Larkham & Manns 2002 Plagiarism and Its Treatment in Higher Education

8/18/2019 Larkham & Manns 2002 Plagiarism and Its Treatment in Higher Education

1/12

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjfh20

Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] Date: 12 April 2016, At: 07:59

Journal of Further and Higher Education

ISSN: 0309-877X (Print) 1469-9486 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Plagiarism and its Treatment in Higher Education

Peter J. Larkham & Susan Manns

To cite this article: Peter J. Larkham & Susan Manns (2002) Plagiarism and its Treatmentin Higher Education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26:4, 339-349, DOI:

10.1080/0309877022000021748

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877022000021748

Published online: 03 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1259

View related articles

Citing articles: 29 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0309877022000021748#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0309877022000021748#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0309877022000021748http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0309877022000021748http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cjfh20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cjfh20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877022000021748http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0309877022000021748http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjfh20


2/12

Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2002

Plagiarism and its Treatment in Higher

EducationPETER J. L ARKHAM & SUSAN MANNSSchool of Planning and Housing, University of Central England, Perry Barr,

Birmingham B42 2SU, UK

ABSTRACT This review of a perennial academic problem is prompted both by increasing media coverage of issues of cheating and plagiarism, and by the authors’ own experience of

the problems raised in dealing with it. We review the literature to explore the range of

current concerns and issues. A small sample survey of higher education institutions is

discussed, and the reasons for institutions’ non-cooperation reviewed. Four cases drawn

from the authors’ experience are examined. The involvement of professional bodies is

questioned.

Introduction

This paper arises from our concern at the perceived scale and nature of incidences

of plagiarism: both as reported in the national press, in academic journals, from

colleagues elsewhere, and in our own institution. Issues of, and concerns over the

incidence of, cheating—of which plagiarism is a sub-set—have produced something

of an academic growth industry, with papers addressing the moral and ethical issues

from a variety of perspectives (Johnston, 1996), the ideology of communication

(Scollon, 1995), the legal problems of pursuing plagiarism charges (Mawdsley,

1985), and its incidence and treatment in universities (Mawdsley, 1994a; Parry &Houghton, 1996). Academics themselves are not immune from plagiarising and

subsequent disciplinary action (Mawdsley, 1994b) although the education com-

munity’s public record in dealing with all issues of plagiarism is regarded poorly

(Mooney, 1992). Plagiarism is also beginning to give cause for concern in profes-

sions.

In the national press, plagiarism has often been taken light-heartedly. Kingston

(1997) interviewed a mature undergraduate at a UK ‘new’ university who used

World Wide Web discussion lists and e-mail, in addition to an ‘essay bank’, to

generate material for his essays; he had as his e-mail ‘signature’ the motto ‘originalityis only a measure of how well you disguise your plagiarism’. A prominent case in

August 1999, however, revolved around computer science students at Edinburgh

University. Of 215 students in one cohort, the work of 91 showed similarities, and

use of plagiarism detection software revealed that a further 26 were implicated

(English, 1999).

In some nations and cultures, plagiarism is also not regarded too seriously. Pacitti

ISSN 0309-877X print; ISSN 1469-9486 online/02/040339-11 Ó NATFHE

DOI: 10.1080/0309877022000021748

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ b - o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c i m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 7 : 5 9 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


3/12

340 P. J. Larkham & S. Manns

(1997) reviewed the prevalence of cases in Italy amongst academics and authors.

One former rector of a Naples university had resigned following a nding that ve

of his seven major published works were simply German texts translated into Italian:

denying personal responsibility, the professor had blamed this on his short sight and

reliance on assistants. ‘Rather than indignation, the popular reaction was surprisethat a man in his position of power had allowed himself to be caught’. Likewise,

although Martin Luther King Jr. may have plagiarised in the course of his doctoral

thesis, there is a cultural acceptance in the American oral preaching tradition—in

which he was rooted—of widespread borrowing from unacknowledged sources

(Miller, 1993).

What is Plagiarism?

