Technologically-based
detection devices are recommended as a back-up deterrent and it is advised that all cases
of plagiarism should be pursued to a conclusion, thus ‘by combining attention to
fairness and to deterrence, policies and procedures can contribute to educating students
about appropriate ways to attribute work, as well as punishing them for inappropriate
attribution’ (Carroll & Appleton, 2001: 4).
A more critical approach to assessment issues is offered by Hunt (2004a; 2004b):
the social situation in which school-based writing and read is a radically peculiar
one, and the relationship between reader and writer, normally, is one in which one
of us has all the power, the other has none; one of us has virtually all the
knowledge, the other is presumed to have far less; one of us knows a lot about the
social situation we’re in, the other doesn’t (Hunt, 2004b)
In such a context it makes little sense to think of plagiarism as a ‘crime’. Rather the
45
student needs to be introduced to a particular social context: one where a particular kind
of writing is carried out for a particular point. For Hunt this means a challenge to the
existing ‘institutional rhetorical writing environment’ (2002: 1) that sustains the ‘term
paper’ and similar traditional academic forms. As Hunt (2002: 1) argues, ‘having
something to say is . . . absolutely indistinguishable from having someone to say it to,
and an authentic reason for saying it’. Assessment that embraces such an approach is
unlikely to lead to a plagiaristic response, though deliberate strategies of intertextuality
might be another thing.
It does not take long to realise that – in common with many perceived solutions to
academic problems – the additional workload required of teaching and lecturing staff in
formulating new approaches to assessment is likely to be considerable, with major backup required from support staff in student services, libraries and computing services. If
constructively aligned teaching is to become more of a reality, the effort may be
rewarded to some extent: such an approach to pedagogy is more efficient and effective
in terms of achieving desired outcomes.
But, I would argue, the ‘better assessment’ approach is to seek to create a refined and
more efficient version of what already exists. It does not envisage any fundamental
change to educational practice or purpose; nor does it directly address the powerful
social trends that may underpin the practice of plagiarism; it almost completely avoids
the issue of power in education: the topic to which we turn in the final chapter.
46
8 Pedagogy, plagiarism and power
The concept of power is one that lurks, almost unacknowledged, in discussions of
plagiarism (Vaccaro, 2000: 127). Sociological analyses of education draw our attention
to how the education system operates to reinforce and reproduce existing hierarchies of
power, inequality and domination, both through the formal syllabus and also through
the so-called ‘hidden curriculum’ (Tovey & Share, 2003: 200-203). Interactionist and
post-structuralist writers stress the crucial role of language and discourse within
education. There is much in the sociology of education and the sociology of power that
could help us to place an analysis of plagiarism within a broader and more instructive
context than has generally been the case.
It is instructive to ask, in the current social context: what is tertiary education for? At
the state policy level the answer is clear: education is intended to underpin economic
growth and development, specifically capitalist development. Such a stance is reflected
in the current position of the Irish government: for example as expressed in the
Department of Education and Science’s submission to the 2004 OECD enquiry into
tertiary education (Irish Times 16 February, 2004). Such sentiments are reflected in
recent reports emanating from both the Institute of Technology sector (COD, 2003) and
the universities (Skilbeck, 2001) – and indeed the OECD report itself (OECD, 2004).
An increasingly utilitarian and economistic ideology of education is not, of course,
confined to Ireland, and similar trends are clear in other societies (eg Australia – see
Hinkson, 2002; and Canada – see Rosenfeld, 2003)
Allied to an instrumentalist and managerialist state approach to tertiary education are
institutions that continue to retain almost exclusive power over the construction and
delivery of education. There is little evidence that a more democratic approach to
teaching and learning has permeated more than the surface layers of Irish education.
From the Department of Education and Science, through the awarding bodies and the
Higher Education Authority, to the academic boards and councils of individual
universities and institutes, there is minimal participation by students in the shaping of
their education. Indeed there is little informed participation by the majority of the socalled stakeholders. The system remains rigidly hierarchical and traditional.
Analyses of inequality in education have tended to focus on its redistributive effects:
how participation in education impacts on the subsequent life chances, income and
wealth of individuals or social groups. There has also been considerable interest in
power inequalities rooted in the perception of ‘difference’, such as those related to
gender, ethnicity or religion (Lynch & Lodge, 2002: 7-9). But another important aspect
relates to inequalities of power within the institutions of education themselves: schools,
colleges, universities and Institutes of Technology are massively hierarchical and
controlling environments: as evidenced in almost every aspect of their being, from their
architecture to their protocols and decorum.
The sociologist of education Kathleen Lynch and her colleagues (1999: 217-259; Lynch
& Lodge, 2002) have drawn our attention to the lack of democracy in Irish educational
institutions: specifically schools. Lynch remarks (1999: 219) that:
47
a paternalistic, caretaking ideology informs most of educational theory . . . young
adults’ criticisms of schooling generally experience the fate of trivialisation . . .
Young people’s critical views of education cannot be taken seriously within this
paternalistic frame of reference.
While Lynch is referring to second-level schools, very similar conclusions could be
made in relation to higher education institutions.
While there is little evidence of Irish tertiary students’ attitudes towards education a
recent survey of students at the Institute of Technology, Sligo (reported in Reilly, 2004)
indicated that a large proportion of students feel that they have very little or no control
or influence over the content of their courses (85% claimed little or no control) or of
how they were delivered (78%) (Figure 10). As one respondent remarked: ‘students
don’t get to decide what they want to cover in their courses, it is outlined to them. You
just have to go with whatever lecturers put before you’.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
influence over course content
5 high
influence
4
3
2
1 No
influnce
5 high
influence
4
3
2
1 no
influence
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
influence over delivery
Figure 10
Institute of Technology, Sligo students’ perceptions of influence over courses (Reilly, 2004: 24)
Such an approach is reinforced by disciplinary discourses and the pedagogy that inheres
in textbooks. Textbooks, suggests Richardson (2001): ‘tend to facilitate pedagogical
assumptions that construct students as consumers to be filled with disciplinary
knowledge, methods and practices’. Richardson raises issues related to how students use
the materials that education provides them with (for example, textbooks, or lecturers’
notes) to construct themselves (or not) within a disciplinary environment. He is
interested in how students come ‘to understand the social, cultural and literacy practices
of the discipline with which they [are] engaging’. Ultimately what is being asked for in
academic work is almost invariably a response to a preexisting body of knowledge,
embodied in texts, images or codes of some sort, whether practical, textual or visual.
