Content uploaded by Hassan Nejadghanbar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hassan Nejadghanbar on Nov 21, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Esmat Babaii
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Esmat Babaii on May 13, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20
Ethics & Behavior
ISSN: 1050-8422 (Print) 1532-7019 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20
Plagiarism Among Iranian Graduate Students of
Language Studies: Perspectives and Causes
Esmat Babaii & Hassan Nejadghanbar
To cite this article: Esmat Babaii & Hassan Nejadghanbar (2017) Plagiarism Among Iranian
Graduate Students of Language Studies: Perspectives and Causes, Ethics & Behavior, 27:3,
240-258, DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2016.1138864
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1138864
Published online: 30 Mar 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 789
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 14 View citing articles
Plagiarism Among Iranian Graduate Students of Language
Studies: Perspectives and Causes
Esmat Babaii and Hassan Nejadghanbar
Department of Foreign Languages
Kharazmi University
In this study, we investigated the ability of Iranian students of applied linguistics to discern
plagiarism in writing, their perceptions of its ethical aspects, their characterizations of plagiarists,
and their perspectives on why they may commit plagiarism. In so doing, a slightly revised version
of Deckert’s 1993 questionnaire, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, was electroni-
cally distributed among 156 graduate students of applied linguistics. The results of the quantitative
data analysis revealed some understanding of the concept but an inconsistent performance in
recognizing plagiarism. Regarding issues of ethics and fairness, they were concerned with their
own needs along with the original writer’s rights more than with rights of their classmates,
colleagues, or teachers. They regarded unfamiliarity with the concept and nature of plagiarism as
the main reason for committing it. The analysis of the qualitative data yielded the following reasons
for students’plagiarism: students’unfamiliarity with plagiarism, students’low academic writing
skills, teachers’carelessness and leniency, students’lack of time, students’laziness and deceitful-
ness, educational system and its policies, students’low language proficiency, students’unfamiliar-
ity with the subject of writing, and teachers’high expectations. In conclusion, some suggestions are
offered as to how to decrease the rate of plagiarism.
Keywords: applied linguistics, Iran, perspective, plagiarism, student
Plagiarism and copyright are the offshoots of Western cultural values concerning intellectual
property (Myers, 1998). As a result of the focus on authorship, in 1710, the statute of Anne, in
Britain, came into existence to support copyright of authors (Sutherland-Smith, 2008). The
acknowledgment of authors’ownership over their literary works led to the emergence of copyright
law, which brought with it the concept of plagiarism (Sutherland-Smith, 2008). The recognition of
authorial rights required attributing words and ideas to their originators (Sutherland-Smith, 2010).
Before that, it was commonly believed that knowledge is “givenfreelytousbyGodandshouldbe
freely shared for the common good”(Lunsford, 1997, p. 264).
According to Barnhart (as cited in Park, 2003, p. 472), the word plagiarize can be traced to
the English word plagiary, which is derived from the Latin word plagiarius and means
“kidnapper.”The term plagiarism has been defined in various ways (Flowerdew & Li, 2007;
Correspondence should be addressed to Hassan Nejadghanbar, Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi
University, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: hassannejadghanbar@gmail.com
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 27(3), 240–258
Copyright © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2016.1138864
Myers, 1998). For example, Deckert (1993) argued that “plagiarism generally conveys the
notions of cheating and dishonesty, or carelessness in the use of sources”(p. 131). Similarly,
Pecorari (2002) defined plagiarism as “an object which has been taken from a particular source
by an agent without acknowledgment and with or without intention to deceive”(p. 60).
Adopting a harsher view, Park (2003) asserted that “plagiarism involves literary theft, stealing
(by copying) the words or ideas of someone else and passing them off as one’s own without
crediting the source”(p. 472).