Hawley (1984) views plagiarism as being a continuum ranging from sloppy para-

phrasing to verbatim transcription with no crediting of sources: indeed, ‘denitional

precision constitutes one of the most salient problems in any discussion of accept-

able versus unacceptable documentation’ (Hawley, 1984, p. 35). Brownlee (1987)

has suggested that the major problem surrounding plagiarism is not that of misun-

derstandings of the mechanics of scholarship or documentation (although many, e.g.

McCormick, 1989 and Nienhuis, 1989, feel that it is), but one of the practice of

scholarship, especially where students are under time pressures while needing to

review literature and formulate their own ideas. Particularly outside the academicpublishing world, what may therein be viewed as plagiarism is likely to be seen as

common and accepted practice: ‘many stories, ostensibly written by local journalists,

and even bylined to them, consist largely of material that has been rewritten (often

only lightly) from press releases’ (Bell, 1991, p. 17).

Scollon (1995) takes issue with the ‘traditional’ views of plagiarism as explored

above. He suggests that this type of view implies much about the nature of

discourse, the person(s) communicating, and the (private or individual) ‘ownership’

of discourse. Such issues conict with current discourse analysis of the nature of

communication (a development of the ideas in communication studies of Goffman,

1981). In particular, communication—including issues involving plagiarism—is ‘a

cultural model which can be located in terms of a particular historical moment and

a particular cultural group’ (Scollon, 1995, p. 5). He views this as developing into

a particular economic and ideological system, that of Europe at the time of the

Enlightenment, and a particular view of authors as manufactures of texts, but texts

as commercial products. This ideological system values particular concepts, includ-

ing individual autonomy, rationality, originality and objectivity (Lanham, 1983;

Scollon, 1995). This view would explain the different values found in cultures notdominated by the European Enlightenment milieu.

Attitudes

The traditional Western values system has, it is argued, privatised creation and thus

developed the ‘myth of individual genius and the romance of unique creativity’



4/12

Plagiarism and its Treatment in Higher Education 341

(Cosgrove, 1989, p. 38), with its corollaries of plagiarism and breach of copyright.

The individual unique creativity is upheld as the model of academic achievement;

interestingly, in the UK’s recent university-level Research Assessment Exercises,

single authorship (as opposed to multiple authorship) in peer-reviewed refereed

journals, being valued above all other forms of output, reinforced this stereotype.Scholars whose work has been plagiarised tend to react in a predictable human

manner. This is even true of those who have questioned the ideological underpin-

nings of communication, authorship and thus plagiarism (Duranti, 1993; Scollon,

1995). ‘The dilemma is that, while in general we would like to call into question our

own ideological underpinnings, in particular we do not like people to steal our work’

(Scollon, 1995, p. 25).

In courses which carry a professional accreditation, or which exist primarily to

deliver a professional-level education, the relevant professional bodies should surely

have some view on cheating and plagiarism where found proven by due disciplinary

process. Writing about the social work profession, Saunders (1993) comments that

amongst the performance standards that professional bodies should identify is

‘scrupulous adherence by students to ethical codes of conduct’. The application of

this concept is seen in terms of honesty:

One of the hallmarks of ethical behavior is honesty. When social work

students engage in dishonest behavior—within the classroom or in their

practicums—they dishonour the academic integrity of the program, the

social work profession, and possibly put their clients in jeopardy. (Saun-

ders, 1993, p. 224)

Yet non-professional courses should not have a lower regard for ethical conduct and

honesty.

There is, however, a value-set which does not regard plagiarism as an issue—and

certainly not as a problem. ‘In raising questions of ownership, copyright, the law,

creativity and artistic genius, plagiarism is one of the most important and insurrec-

tionary issues in contemporary culture’ (Cosgrove, 1989, p. 38). Brecht is reputed

to have said that ‘the rst law of creativity is theft’; whilst anarchist and avant-garde

art has celebrated an annual Festival of Plagiarism. Artists, including David Hock-

ney, have used photocopiers or faxes to generate art; whilst the acknowledged

‘forgeries’ of Keating and others, or even the facsimile copies of ob j ets d’art sold by

the British Museum shop, question the issues of originality, authorship and owner-

ship. Most controversial, but perhaps accepted by the widest market, is the ‘sam-

pling’ by electronic means of recognisable, existing pieces of music in the collages of

contemporary dance music: here, ‘theft is not only tolerated, it is a dening principle

of the music and its creativity’ (Cosgrove, 1989, p. 39).Literature, too, is prone to plagiarism. Gregory (1992) explores originality, or its

lack, in the English novel from the eighteenth century; particularly in the light of the

case of David Lodge versus Pauline Harris. Gregory goes so far as to assert that ‘the