The disciplinary power of preexisting and established bodies of knowledge can make it
very difficult for students to achieve any level of expressive freedom. Constrained by an
overwhelming consensus over the ‘facts’ and established modes of knowing, students
48
may almost be forced to plagiarise7. To devise a way to operate within a disciplinary
context, without plagiarising, may be an almost impossible task. As Briggs (2003: 20)
reminds us: ‘the charge of plagiarism presupposes the ability to appropriately deploy the
range of techniques suited to a specific task and commanded by the context’. The
avoidance of plagiarism then becomes a learning and strategic challenge, about how to
insert oneself within a discourse of power. In many ways this is a management and
pedagogical rather than a moral issue. The challenge is how to encourage students and
others in education to ‘manage intertextuality’ in a way that leads to personal and
intellectual growth and fulfilment.
Concluding remarks
‘Of plagiarism, little new can be written’
(Schwartz, The culture of the copy, p. 311)
We live in a culture that is torn between, on the one hand, textual poaching in a digital
bazaar; on the other a drive to assert ever-increasing control and ownership over
valuable cultural products. Such issues are matters for lively public debate and struggle:
between Mattel and the riot grrrls; file-sharers and iTunes, student plagiarists and
Turnitin.com. Technological change has had an irreversible impact on cultural
production, in an historical moment perhaps as significant for human communication as
the development of the printing press.
The far-reaching implications of such change have yet to be reflected in the mainstream
of education. The shift towards a digital culture poses major challenges for a
hierarchical and calcified institution. Already the healthcare system has had to come to
terms with a body of ‘patients’ who can now challenge the monolithic expertise of
‘health professionals’ through independent access to medical information. Similarly the
political system must accommodate to a population that now has potential access to a
huge diversity and range of opinion. Students similarly now have unmediated access to
limitless information, of infinite variety. They are ill-equipped by their secondary
schools to respond to or to manage this challenge, and what techniques they have come
from their own familiarity with communication and entertainment media rather than
tools provided for them by the education system.
Where might we find useful suggestions on how to respond to the challenges that the
phenomenon of plagiarism - and the hierarchical system that perpetuates it - poses? One
place might be in the seminal writings of those now-unfashionable radical
educationalists of the early 1970s, Illich (1973) and Freire (1972). While much
separated their work, they were alike in pointing to the irrationalities of the
contemporary education system. Each saw a response in the facilitation of nonhierarchical networks of learning that empowered learners to make their own decisions.
A similar ethos has underpinned the so-called ‘community education’ movement,
7
Very similar arguments are made by Hunt (2004a, 2004b, 2004c)
49
described as ‘non-hierarchical, autonomous, democratic and participatory’ (Smyth,
2002, cited in Quilty, 2003: 57).
It is not suggested that the emancipatory ethos that underpins at least some of
community education (Connolly, 2003) can be easily transferred into formalised tertiary
teaching, but it could certainly act as a counterweight to the almost totally utilitarian and
individualistic ideology that now pervades the sector. Formal tertiary education may
wish to address the value-basis of community education, described as: ‘a process of
empowerment, social justice, change, challenge, respect and collective consciousness’
(Aontas, 2000, cited in Connolly, 2003: 15) Such an approach would better address the
affective dimensions of education, those that relate to our personal connectedness rather
than our increasingly atomised individualism, As Lynch and Lodge (2003: 12) suggest:
‘naming the emotional dimensions of social life would . . . provide new frameworks
through which to explore the implications of developments such as the intensification of
work and competition’. It is certainly worth investigating how the psycho-social
landscape of contemporary culture underpins how young people relate to the education
system.
As it stands Irish third-level students have minimal power to shape their own learning.
They have little influence over the content of their education nor how it is structured or
delivered. They do not get to frame the discourse: rather they are asked to respond as
best they can within a body of knowledge that they have little connection with. A more
positive approach might be one where, as an IT Sligo student remarked:
student input should be taken more into account as it would make “us” that we are
part of the college, unlike just being told what to do. Also if we worked with our
lecturers to get a mutual goal we would become more involved and interested in the
work given.
This stance would represent a fundamental change in how most Irish tertiary-level
education is experienced. It might lead to a change in how students experience their
courses of study, and how they might approach the tasks of writing and self-expression.
Ultimately it might help us to reframe the question of plagiarism as one about how
students are included in a democratic discourse about the construction and
communication of knowledge, and how they might learn to manage intertextuality in a
dynamic and power-ful world.
50
Reference list
Allan, G., L. Callagher,
M. Connors, D. Joyce
& M. Rees
(2005)
‘Policies, techniques and processes for promoting academic integrity:
some Australasian perspectives on academic integrity in the Internet
age’. Paper to EDUCAUSE 2005 conference, Auckland.
[http://www.turnitin.com/static/resource_files/paperabstract.pdf.
Accessed 20 June 2005]
Barthes, R.
(1973)
Mythologies. St Alban’s: Paladin.
Beck, E.
(2004)
‘Used-material girl?’ ARTNews, January. p. 46.
Bell, J. & A. Thom
(2003)
‘Stemming the flood: academic preparatory courses and plagiarism
reduction’. In H. Marsden et al (eds) Educational integrity: Plagiarism
and other perplexities. Proceedings of the first Australasian
educational integrity conference, University of Adelaide, South
Australia, 21-23 November.
Biggs, J.
(1999)
Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Bradley, D.
(2003)
‘Opening address’. In H. Marsden et al (eds) Educational integrity:
Plagiarism and other perplexities. Proceedings of the first Australasian
educational integrity conference, University of Adelaide, South
Australia, 21-23 November.
Briggs, R.
(2003)
‘Shameless! Reconceiving the problem of plagiarism’. Australian
Universities Review 46(1) pp. 19-23.