Plagiarism, as a perennial challenge that is here to stay (Paldy, 1996), has reviewed different
terms in academic writing that distinguish between intended and unintended plagiarism
(Flowerdew & Li, 2007). For example, Howard (1993) used the word “patchwriting”to
describe “copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical
structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym substitutes”(p. 233). Howard (1993) argued
that patchwriters mostly strive to follow appropriate academic etiquettes and are not immoral
plagiarists. Similarly, Pecorari (2003) argued that patchwriters can become skilled academic
writers if provided with essential help to develop their abilities. Plagiarism has also been
discussed in terms of intertextuality, which, according to Kristeva (as cited in Worton &
Still, 1990), refers to literal or efficient representation of one given text within another.
Chandrasoma, Thompson, and Pennycook (2004) distinguished between “transgressive inter-
textuality”and “nontransgressive intertextuality”to strongly oppose a one way perception of
plagiarism. In fact, they argued for replacing the concept of plagiarism with that of transgres-
sive intertextuality, which is in contrast with acceptable forms of nontransgressive intertex-
tuality. Appropriate “paraphrasing”is another concept in academic writing, but one that might
prove demanding for novice writers who may not enjoy rich “rhetorical devices at their
disposal”(Pecorari, 2008, p. 93). Angelil-Carter (2000) argued that the difficulty lies in the
blurry boundary that exists between plagiarism and paraphrasing.
In academic settings, plagiarism continues to be a topic of great importance for educators
(Sheila & Mindi-Barth, 1993) in that it prevents students from taking their writing tasks
seriously; hinders learning; and, accordingly, poses threats to academic enterprise (Howard,
2007). Considering the importance of paying attention to plagiarism in academic settings
and the scarcity and inconclusiveness of studies conducted in the Iranian context, the present
study set out to examine the ability of applied linguistics students to recognize textual
plagiarism, to understand their moral judgments about plagiarism, and to find out how they
characterize plagiarists. Moreover, in line with Devlin and Gray’s (2007) claim that pin-
pointing the factors that lead to plagiarism helps one to better deal with and prevent it, the
present study attempted to discover the reasons for committing plagiarism from the students’
own perspectives.
PLAGIARISM IN IRAN
Different cultures have their distinct ways of acting and interacting, and their discrete value
systems lead to their different perceptions of the world (Hofstede, 1991). There is evidence that
individuals’interpretations are influenced by their cultures and they can develop dissimilar
understandings as to “what is and what is not acceptable in academic writing”(Introna, Hayes,
Blair, & Wood, 2003, p. 10). Various cultures will practice different levels of understanding of
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 241
plagiarism (Introna et al., 2003). Although Islamic thought and Persian literature warn against
plagiarism, Iranian academia has suffered from plagiarism for a long time (Eslami, 2011).
Habibzade (2008) noted that Iran has been placed among the 31 countries of the world that
have published the “top 1% most cited publications”(p. 171). He attributed this noticeable
growth in “science production”in Iran to the increased budgets devoted to scientific research
and to the increase in the number of postgraduate students and assistant professors who are
required to publish articles in prestigious journals in order to finish their studies or to obtain
promotion in their careers, respectively. Shahghasemi and Akhavan (2015) noted that Iranian
researchers ranked 39th in the world by publishing 8,797 citable medical research articles
(Scopus) from 1996 to 2007. However, they ranked 69th in terms of their “H index,”which
refers to “an index that estimates the importance and impact of contributions by a scientist or a
country”(p. 2). Farrokhi (as cited in Shahghasemi & Akhavan, 2015) attributed this low
citation index to both weak methodology and plagiarism.