English novel is a fruit of plagiarism. One cannot imagine a novel which was not

clearly derivative in terms of conventions of style, plot, narrative and intent’

(Gregory, 1992, p. 6).



5/12


The issue of plagiarism in the workplace has recently come to the fore in the area

of local government. In January 2000, Hackney London Borough Council was

involved in an employment tribunal arising (in part at least) from an allegation of

plagiarism made against a council employee, where it was argued that if plagiarism

is proven, it can be seen to constitute a ‘fundamental breach of trust’ betweenemployee and employer. The employee claimed that her report on gender guidelines

in schools had ‘relied heavily on a Lancashire County Council document but was

not plagiarism’ (Baldwin, 2000). She was supported by a former council ofcer, who

stated that ‘intellectual copyright … had become an issue within local government

only in the past few years’ (Baldwin, 2000). Although the case hinged on issues of

discrimination, the prominence of plagiarism and the remarks of the various profes-

sionals reported in the press coverage, demonstrate the issue to be one of growing

concern.

Surveying Plagiarism

A Rising Trend?

In attempting to review the incidence and treatment of plagiarism in UK higher

education, we undertook a small-scale stratied sample survey of old and new

universities and HE colleges. We also surveyed all university departments in our own

discipline of town planning. Whilst the results of this survey were informative, the

response rate was extremely low. A number of respondents, and many non-respon-dents when a follow-up was undertaken, simply refused to respond to some or all of

the questions on the grounds that such disciplinary actions were condential. Many

also refused to make available copies of relevant university policies. Even the

existence or incidence of cases was condential. Yet these institutions acknowledge

that there is an issue, otherwise why have relevant policies? In seeking secrecy they

are endeavouring to hide from bad publicity that might be attracted by such cases.

Mooney (1992) reported critical views on the treatment of the issue by higher

education. Where cases have been revealed, the publicity has almost without

exception been favourable to the open treatment of cheating and the maintenance of

academic standards.

Of the nine respondents to our survey, only one suggested that there had been no

increase in the incidence of plagiarism cases since the mid-1990s. None suggested

that there had been a decrease. Eight reported increases, usually slight, at all levels

from school and faculty to senate. However, several were not particularly concerned:

‘my judgement is that the number per year has stabilised and may decrease’ (chief

registrar, College of HE) and the rise was ‘not so much as to be a cause for particular

urgent concern’ (academic registrar of a new university). Few suggested reasons forthe increase, other than the expansion of UK universities occurring at the same time;

although ‘the anecdotal evidence is that the introduction of modularisation and

associated increase in the size of teaching groups has been accompanied by a

signicant increase in plagiarism’ (academic registrar of a new university). Interest-

ingly, one planning school suggested that most cases were involved with the increase

in computing and IT work; whereas at another new university it was suggested that



6/12


‘the problem is widespread, but my impression is that subject areas most affected are

accountancy, business studies and computing’ (academic registrar). Another regis-

trar raised the issue that plagiarism was felt to be a particular problem with some

overseas students. ‘Accidental plagiarism appears as a defence most often with

overseas students, where they claim that their national educational conventionsreward massive quotation rather than penalising it’.

Policies and Sanctions

From our respondents, there was an interesting variation in the sanctions imposed

where plagiarism was proven. Although virtually all see plagiarism as a form of

cheating, and apply a range of penalties to all forms of cheating depending upon the

perceived severity of the offence and whether the student admits guilt, the most

common penalty applied was recording a mark of zero for the piece plagiarised.