Brown, G., J. Bull &
M. Pendlebury
(1997)
Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
Buranen, L.
(1999)
‘But I wasn’t cheating’: Plagiarism and cross-cultural mythology’. In
L. Buranen & A. Roy (eds) Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual
property in a postmodern world. Albany: State University of New
York Press. pp. 63-74.
Buranen, L. & A. Roy
(eds)
(1999)
Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern
world. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Carroll, J. & J.
Appleton
(2001)
Plagiarism: A good practice guide. JISC
[http://www.leeds.ac.uk/candit/plagiarism/brookes.pdf. Accessed 9
July 2004]
Carroll, J.
(2002)
A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education. Oxford:
Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes
University.
51
Carroll, J.
(2003)
‘Six things I did not know four years ago about dealing with
plagiarism’. In H. Marsden et al (eds) Educational integrity:
Plagiarism and other perplexities. Proceedings of the first Australasian
educational integrity conference, University of Adelaide, South
Australia, 21-23 November.
Chandler, H.
(2003)
‘Intertextuality’ In Semiotics for beginners.
[http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem09.html. Accessed
9 July 2004]
Chen, A.
(2003)
‘Rote couture’. I.D. Magazine. February, p. 79.
Clerehan, R. & A.
Johnson
(2003)
‘Ending the war on plagiarism: appropriation in context’. In H.
Marsden et al (eds) Educational integrity: Plagiarism and other
perplexities. Proceedings of the first Australasian educational integrity
conference, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 21-23 November.
COD [Council of
Directors of the
Institutes of
Technology]
(2003)
Institutes of Technology and knowledge society: Their future position
and roles. Report of the Expert Working Group. Dublin: Council of
Directors of the Institutes of Technology
Connolly, B.
(2003)
‘Community education: listening to the voices’. The Adult Learner:
The journal of adult and community education in Ireland 2003, pp. 919.
Cruger, R.
(2003)
The mash-up revolution’. Salon.com 9 August 2003.
[http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2003/08/09/mashups_cruger/
. Accessed 9 July 2004]
Devlin, M.
(2003)
‘Policy, preparation, prevention and punishment: one faculty’s holistic
approach to minimising plagiarism’. In H. Marsden et al (eds)
Educational integrity: Plagiarism and other perplexities. Proceedings
of the first Australasian educational integrity conference, University of
Adelaide, South Australia, 21-23 November.
DJ Shir Khan
(2004)
Copyright candies: Mash ups; Bastard pop. [CD recording]
Flanagan, R., M.
Morgan & T.
Kelleghan
(2000)
A study of non-completion in Institute of Technology courses. Dublin:
Educational Research Centre.
Freire, P.
(1972)
Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Fry, C., S. Ketteridge
& S. Marshall
(2003)
A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. London:
Routledge Falmer.
52
Garnett, D.
(2003)
‘From Paris with love’. New York Metro.com. 17 February.
[http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/shopping/fashion/spring03/n
_8331/.
Accessed 9 July 2004]
Graham, A. & C.K.
Leung
(2004)
‘Uncovering ‘blind spots’: culture and copying’. Paper to Plagiarism:
Prevention, practice and policy conference, Newcastle-on Tyne, 28-30
June.
Hansen, B.
(2003)
‘Combating plagiarism’. CQ Researcher 13 (32) pp. 773-796.
[http://www.cqpress.com/docs/Combating_20Plagiarism.pdf.
Accessed 9 July 2004]
Haviland, C. & J.
Mullin
(1999)
‘Writing centres and intellectual property’. In L. Buranen & A. Roy
(eds) Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a
postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp.
169-181.
Hinkson, J
(2002)
‘Does plagiarism matter?’ Arena 60.
[http://www.arena.org.au/archives/Mag_Archive/issue_60/against_the
_current_60_2.htm. Accessed 9 July 2004]
Howard, R.
(1999)
‘The new abolitionism comes to plagiarism’. In L. Buranen & A. Roy
(eds) Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a
postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp.
87-95.
Hunt, R.
(2002)
‘Four reasons to be happy about Internet plagiarism’. Teaching
Perspectives (St. Thomas University) 5. December. pp. 1-5.
[http://www.stu.ca/~hunt/4reasons.htm. Accessed 9 July 2004]
Hunt, R.
(2004a)
‘It was in the computer’: Balancing learning and research for first year
students (and others)’. In T. Pettigrew & D. Nevo (eds). Atlantic
Universities’ Teaching Showcase 2003, Proceedings Vol. 8. Sydney
[Canada]: University College of Cape Breton. pp. 21-29.
[http://www.stthomasu.ca/~hunt/ mputer.htm. Accessed 9 July 2004]
Hunt, R.
(2004b)
‘Whose silverware is this? Promoting plagiarism through pedagogy’.
Keynote paper to Plagiarism: Prevention, practice and policy
conference, Newcastle-on Tyne, 28-30 June.
Hunt, R.
(2004c)
‘Writing for real: why it matters for learning’.
[http://www.stthomasu.ca/~hunt/show04.htm. Accessed 20 June 2005]
Illich, I.
(1973)
Deschooling society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
James, R.
(2001)
‘Students’ changing expectations of higher education and
consequences of mismatches with the reality’. Paper to OECD-IMHE
conference, Queensland University of Technology, September.
Klein, N.
(2000)
No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. London: Flamingo.
53
LaFollette, M.
(1992)
Stealing into print: Fraud , plagiarism and misconduct in scientific
publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Larocca, A.
(2002)
‘Fashion police’. New York Metro.com. 29 April.
[http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/shopping/fashion/features/59
38/. Accessed 9 July 2004]
Leask, B.
(2004)
‘Plagiarism and cultural diversity: responsibilities, accountabilities and
pedagogy’. Keynote paper to Plagiarism: Prevention, practice and
policy conference, Newcastle-on Tyne, 28-30 June.
Levin, P.
(2003)
‘Beat the witch-hunt! Peter Levin’s guide to avoiding and rebutting
accusations of plagiarism, for conscientious students’.
[http://www.study-skills.net/plagiarism.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2005]
Livingston-Webber, J.