The situation in Iran, as Bahadori, Izadi, and Hoseinpourfard (2012) noted, seems to be
“publish or perish.”Habibzadeh (2008) argued that the need to publish articles puts students
and researchers under pressure and, as a result, the rate of unethical behaviors such as
plagiarism increases. Despite the pressure to publish articles and the surge in scientific pub-
lication in the Iranian context, as Zamani, Azimi, and Soleimani (2012) argued, no serious
attempts have been made to teach students how to avoid plagiarism. They argued that available
books often fail to include the concept of plagiarism. Similarly, the results of studies such as
Rezanejad and Rezai (2013) reveal that Iranian university instructors are the major sources in
providing students with information about the concept of plagiarism but indicate that Iranian
higher education institutions provide insufficient education on unethical behaviors and plagiar-
ism. Zamani et al. (2012) called for the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology;
universities; and schools to take special measures to prevent students and researchers from
committing plagiarism. It is worth mentioning that, in an Iranian context, ethical issues in
research and writing are to be disseminated by “the Iranian Association for Ethics in Science
and Technology”and its related Journal of Ethics in Science and Technology (Rezanejad &
Rezai, 2013).
Typically, students in Iran hear about plagiarism when they enter the university. Before that
they often have a very limited, or almost no, understanding of this concept. In some cases,
university teachers are scrupulous and thorough in educating students about plagiarism from the
early days of their undergraduate studies. In most cases, however, students are taught about
unethical behaviors and plagiarism only when they enter their graduate and postgraduate
programs. There is also a lack of consensus among the instructors on how to deal with
plagiarism. Many instructors appear to be tolerant of it, whereas others do not hesitate to
punish students who commit plagiarism. Their punishments can range from lowering students’
scores to failing them. Most instructors deal with the issue themselves, but some may send the
student to the responsible authorities to have them deal with the problem. The authorities refer
to a behavioral guiding manual that both seriously warns against and forbids plagiarism and use
of any sources without permission. The manual states that those who copy or take ideas from
other sources without attributing them to their originators will be sanctioned. The punishments
will depend on the type and severity of the unethical behavior and range from payment of fines,
to suspension from studies, and in the most serious cases, criminal court charges (Iranian
Students’Behavioral Guiding Manual, n.d.).
242 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
PLAGIARISM RESEARCH
Plagiarism is a very important issue for college students (Sheila & Mindi-Barth, 1993),
and some studies have addressed different aspects of this problem. One important avenue
of research has targeted students’viewpoints and perceptions of plagiarism (Kroll, 1988;
Xiaojun, Hongli, & Fan, 2010). Another avenue has addressed the influence of culture on
English as a Second Language students’or English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
students’perceptions of plagiarism. Whereas some studies have revealed that culture
influences plagiarism (Adiningrum & Kutieleh, 2011; Deckert, 1993; Marshall & Garry,
2006; Matalene, 1985), others have indicated no connection between culture and plagiar-
ism (Pecorari, 2003; Wheeler, 2009). As another strand of research, studies such as Park
(2003)andDevlinandGray(2007) have addressed the reasons behind students’
plagiarism.
In the Iranian context, a few studies have attempted to address plagiarism among EFL
learners. For example, Ahmadi (2012) addressed cheating on exams among EFL learners.
This study was limited to cheating on exams. Rezanejad and Rezaei (2013) surveyed the
attitudes of Iranian language students toward plagiarism. However, this study, which was
limited to collecting quantitative data, did not investigate textual plagiarism and recruited
students with different degrees and areas of educational experience that might have pre-
vented gaining an in-depth picture of a specific group of learners with specific specialties.
In another study, Zafarghandi, Khoshroo, and Barkat (2012) examined students’perceptions
of plagiarism and the occurrence of various types of plagiarism among them. This study
was also limited in that it did not investigate students’viewpoints on why one might
plagiarize.
Discrepancies in the findings of the previous research together with the increase in
plagiarism rate due to easy access to computers (Abasi & Graves, 2008;Flowerdew&Li,
2007;Park,2003) and the scarcity of studies conducted in the Iranian context, along with the
commentaries and debates on plagiarism issues in the this milieu (e.g., Butler, 2009;
Ghazinoory, Ghazinoori, & Azadegan-Mehr, 2011) highlight the necessity and importance
of conducting further studies to explore students’perspectives toward plagiarism and the
reasons behind its occurrence. Accordingly, the present study, collecting both quantitative and
qualitative data, has attempted to investigate students’abilities to recognize textual plagiar-
ism, their ethical viewpoints on why plagiarism is wrong, their characterization of plagiarists,
and their reasoning on why students might commit plagiarism. In so doing, answers were
sought to the following research questions:
RQ1: To what extent can Iranian M.A. students of applied linguistics recognize plagiarized writing?