Some then allow a resubmission of the work, so that the actual penalty is simply a

delay. Some would routinely extend the penalty to recording zero for the unit

affected, and it may or may not be possible for the student to resit this unit. For

severe offences, one respondent would consider reducing the class of degree by one

class; whilst another respected older university simply stated that ‘in extreme cases

… plagiarism can lead to expulsion from the University and has so led in two cases

arising out of plagiarism in 1995–96’. Overall, however, the sanctions generally

applied suggest that plagiarism is not viewed as an overwhelmingly serious offence,and this seems at variance with the generalised Western view of originality in

education (see above).

There is some evidence that this may have begun changing during the late 1990s,

as several universities have reported that they have reviewed procedures and penal-

ties in the light of increasing incidences of plagiarism. Our own institution, for

example, had increased the standard penalty for any form of proven plagiarism to

the loss of 60 credits, virtually a year’s work for a part-time postgraduate, which

includes the credits which could have been gained for the plagiarised work.

Proving Plagiarism

In all cases of alleged plagiarism, the ‘written material can serve as evidence of

wrong-doing’ (Rose & Fischer, 1995, p. 363). The text in question may be subject

to content analysis, including nowadays by increasingly sophisticated pattern-recog-

nition software (cf. Macintyre, 1993); or by direct comparison with an original text.

More problematic are cases where the style or authority, including the use of

technical terminology and the way in which terms are used, lead to a suspicion thatthe purported author is not generally capable of such sophisticated usage—but

where an original text cannot be found. In these cases it is virtually impossible to

prove guilt: disciplinary proceedings increasingly require evidence in terms of the

original source material.

However, the resource implications of pursuing plagiarism can be signicant.

Even where an assessor is particularly familiar with a text (or multiple texts), nding



7/12


the exact extent of plagiarism and its page-by-page sources is time-consuming. This

can be particularly signicant during the peak weeks of end-of-semester and year

assessment, when many instances of possible plagiarism are detected. Regulations

usually state that allegations should be made and formal proceedings begun as soon

as the plagiarism is detected; yet the time taken to amass evidence of sufcientquality and quantity to be sure that plagiarism has occurred—and to convince the

relevant panel—can be signicant.

In order to examine in more detail the problems associated with pursuing

suspected cases of plagiarism, four very different cases with which the authors have

been involved were studied. All concerned students on the nal year of a pro-

fessional postgraduate course; cases A and B involved major projects (equivalent to

a dissertation), whilst cases C and D relate to coursework essays.

Guidance is offered on referencing at induction and in the Course Handbook,

making explicit mention of plagiarism; on the school’s standard feedback sheet, in

verbal brieng on the coursework, and in course documentation. The marksheet

also contains a statement to be signed by the student that ‘this submission is entirely

my own work and where I have used other sources I have adequately acknowledged

these in the text and listed them at the end of the submission’. Cases of potential

plagiarism are reviewed by a Faculty Cheating Committee, usually chaired by the

Dean. This reviews the evidence, hears from both parties, and xes penalties as

appropriate within the university’s guidelines.

Case A

A marker who had recently published on the topic chosen by the student for their

project detected a familiarity in phrasing and had available a range of relevant texts

cited by the student. It became plain that, although some quotations were appropri-

ately acknowledged from three main sources, other verbatim and highly derivative

material was not. In some places three successive paragraphs would be reproduced,

but only one attributed as a quotation. In other instances a few words were changed

or omitted. Plagiarism, in terms of verbatim unattributed quotation and close

paraphrasing, was found from 12 pages of one source, 24 pages from a second, and

eight pages from a third, and took a total of 16 person hours to identify.

Staff were convinced by the nature of the plagiarism that it represented a lack of

skill in the complex academic task of writing and referencing, particularly on an

historical theme drawing entirely from existing published material. The student was

found guilty and the project mark was set at zero; the student was able to retake at

a later date.

Case B

This student had previously been the subject of plagiarism proceedings, at which

guilt was admitted. The student had been allowed to retake the project, and the

resubmission forms the basis for this case. Both markers found a close correlation

between elements of the student’s work and two key texts. Owing to the institutional



8/12


pressure for proceedings to be instituted swiftly, staff submitted two sample chapters

as evidence, comprising 16 pages of the 70-page project. Plagiarised elements were

detected on every page of the 16, together with other faults including attributed

quotations not found in the source cited, close paraphrases including lists in which

the order of items was changed, and the changing or omission of odd words. Thenature of this copying, as distinct from the previous case, was more severe in that

more and larger sections were used with far less attempt at rewording. The size of

sections reused made their detection much less time-consuming.