(1999)
‘GenX occupies the cultural commons: ethical practices and
perceptions of fair use’. In L. Buranen & A. Roy (eds) Perspectives on
plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world. Albany:
State University of New York Press. pp. 263-272.
Lunsford, A.
(1999)
‘Foreword’. In L. Buranen & A. Roy (eds) Perspectives on plagiarism
and intellectual property in a postmodern world. Albany: State
University of New York Press. pp. ix-xii.
Lynch, K. & A. Lodge
(2002)
Equality and power in schools: Redistribution, recognition and
representation. London: Routledge Falmer.
Lynch, K.
(1999)
Equality in education. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Maffesoli, M.
(1996)
The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass society.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Marginson, S. & M.
Considine
(2000)
The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in
Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, B
(1994)
‘Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis’. Journal of Information Ethics 3(2)
pp. 36-47.
[http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/94jie.html. Accessed 9
July 2004]
Martin, B
(1997)
‘Credit where it is due’. Campus Review 7(21).
[http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/97cr.html. Accessed 9
July 2004]
May, T.
(2001)
Social research: Issues, methods and process. Buckingham: Open
University.
McCabe, D.
(2003)
‘Promoting academic integrity: a US/Canadian perspective’. In H.
Marsden et al (eds) Educational integrity: Plagiarism and other
perplexities. Proceedings of the first Australasian educational integrity
conference, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 21-23 November.
54
McInnis, C.
(2003)
‘New realities of the student experience: how should universities
respond?’. Paper to 25th annual conference of the European
Association for Institutional Research, Limerick, August.
McKeever, L.
(2004)
‘Online plagiarism detection services: saviour or scourge?’. Paper to
Plagiarism: Prevention, practice and policy conference, Newcastle-on
Tyne, 28-30 June.
McKervey, H. & D.
Long
(2002)
‘Makers and takers: art and the appropriation of ideas’. Circa 101, pp.
32-35.
Melles, G.
(2003)
‘Challenging discourses of plagiarism and the reproductive ESL
learner’. In H. Marsden et al (eds) Educational integrity: Plagiarism
and other perplexities. Proceedings of the first Australasian
educational integrity conference, University of Adelaide, South
Australia, 21-23 November.
Moore, S., G. O’Neill
& B. McMullin
(2005)
‘Writers’ week: a vehicle for collaborative writing among educational
developers’. In G. O’Neill et al (eds) Emerging issues in the practice
of university learning and teaching. Dublin: All Ireland Society for
Higher Education [AISHE Readings no. 1]
Moulton, J. & G.
Robinson
(2002)
‘Plagiarism’ in L. & C. Becker (eds) Encyclopedia of ethics. Garland.
[http://sophia.smith.edu/~jmoulton/plagiarism.pdf. Accessed 9 July
2004]
OECD [Organisation
for Economic
Cooperation and
Development]
(2004)
Review of higher education in Ireland: Examiner’s report. Paris:
OECD [EDU/EC (2004) 14].
O’Neill, G. S. Moore &
B. McMullin (eds)
(2005)
Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching.
Dublin: All Ireland Society for Higher Education [AISHE Readings
no. 1]
Païni, D. & G. Cogeval
(eds)
(2000)
Hitchcock and art: Fatal coincidences. Paris: Centre
Pompidou/Mazzotta
PASA [Publishers’
Association of South
Africa]
(nd)
Copyright: a view from the Publishers’ Association of South Africa.
[http://www.publishsa.co.za/copyright.htm. Accessed 9 July 2004]
Petersen, S.
(2000)
‘Innovation and rhetoric of plagiarism: the Klein/Takis rivalry’. Visual
Resources 16(2) pp. 155-168.
Pfohl, R.
(2000)
‘The key to the (digital) salon: Copyright and the control of creative
expression’. Visual Resources 16(2) pp. 185-201.
55
Plagiarism.org
(2004)
‘Plagiarism statistics’
[http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism_stats.html. Accessed 9 July
2004]
Quilty, A.
(2003)
‘Towards a pedagogy of demystification’. The Adult Learner: The
journal of adult and community education in Ireland 2003, pp. 57-66.
Ramsden, P.
(1992)
Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Rand, E.
(1995)
Barbie’s queer accessories. Durham NC: Duke University Press.
Reilly, G.
(2004)
Report of self-study group on programme committees. Internal
document. Institute of Technology, Sligo.
Richardson, P.
(2001)
‘Reading and writing from textbooks in higher education: the danger
of other people's words’. Paper to Conference of the Australian
Association for Research in Education, Fremantle WA.
[http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/ric01273.htm. Accessed 9 July 2004]
Rosenfeld, M.
(2003)
‘Canuck-do higher education’. Australian Universities Review 46(1)
pp. 24-31.
Schwartz, H.
(1996)
The culture of the copy: Striking likenesses, unreasonable facsimiles.
New York: Zone.
Share, P.
(2004)
‘The challenge of plagiarism in the digital world’. Paper to Institute
research seminar, Institute of Technology, Sligo, 23 March.
[http://hazelwood.itsligo.ie/staff/pshare/plagiarism/paper.doc.
Accessed 9 July 2004]
Skilbeck, M.
(2001)
The university challenged: A review of international trends and issues
with particular reference to Ireland. Dublin: Higher Education
Authority.
[http://www.hea.ie/uploads/pdf/University%20Challenged.pdf.
Accessed 9 July 2004]
Swanson, G.
(2000)
‘Where can I steal a clever title for this article?’ Visual Resources
16(2) pp. 131-142.
Tate Modern
(2003)
‘Sample culture now’.
[http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/eventseducation/sampleculture.htm.
Accessed 9 July 2004]
Tovey, H. & P. Share
(2003)
A sociology of Ireland. 2e. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Turnbull, D.
(2005)
‘Plagiarism or how do they snitch from the Internet . . . let me count
the ways’. (PowerPoint presentation)
[http://www.library.uq.edu.au/papers/plagiarism.ppt. Accesssed 20
June 2005].
56
Turnitin.com
(2004)
‘Plagiarism and the internet’.
[http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_what_is_plagiarism.html.