RQ2: How do they ethically feel about and judge the inappropriateness of such writings?
RQ3: How do they describe students who commit plagiarism?
RQ4: What are the reasons, based on students’experience and perspectives that might lead to
plagiarized writing?
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 243
METHODOLOGY
Context of Study and Participants
Because plagiarism is a “sensitive”and “delicate”issue (Hyland, 2001; Rezanejad & Rezaei,
2013) that can be associated with feelings of disgrace (Hyland, 2001), we preferred to use
anonymous survey in order to obtain more reliable data. In so doing, a group of M.A. students
(n= 10) who were already on LinkedIn were personally contacted and asked if they could help
in collecting the data. Overall seven students agreed to help. After explaining the overall
purpose of the study and reassuring them that anonymity of their contacts and friends would
be fully observed, they were asked to collect the e-mail addresses of their contacts on LinkedIn
(www.linkedIn.com). They were instructed to select the e-mail addresses of those students who
were doing their first, second, or third semester of an M.A. in applied linguistics. Accordingly,
they were able to provide the e-mail address of 248 M.A. students of applied linguistics
studying at a wide range of different universities (18 state and 14 nonstate universities) in
Iran. Having collected their e-mail addresses, we sent them the questionnaire. They were
reassured that their anonymity would be fully observed. Electronic administration of the
questionnaire allowed us to collect data from students studying in different parts of Iran. A
total of 163 students completed the questionnaires and returned them. At the end of the
administered questionnaire, in Section 6, students were asked to rate how easily they had
understood the questions in the questionnaire. In line with Deckert’s(1993) study, seven
participants’answers—indications that they had comprehended “only parts”or “little”of the
questionnaire—were deleted. Accordingly, 156 responses (84 female, 53.8%; 72 male, 46.2%)
responses were included in the study. The students’ages ranged from 24 to 41 with a mean age
of 28.26 years.
Instrumentation
To collect the data, Deckert’s(1993) questionnaire was slightly revised and administered (the
questionnaire is available upon request from the authors by e-mail). The questionnaire was
designed to elicit students’demographic information (Section 1), familiarity and experience
with plagiarism (Section 2), ability to pinpoint plagiarism (Section 3), ideas on plagiarism
(Section 4), characterization of plagiarists (Section 5), and impression of the clarity of the
questionnaire (Section 6; Deckert, 1993). We added another section, an open-ended question
(Section 7) to ask for the participants’perceptions and attributions about why an Iranian M.A.
student of applied linguistics might commit plagiarism. Accordingly, the present questionnaire
was designed to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. The participants in the present
study had studied English language teaching at university for almost 6 years, and we could
administer the questionnaire in English without translating it to the students’native language of
Persian.
Before administering the questionnaire to the target sample, it was piloted with a smaller
representative sample of the corresponding group; 10 students were asked to fill out the
questionnaire and give feedback on it. This enabled some minor revision of the questionnaire.
The introduction was condensed along with revisions to Section 1 gathering the demographic
information of the participants. In addition, Question 1 of Section 2 was deleted.
244 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
Data Analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative data analysis procedures were conducted. For the quantitative
data, statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software to calculate frequencies and
percentages of students’responses.
The qualitative data were analyzed utilizing a method of thematic analysis (Creswell, 2007;
Plano Clark & Creswell, 2014). Using an inductive approach to data analysis, the researchers
read all students’answers to the open-ended questions several times to develop an initial
impression of the data. In further readings, code labels that described the meaning of the “text
segments”were assigned to the data. Subsequent readings of the data helped in refining the
codes, pinpointing overlaps and redundancies, and identifying themes that seemed to describe
and capture the main ideas of the data. Final readings allowed refining and clustering initial
themes that depicted similar concepts. In this way the main themes and concepts were clarified
and determined.