When the case was heard, the student protested that the plagiarism was uninten-

tional and suggested that the repeated warnings about plagiarism had ‘desensitised’

him to the problem. The student also produced a letter of support from a senior

local authority ofcial suggesting that this was a minor oversight. The student was

found guilty and, as this was a second offence, was required to withdraw from the

course.

Case C

The assessment criteria for this coursework specically included the need for full

and proper referencing—without which no essay would be passed. The submitted

essay, although including a reference list, did not include references within the text.

The marker chose, exceptionally, to give the student the opportunity to remedy this

defect and include Harvard-style references within the text, provided that no otheralterations were made. When the work was returned to the marker sections of the

text had been referenced to works not on the original reference list. The student was

interviewed and, when asked about the new references, responded that their omis-

sion from the original list had been an oversight. The marker then looked at the cited

texts in detail, but was unable to source the quotations. However, an inspection of

other texts in the university library, which were not included in either reference list,

revealed the source of much of the essay. Both the original essay and the second

submission clearly comprised large verbatim quotations from this text. The

attributed quotations included in the second submission were also derived from

this text and, indeed, often followed larger sections that had been copied

verbatim.

The work was referred to the Cheating Committee, alleging plagiarism in both

submissions. The student was found guilty. However, owing to the leniency of the

marker in allowing the student to fully reference the work, a practice which was not

in accordance with normal procedures, the committee imposed a penalty of failure

of the module in question (loss of 20 credits), noticeably lower than the university’s

normal penalty for a rst offence of cheating, i.e. loss of 60 credits.

Case D

This case also involved a coursework essay. The source of unattributed verbatim

material was immediately recognised by the marker as originating from a text not

included in the student’s reference list and the work was quickly referred to the



9/12


Cheating Committee. Having been advised of this action, the student did not

reappear at the institution and did not respond to the charges. Although the case was

heard immediately following Case C, there was a change in membership of the

committee between cases. In the student’s absence, staff made the committee aware

that there may have been mitigating circumstances and poor scholarship in this case.Despite the student’s absence, the committee proceeded to hear the case and upheld

the allegation of plagiarism, imposing the standard 60-credit penalty.

Unlike the previous cases, where all students had sought the advice of the

Students’ Union advisory service and had been accompanied at the hearing by a

member of the service, in this instance the student did not appear and was not

represented.

Discussion

These cases clearly show a number of the complex issues and practical problems

involved in identifying and dealing with plagiarism. There are different degrees of

plagiarism, and although it is unusual to have to ‘prove’ intent, the motivation of the

student and the procedures followed by staff who may suspect plagiarism may have

an impact upon the penalty imposed. However, in practice, it is often difcult to

distinguish between poor scholarship (as was the situation in Case A) or carelessness

and deliberate intent to gain unfair advantage: the evidence gained from textual

comparison may be similar.The extent to which assessment criteria specically refer to the need for full and

proper referencing is often raised, particularly as a defence, when these criteria are

vague or absent. Attempts to set these as requirements of assessment at the level of

the whole course are not always successful. Furthermore, many students ‘blame’ the

lecturers for their failings. In Case B the student claimed that, as the tutor had not

identied plagiarism in the draft submission, it had been assumed that the work was

acceptable.