Accessed 9 July 2004]
Turnitin.com
(2005)
‘About us’
[http://www.turnitin.com/static/about_us/. Accessed 20 June 2005]
University of Alberta
(nd)
‘Reporting plagiarism’.
[http://www.library.ualberta.ca/guides/plagiarism/reporting/index.cfm
Accessed 9 July 2004]
University of Essex
(2005)
‘Plagiarism detection and the Data Protection Act 1998’. Records
management section.
[http://www2.essex.ac.uk/rm/dp/students.shtm#Detect. Accessed 20
June 2005]
Vacarro, M.
(2000)
‘Introduction: Plagiarism in art (and art history)’. Visual Resources
16(2) pp. 127-130.
Wheeler, G.
(2002)
Western fairy tales and folklore: From Cinderella to Harry Potter.
[http://people.umass.edu/gwheeler/index.html. Accessed 9 July 2004]
Winter, R. & C. MunnGiddings
(2001)
A handbook for action research in health and social care. London:
Routledge.
Zobel, J. & M.
Hamilton
(2002)
‘Managing student plagiarism in large academic departments’.
Australian Universities Review 45(2). pp23-30.
[http://www.nteu.org.au/freestyler/gui/files/file3e24f50f9f1fd.pdf.
Accessed 9 July 2004]
57
Appendix 1 – Plagiarism questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to collect information on issues related to plagiarism in
Irish third level institutions. Your input will (hopefully) help in the development of
more informed policy and practice in relation to this issue. All answers will be treated in
confidence
1.
What is your main discipline area?
________________________________________
2.
How many years have you been teaching at third level?
_______________________
3.
What do you understand by the term ‘plagiarism’?
4.
Have you experienced plagiarism in the course of your teaching at this
educational institution?
yes
no
5.
never
How often have you experienced plagiarism in the last five years (tick one)?
only once
2-5 times
6-10 times
over 10 times
6. If you have experienced plagiarism, please briefly describe one such incidence
briefly (there is no need to refer to specific module or subject if you do not wish to
58
7. What did you do in relation to this incident? (You may include information on who
you told, what procedures (if any) were invoked, penalties (if any) imposed &c.
8.
On the following scale indicate how well you think your institution supports
staff who encounter incidences of plagiarism
excellent support
good support
some support
no support
Comments:
9.
If an 18-year old first-year student with no mitigating circumstances has been
found to have submitted an article downloaded from the internet as their own work,
what do you think is the appropriate response?
Thank you very much for your response.
Please return directly to Perry Share, IT Sligo
59
Appendix 2 – Plagiarism exercise
Source text A
Linkogle, S. (1998) ‘The Revolution and the Virgin Mary: Popular Religion and Social Change in
Nicaragua’. Sociological Research Online, vol. 3, no. 2.
[http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/2/8.html] paragraph 2.1
There is no single Latin American popular religion, in the same way that there is no uniform
Latin American culture. There are only popular religions and popular cultures which are rooted
in and give expression to local knowledges, meanings and concerns. In Latin America, popular
culture is a mixture of the vestiges of indigenous culture that have survived the conquest, the
cultural practices and beliefs that preceded urbanisation, and the ensuing preponderance of mass
cultural forms. Yet the boundaries between ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture are no longer as distinct
as they once were, and in an analysis of these increasingly blurred distinctions, García Canclini
concludes that: 'High, popular, and mass are no longer to be found in their familiar places...'
(García Canclini, 1992: p.30). Neither popular culture nor popular religion are hermetically
sealed systems; there is an interaction between the two and also between themselves and their
respective ‘opposites’ of ‘high’ culture and orthodox religion.
Source text B
Tovey, H. & P. Share (2003) A sociology of Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. p. 410
This is a challenge that has been taken up by the churches in Ireland. In their attempts to
respond to the threat of secularisation they have attempted to make themselves more relevant
and in touch by involving themselves more in social and political issues, embracing the media
and changing their practices. . . . One possible direction is a shift towards mysticism and New
Age religions such as a rediscovery of paganism (Fay, 1997). As the established churches
become disenchanted and lose much of their mystery, perhaps there will be a greater attraction
to more sect-like religious communities, and charismatic leaders may find favour over
bureaucratic ones. Macionis and Plummer (1998, p. 522) report that there may be as many as
20,000 new religious groupings in Europe alone.
Source text C
Wikipedia online encyclopaedia – from entry for ‘religion’
Some historically Christian countries, particularly those in Europe, have experienced a
significant decline in Christian religion, shown by declining recruitment for priesthoods and
monasteries, fast-diminishing attendance at churches, synagogues, etc. Explanations for this
effect include disillusionment with ideology following the ravages of World War II, the
materialistic philosophical influence of science, Marxism and Humanism, and a reaction against
the exclusivist claims and religious wars waged by many religious groups. This decline is
apparently in parallel with increased prosperity and social well-being. It appears increasingly
common for people to engage in far-ranging explorations, with many finding spiritual
satisfaction outside of organized churches. This is a demographic group whose numbers are
growing and whose future impact cannot be predicted.
60
Example 1
Extract from an essay on changes in contemporary religion
Popular religion is widespread in South America and may be found everywhere. Often it has a
local dimension and is related to popular culture. In Latin America, popular culture is a mixture
of the vestiges of indigenous culture that have survived the conquest, the cultural practices and
beliefs that preceded urbanisation, and the ensuing preponderance of mass cultural forms. Yet
the boundaries between ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture are no longer as distinct as they once were.
So we can say there is a strong link between religion and different types of culture in Brazil.
Neither popular culture nor popular religion are hermetically sealed systems; there is an
interaction between the two and also between themselves and their respective ‘opposites’ of
‘high’ culture and orthodox religion. We see similar processes in Ireland where there has been a
change in religious practices towards more ‘popular’ forms of religion. One possible direction is
a shift towards mysticism and New Age religions such as a rediscovery of paganism (Fay,
1997). As the established churches become disenchanted and lose much of their mystery,
perhaps there will be a greater attraction to more sect-like religious communities, and
charismatic leaders may find favour over bureaucratic ones.
No references to either source text in bibliography
What has the student done here?
Would you regard this as plagiarism?
yes
no
If so, where would you place it on the following scale of 1 - 5?
very bad
1
2
3
4
5
acceptable
Reasons for your answer:
61
Example 2
Extract from an essay on changes in contemporary religion
Popular religion is widespread in South America and may be found everywhere. Often it has a
local dimension and is related to popular culture. In South America, popular culture is a mixture
of the remains of indigenous culture that have survived the conquest, the cultural practices and
ideas that preceded the development of cities, and the ensuing preponderance of mass cultural
forms. Yet the boundaries between ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture are no longer as clear as they
once were. So we can say there is a strong link between religion and different types of culture in
Brazil. Neither popular culture nor popular religion are sealed systems; there is an interaction
between the two and between themselves the ‘opposites’ of ‘high’ culture and orthodox religion
(Linkogle, 1998). We see similar processes in Ireland where there has been a change in religious
practices towards more ‘popular’ forms of religion. This might shift towards mysticism and
New Age religions such as a rediscovery of paganism. As the established churches loose much
of their mystery, perhaps there will be a greater interest in sect-like religious communities, and
charismatic leaders may find favour over bureaucratic ones (Tovey and Share, 2003).
References to both source texts in bibliography
What has the student done here?
Would you regard this as plagiarism?
yes
no
If so, where would you place it on the following scale of 1 - 5?
very bad
1
2
3
4
5
acceptable
Reasons for your answer:
62
Example 3
Popular religion is widespread in both South America and Ireland. Often it has a local
dimension and is related to popular culture. In Ireland there has been a change in religious
practices towards more ‘popular’ forms of religion. In their attempts to respond to the threat of
secularisation the Irish churches have attempted to make themselves more relevant and in touch
by involving themselves more in social and political issues, embracing the media and changing
their practices. There is a shift towards mysticism and New Age religions such as a rediscovery
of paganism (Tovey and Share, 2003)
In South America, there has been a change too. There popular culture is a mixture of the
remains of indigenous cultures that survived the European conquest, the cultural practices and
ideas that preceded the development of cities, and the ensuing preponderance of mass cultural
forms. Yet the boundaries between ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture are no longer as clear as they
once were. So we can say there is a strong link between religion and different types of culture in
Brazil. Neither popular culture nor popular religion is separate; there is an interaction between
the two and between themselves the ‘opposites’ of ‘high’ culture and orthodox religion
(Linkogle, 1998).
What has the student done here?
Would you regard this as plagiarism?
yes
no
If so, where would you place it on the following scale of 1 - 5?
very bad
1
2
3
4
5
acceptable
Reasons for your answer:
63
Example 4
Some historically Christian countries, particularly those in Europe, have experienced a
significant decline in Christian religion. This decline is apparently in parallel with increased
prosperity and social well-being. This can be seen in a reduction in recruitment to the priesthood
and shrinking attendance at churches and other religious sites. But there may be a change in the
nature of religion. As the established churches become disenchanted and lose much of their
mystery, there is a greater attraction to more sect-like religious communities, and charismatic
leaders may find favour over bureaucratic ones. We see this in South America: here, popular
culture is a mixture of the vestiges of indigenous culture that have survived the conquest, the
cultural practices and beliefs that preceded urbanisation, and the ensuing preponderance of mass
cultural forms. This means that popular religion has survived. Overall, we can say that it
appears increasingly common for people to engage in far-ranging explorations, with many
finding spiritual solace outside of organised religion (Linkogle, 1998, Tovey and Share, 2003,
wikipedia.org)
What has the student done here?
Would you regard this as plagiarism?
yes
no
If so, where would you place it on the following scale of 1 - 5?
very bad
1
2
3
4
5
acceptable
Reasons for your answer:
64
Example 5
Latin America is a place where the development of popular religion has been complex. As
Linkogle (1998) suggests, there is no unique type of popular religion in Latin America, just as
there is no uniform ‘Latin American culture’. What we find is a variety of popular religions and
popular cultures, each of which is based in local knowledges, meanings and concerns. In
countries such as Brazil, the popular culture of today retains some vestiges of the indigenous
culture that existed before the coming of the Europeans. This is combined with the cultural
practices and beliefs that preceded the development of cities and the today’s mass cultural forms
such as television, newspapers and other aspects of the mass media. The boundaries between
what we might call ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture or religion are not clear; rather there is much
interaction between the two (Linkogle, 1998, para 2.1)
What has the student done here?
Would you regard this as plagiarism?
yes
no
If so, where would you place it on the following scale of 1 - 5?
very bad
1
2
3
4
5
acceptable
Reasons for your answer:
65
Example 6
Latin America is a place where the development of popular religion has been complex. As
Linkogle (1998, para 2.1) suggests:
there is no single Latin American popular religion, in the same way that there is no
uniform Latin American culture. There are only popular religions and popular
cultures which are rooted in and give expression to local knowledges, meanings
and concerns. In Latin America, popular culture is a mixture of the vestiges of
indigenous culture that have survived the conquest, the cultural practices and
beliefs that preceded urbanisation, and the ensuing preponderance of mass cultural
forms.
These might include things such as television, newspapers and other aspects of the mass media.
What has the student done here?
Would you regard this as plagiarism?
yes
no
If so, where would you place it on the following scale of 1 - 5?
very bad
1
2
3
4
5
acceptable
Reasons for your answer:
66
Plagiarism exercise: what are the students doing?
Example 1
Copying a paragraph verbatim from a source without any acknowledgement
Example 2
Copying a paragraph and making small changes, such as changing a few verbs, replacing and
adjective with a synonym and including a source in list or references
Example 3
Cutting and pasting a paragraph by using sentences of the original but omitting one or two and
putting one or two in a different order, no quotation marks, in text acknowledgement plus
inclusion in reference list
Example 4
Composing a paragraph by taking short phrases of 10 to 15 words from a number of sources and
putting them together; adding own words to make a coherent whole; all sources in reference list
Example 5
Paraphrasing a paragraph with substantial changes in language and organisation; the new
version also has changes in the amount of detail used and the examples cited; in text
acknowledgement plus inclusion in reference list
Example 6
Quoting a paragraph by placing it in block format with the source cited in text and list of
references
67
Appendix 3 – Digital students
The ten commandments of students in the Information Age, according to Frand:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Computers aren’t technology
The Internet is better than TV
Reality is no longer real
Doing is more important than knowing
Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic
Multitasking is a way of life
Typing is preferred to handwriting
Staying connected is essential
There is zero tolerance for delays
Consumer and creator are blurring
Jason Frand, ‘The Information Age mindset: changes in students and implications for
higher education.’ EDUCAUSE Review 35 (5) (September/October 2000): pp. 15-24.