Pressures on students are changing. Increasingly, paid employment to supplement

student loans also reduces the time available for study. Additionally, we have found

that part-time students in employment are not being allowed ‘day release’ by

employers, but have either to attend courses using their annual leave or are expected

to carry a normal ve-day workload despite attendance, as was the situation in Case

D. These pressures, recognised by Brownlee (1987) are, in the experience of the

authors, often used as a defence against charges of plagiarism. These pressures

appear to accompany a rise in instances of cheating and plagiarism, although the

secrecy or condentiality of universities makes this difcult to quantify. Similarly,

whether this is a causal link is unknown.Changing the membership of the Cheating Committee may allow little continuity

of experience and consistency in terms of the imposition of penalties, despite

‘standardised’ university regulations. Students who attend Cheating Committee

hearings, and seek advice and representation from the Students’ Union, are better

able to persuade committee members to impose lesser penalties than those who do

not defend their cases. Many people, including some students, academics and



10/12


professionals, appear to condone plagiarism in a manner similar to a charge of

speeding in a car. It is not generally seen as a serious offence, and it is argued that

it is something that we all do at some time, to a greater or lesser degree. Those who

are detected are often regarded as ‘unlucky’ and ‘victimised’.

The time necessary to untangle plagiarised sources can be signicant. This iscompounded by the commitment to return assessed work within four weeks, and by

the institution’s pressure to begin proceedings as soon as cheating is suspected: the

three-day time limit, suitable for cheating in an examination, is extremely difcult

for assembling the textual evidence of plagiarism. Amassing the requisite amount

and standard of evidence in Case A required the member of staff to spend 16 hours

to identify textual correlations in the space of three days.

Rightly, in terms of natural justice, most regulations require that charges should

be brought ‘as soon as the cheating is detected’. Here, for the pressured academic,

is an unacknowledged but important distinction between plagiarism and other forms

of cheating: the very time required to produce the evidence. From personal experi-

ence, there is also a very real stress involved in appearing in quasi- judicial disci-

plinary proceedings. It is hardly surprising, then, that some colleagues are reluctant

to pursue plagiarism. There are also signicant costs in terms of administrative and

secretarial time involved in setting procedures in motion: in two of the above cases,

staff supplied copies of the texts annotated in colour—the cost of colour photocopy-

ing for all members of the hearing panel amounted to over £300.

The case studies discussed above related to students who were seeking to gainmembership of a professional institute on completion of their studies. Professions

are among the ‘consumers’ of students as they graduate. Whilst some professional

bodies operate strict sanctions against students who are found guilty of cheating, for

example the legal profession, others appear to be less concerned. The Law Society

and the Bar Council will not normally admit to membership anyone found guilty of

cheating by a university. However, any applicant affected by this rule may make

representations, and may be admitted if these bodies consider the offence to be

minor. No guidance is offered on how this is interpreted or how this discretion is

exercised. ‘Anecdotal evidence is that they are more sympathetic to cases of students

who have plagiarised than students who have committed examination irregularities’

(Head of a university Law School in correspondence to the authors).

The attitude of higher education institutions towards the acceptance of students

‘sent down’ for cheating or plagiarism also raises concerns. The student in Case B

was accepted on to a similar course at another institution, in the full knowledge of

reasons for his failure to complete his previous course of study. The Royal Town

Planning Institute (the professional body concerned) ‘does not have a written policy

on plagiarism with respect to academic work and would see this as being coveredwithin each Institution’s own regulations’ (Director, Professional Standards, per-

sonal communication). What message does this ambivalence of professional body

and reputable university convey to those who will become the next generation of

professionals? On the other hand, should there be a ‘statute of limitations’ by which

a cheating offence can be deemed to be expired? The attitude of professional bodies

would benet from further research.



11/12


Conclusions

This paper set out to establish whether the issue of plagiarism was one with which

higher education institutions should concern themselves. It had appeared from the

national press that the scale and nature of incidences of plagiarism were increasing.

The response to our survey of plagiarism in UK higher education was extremely

disappointing, with a number of institutions refusing to respond, or even provide

copies of relevant policies, on the grounds of condentiality. This, we argue, is

taking the interpretation of ‘condentiality’ to the extreme and, whilst educational

establishments persist in this secretive treatment, will continue to give rise to

allegations that plagiarism is effectively being condoned.

Our own detailed investigation of four case studies raised a number of issues that

we believe to be of wider applicability. It appears to us to make sense to view

plagiarism not as an academic ‘sin’ in its own right, as a crime against authorshipand originality, but to see it as the majority of educational establishments appear to.

In most university regulations, plagiarism is merely a sub-section of cheating, itself

dened as ‘seeking to gain unfair advantage’. Even if motivated by different culture

or ideological disagreement, someone employing plagiarism in an assessment is

seeking to gain advantage over others who, imbued with the Western academic

culture, do not cheat. We argue that individual academics and institutions cannot

condone this form of cheating if the elusive concept of ‘standards’ is to be main-

tained, within the Western academic tradition within which we and our students

operate. We would also broaden this to include the professions, not only in their

validation of courses but also in terms of their attitudes to professionalism and

public life. Plagiarism can be seen as an issue of trust. Academics are gatekeepers for

the professions; and the professions are ‘not served by allowing dishonest students

to graduate from its educational programs: an unethical student is likely to be an

unethical practitioner’ (Saunders, 1993, p. 231).

References

BALDWIN, T. (2000) Dobson’s wife ‘racially biased’, The Times, 18 January, p. 3.

BELL , A. (1991) The Language of the News Media (Oxford, Blackwell).

BROWNLEE, B.J. (1987) Coping with plagiarism requires several strategies, Journalism Education,

41, pp. 25–29.

COSGROVE, S. (1989) In praise of plagiarism, New Statesman & Society, 1 September, pp. 38–39.

DURANTI, A. (1993) Beyond Bakhtin, or the Dialogic Imagination in Academia, Pragmatics, 3, pp.

333–340.

ENGLISH, S. (1999) E-mail exam cheats may face expulsion, The Times, 14 August, p. 7.

GOFFMAN, E. (1981) Forms of Talk (Philadelphia, PA, University of Philadelphia Press).

GREGORY, P. (1992) Beware of imitations, The Sunday Times, 8 November, pp. 6–8.HAWLEY, C.S. (1984) The thieves of academe: plagiarism in the university system, Improving

College University Teaching , 32, pp. 35–39.

JOHNSTON, J.K. (1996) Cheating: limits of individual integrity, Journal of Moral Education, 25(2),

pp. 159–171.

K INGSTON, P. (1997) Surf your way to a rst, The Guardian Higher , 24 June, p. iii.

L ANHAM, R.A. (1983) Literacy and the Survival of Humanism (New Haven, CT, Yale University

Press).



12/12


MACINTYRE, B. (1993) Spot the academic copycat, The Times, 11 June, p. 12.

MAWDSLEY, R.D. (1985) Legal Aspects of Plagiarism (Topeka, KS, National Organization on Legal

Problems in Education).

MAWDSLEY, R.D. (1994a) Academic Misconduct: Cheating and Plagiarism (Topeka, KS, National

Organization on Legal Problems in Education).

MAWDSLEY, R.D. (1994b) Faculty plagiarism in higher education, West’s Education Quarterly, 3,pp. 558–567.

MCCORMICK , F. (1989) The ‘Plagiario’ and the Professor in our Peculiar Institution, Journal of

Teaching Writing , 8, pp. 133–145.

MILLER , K.D. (1993) Point of view, Chronicle of Higher Education, 37, 20 January, p. A60.

MOONEY, C.J. (1992) Critics question higher education’s commitment and effectiveness in dealing

with plagiarism, Chronicle of Higher Education, 38(23) pp. A13, A16.

NIENHUIS, T. (1989) The quick x: curing plagiarism with a note-taking exercise, College Teaching ,

37, p. 100.

PACITTI, D. (1997) Court threat to plagiarists, The Times Higher , 1261, 3 January, p. 1.

PARRY, G. & HOUGHTON, D. (1996) Plagiarism in UK Universities, Education and the Law, 8(3),pp. 201–215.

R OSE, M. & FISCHER , K. (1995) Policies and perspectives on authorship, Science and Engineering

Ethics, 1(4), pp. 361–370.

SAUNDERS, E.J. (1993) Confronting academic dishonesty, Journal of Social Work Education, 29(2),

pp. 224–231.

SCOLLON, R. (1995) Plagiarism and ideology: identity in intercultural discourse, Language in

Society, 24, pp. 1–28.


Documents

Larkham & Manns 2002 Plagiarism and Its Treatment in Higher Education