[cited in Turnbull, 2005]
68
Appendix 4: Plagiarism regulations, Trinity College Dublin
Plagiarism
53 Plagiarism is interpreted by the University as the act of presenting the work of others as
one’s own work, without acknowledgement. Plagiarism is considered as academically
fraudulent, and an offence against University discipline. The University considers plagiarism to
be a major offence, and subject to the disciplinary procedures of the University.
54 Plagiarism can arise from deliberate actions and also through careless thinking and/or
methodology. The offence lies not in the attitude or intention of the perpetrator, but in the
action and in its consequences. Plagiarism can arise from actions such as:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
copying another student’s work;
enlisting another person or persons to complete an assignment on the student’s behalf.
quoting directly, without acknowledgement, from books, articles or other sources, either
in printed, recorded or electronic format;
paraphrasing, without acknowledgement, the writings of other authors;
Examples (c) and (d) in particular can arise through careless thinking and/or methodology
where students:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
fail to distinguish between their own ideas and those of others.
fail to take proper notes during preliminary research and therefore lose track of the
sources from which the notes were drawn;
fail to distinguish between information which needs no acknowledgement because it is
firmly in the public domain, and information which might be widely known, but which
nevertheless requires some sort of acknowledgement;
come across a distinctive methodology or idea and fail to record its source;
All the above serve only as examples and are not exhaustive. Students should submit work done
in co-operation with other students only when it is done with the full knowledge and permission
of the lecturer concerned. Without this, work submitted which is the product of collusion with
other students may be considered to be plagiarism.
55 It is clearly understood that all members of the academic community use and build on the
work of others. It is commonly accepted also, however, that we build on the work of others in
an open and explicit manner, and with due acknowledgement. Many cases of plagiarism that
arise could be avoided by following some simple guidelines:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Any material used in a piece of work, of any form, that is not the original thought of the
author should be fully referenced in the work and attributed to its source. The material
should either be quoted directly or paraphrased. Either way, an explicit citation of the
work referred to should be provided, in the text, in a footnote, or both. Not to do so is to
commit plagiarism.
When taking notes from any source it is very important to record the precise words or
ideas that are being used and their precise sources.
While the Internet often offers a wider range of possibilities for researching particular
themes, it also requires particular attention to be paid to the distinction between one’s
own work and the work of others. Particular care should be taken to keep track of the
source of the electronic information obtained from the Internet or other electronic
sources and ensure that it is explicitly and correctly acknowledged.
69
56 It is the responsibility of the author of any work to ensure that he/she does not commit
plagiarism.
57 Students should ensure the integrity of their work by seeking advice from their lecturers,
tutor or supervisor on avoiding plagiarism. All departments should include, in their handbooks
or other literature given to students, advice on the appropriate methodology for the kind of work
that students will be expected to undertake.
58 If plagiarism as referred to in §34 above is suspected, the Head of Department will arrange
an informal meeting with the student, the student’s tutor8, and the lecturer concerned, to put
their suspicions to the student and give the student the opportunity to respond.
59 If the Head of Department forms the view that plagiarism has taken place, he/she must
notify the Senior Lecturer in writing of the facts of the case and suggested remedies, who will
then advise the Junior Dean. The Junior Dean will interview the student if the facts of the case
are in dispute. Whether or not the facts of the case are in dispute, the Junior Dean may
implement the procedures set out in CONDUCT AND COLLEGE REGULATIONS §2.
pp. G12-G13 Calendar 2000-2001
[Trinity College Dublin, General Regulations and Information]
8 As an alternative, students may nominate a representative from the Students’ Union to accompany them
to the meeting
70
Appendix 5 Plagiarism Code of Practice, NUIG law
Introduction
1.
Plagiarism is the act of copying, including or directly quoting from, the work of another
without adequate acknowledgement. The submission of plagiarised materials for assessment
purposes is fraudulent and all suspected cases will be investigated and dealt with appropriately
by the University following the procedures outlined here and with reference to the Disciplinary
Code.
2.
All work submitted by students for assessment purposes is accepted on the
understanding that it is their own work and written in their own words except where explicitly
referenced using the accepted norms and formats of the appropriate academic discipline.
3.
Whilst some cases of plagiarism can arise through poor academic practice with no
deliberate intent to cheat, this still constitutes a breach of acceptable practice and requires to be
appropriately investigated and acted upon.
4.
Regulations, guidelines and procedures regarding plagiarism should be made widely
available and a statement included in course handbooks, websites, departmental noticeboards or
appropriate handouts to students. Plagiarism can arise through ignorance and therefore it is
important to ensure that students understand what is meant by the term and the seriousness of
the offence.
5.
Departments are recommended to consider requiring students to sign a short declaration
that work submitted by them for assessment purposes is their own and that such a statement
may be attached to a submitted piece of coursework, essay or dissertation (or signed at the start
of each course/ academic year, acknowledging that the student has read and understood the
plagiarism regulations). The purpose of this statement is to reinforce the principle of statement
(2) above and to remind students of the requirements for the submission of a formally marked
assessment.
6.
Cases in which students knowingly permit others to copy their work shall also be
subject to the procedures outlined here and considered an offence.
Procedures
7.
A small number of staff should be identified in each faculty who would have
responsibility for dealing with suspected and reported cases of plagiarism.
8.
These staff should be trained on the basic issues, be made aware of current best practice
guidelines; techniques for minimising, detecting and responding to plagiarism; and current
national and international developments across the HE sector.
9.
A member of teaching staff who suspects that a submitted piece of student work may be
plagiarised should notify the appropriate plagiarism advisor in their faculty/cognate area. A
short report including a copy of the suspected example and any evidence for plagiarism should
be forwarded to the advisor.
10.
The plagiarism advisor shall conduct an investigation of the alleged plagiarism, firstly
determining whether it represents a “minor” or “major” offence.
71
11.
Minor cases are those in which the suspected plagiarism is a first offence and represents
poor academic practice. Such cases include:




apparently innocent misuse of materials;
inadequate citation such as poor referencing, inappropriate paraphrasing;
over-reliance on sources without sufficient of the candidate’s own work;
those in which the suspected plagiarism represents only a small proportion of the
work and/or an element in a piece of work which makes a small contribution to the
mark for the module
12.
The advisor will, in such cases, normally interview the candidate to discuss the
suspected plagiarism.
13.
If the advisor is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of such an offence, the student
will be given a written warning and provided with advice on avoiding plagiarism and the
necessity of properly acknowledging and referencing sources.
14.






Major cases are those which may include, for example:
copying multiple paragraphs in full without acknowledgement of the source;
taking essays from the Internet without revealing the source;
copying all or much of the work of a fellow student with, or without, his/her
knowledge or consent;
submitting the same piece of work for assessment under multiple modules;
those involving a final year undergraduate or postgraduate student (taught or
research);
a second offence where the student has been in receipt of an earlier written
warning.
15.
In consideration of possible major cases, the student will be notified, in writing, of the
suspected offence, provided with a copy of the marked-up piece of work and invited to attend an
interview with the plagiarism advisor and an additional member of staff9.
16.
The student will have the right to be accompanied and assisted, at the interview, by a
“friend.”10
17.
At the interview, the student will be given a clear explanation of what has been alleged,
shown a copy of his/her work, given the opportunity to justify the work and be invited to admit
or deny responsibility.
18.
In such major cases, where the advisor is satisfied that an offence has occurred, the
advisor is required to determine between three possible courses of action, depending on the
apparent severity of the offence:
(a) an opportunity to repeat and resubmit the work, but where the maximum mark that can be
awarded is the pass mark appropriate to the module;
(b) the immediate imposition of an academic penalty, which would normally be the award of
zero marks to the plagiarised work, with no option to resubmit the work;
9
For example, the Head of Department, a senior staff member in the department, or another plagiarism
advisor.
10
As used in the University’s Code. This may, for example, be a parent or guardian; a fellow student or
other friend; a representative from the Students’ Union; or a legal representative, if so desired.
72
(c) the submission of the case for consideration by the university’s Discipline Committee. In
this case the offence will be considered as a “Major” offence in the terms of the University’s
Code and, if after due process the allegation is upheld, an appropriate penalty will be applied, as
described in articles 39 and 40 of the Code.
19.
In all cases, the student will be notified in writing of the decision of the advisor and any
penalty imposed.
20.
In keeping with the University’s Code, the student shall be entitled to appeal a decision
made with regard to a minor case to the Discipline Committee.
21.
An appropriate record should be kept11 in respect of any upheld allegation, which can be
consulted by the plagiarism advisor to determine whether a new case is potentially a second, or
subsequent, offence.
22.
Basic statistical information covering the number of cases referred to advisors, the
number of written warnings and other penalties applied and their distribution across
Departments and Faculties, should be collated by the University to inform subsequent
modifications to these regulations and ascertain the requirement for wider training and
information dissemination on this topic.
11
By the appropriate University office.
73
Appendix 6: Information on plagiarism, Dublin City University
Plagiarism is the presentation of another person's words, ideas, arguments, concepts or designs
as your own. Plagiarism comes in many shapes and forms ranging from the copying, without
attribution, of whole sections of published works to the unattributed use of text, diagrams,
illustrations or formulae taken from the unpublished work of other students. Plagiarism covers
not only print but intellectual property rights which reside in all other media including software.
Plagiarism is a very serious offence. Allegations of plagiarism will be automatically referred to
the Disciplinary Committee of the University. Under the University's Disciplinary Code,
plagiarism or the use of unauthorised material during an examination or other breaches of the
examination regulations are all defined as examples of major offences. Serious academic
offences such as plagiarism, cheating etc., may result in one or more of the following
disciplinary actions being taken against the offending student:



the award of a mark of zero or such other deduction in marks as the Disciplinary Committee
may recommend to an Examination Board, without an opportunity to repeat or to re-submit
the work in question.
such other action as the Disciplinary Committee may recommend to an Examination Board;
such disciplinary action as may be authorised by the University's Code of Discipline from
time to time.
In order to avoid any suspicion of plagiarism in your work, you should:



cite the sources of all quotations, paraphrases, summaries of information, tables, diagrams
or other material; including software and other electronic media in which intellectual
property rights may reside, which you use;
when paraphrasing the work of others, use your own words and sentence structures;
provide a complete bibliography of all works and sources used in the preparation of your
projects, essay or other assignment.
Students are referred to the university's Code of Discipline, Examination Regulations and all
other University Regulations issued from time to time.











Plagiarism is a major offence in the University
It is the act of taking and using another persons' thoughts or work as your own.
It includes inadequate referencing, reproducing the work (even with small changes) of
another taken from books, journals, articles, TV programmes, the Internet, lectures and so
on.
It also includes copying another person's work, with or without his/her consent.
Also included is collusion where a group of people collaborate or collude to present an
assessment or a substantial part thereof, when the examiner required individual research and
outcome.
These offences will be dealt with by the University with the utmost gravity.
You should be very clear how to reference your assessed work.
You should not use another student's assessed work -either with or without their consent
unless you attribute it to him/her.
You should not give your assessed work to another student for him/her to copy.
You should familiarise yourself with the University's Regulation on Plagiarism, Copying
and Collusion (see Registry Website)
You must sign and submit the declaration which is included on the Regulation on
Plagiarism, Copying and Collusion with EACH piece of assessed work you submit.
74

You can expect a penalty concomitant with the seriousness of an offence against the
Regulation
75