To ensure and check accuracy and reliability of the analysis, a Ph.D. holder in applied
linguistics, with experience in content analysis, analyzed the data independently using the same
method. This process produced a 90% interrater reliability, which enabled areas of disagree-
ment to be discussed and a final agreement to be reached.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In Section 2 of the administered questionnaire, a brief definition of plagiarism was provided,
and students were asked to indicate if their teachers had ever pointed out or warned them about
plagiarism in their papers. Then students were required to rate the extent to which they believed
themselves to be guilty of, intentional or unintentional, plagiarism. More than half of students
(n= 80, 51.3%) noted that their previous teachers had noticed and warned them about
plagiarism in their written papers “1 to 2 times only.”Seventy-three (46.8%) students claimed
that they had never been warned of plagiarism in their writings. Far fewer students (n=3,
1.9%) reported that their teachers had commented about plagiarism in their papers “more than 2
times.”Of interest, the majority of the students (n= 146, 93.6%) believed that they had
committed intentional or unintentional plagiarism “a little bit”(104, 66.7%) or “a lot”(42,
26.9%). Only 10 students (6.4%) reported that they had never committed plagiarism. This is in
line with previous studies concluding that plagiarism is very common among students (Alam,
2004; Bennett, 2005; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009).
Students’Ability to Recognize Plagiarism
To explore students’abilities to recognize plagiarized writing samples from samples of original
text, participants were provided with six writing samples. Students were asked to read all the
samples and try to distinguish whether they were plagiarized. If they judged a sample as
plagiarized, then they were asked to determine the degree of plagiarism. To develop this section
of the questionnaire, Deckert (1993) took the main sample “from a newspaper article entitled
‘Gloom Over Tropical Forests,’written by Shabecoff (1990)”(p. 134). Deckert (1993) noted
that Samples D and E do not involve any plagiarism, Samples A and F manifest moderate
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 245
degrees of plagiarism, and Samples B and C manifest great amounts of plagiarism. As Deckert
put it, Samples A, F, B, and C manifested “a mix of different degrees of the common mistakes:
incorporating strings of the source text without using quotation marks, not including any kind
of reference to the source, and using quotation marks with paraphrased renderings rather than
exact excerpts”(p. 134).
As Table 1 shows, 66% and 38.5% of students, respectively, correctly chose Samples A and
F as both manifesting some degree of plagiarism. Sample B was correctly chosen by 62.2% of
the students as a case with much plagiarism. On the other hand, just 23.1% of the students
chose Sample C as a case with much plagiarism. Only 41.0% of the students correctly chose
Case D, whereas 64.1% of the students correctly chose E as a sample with no plagiarism; Case
B was chosen by 55.1% of students as “the worst case of plagiarism.”
The results show that students did not consistently or uniformly discern the presence or
absence of plagiarism in texts along with the extent of plagiarism in plagiarized texts. Many
students could perform well in discerning Samples A, B, and E but performed poorly with
Samples C, D, and F. This discrepancy may be explained by Deckert’s(1993) comments about
this section of the questionnaire in that “the writing samples in the questionnaire may have been
too complex”(p. 142). In other words, these students may only have a very basic and
unsophisticated understanding of the nature of plagiarism that becomes quite limited in com-
plex written text. Nevertheless, as Alam (2004) reminded, it is even difficult for academic staff
to recognize plagiarism and to discern its extent in written text.
Students’Ethical Perspectives on Why Plagiarism Is Wrong
The next analysis explored students’ethical perspectives on why plagiarism is wrong. To do so,
they were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with the following statements on a
Likert scale. After rating, students were then asked to choose which statement they felt was the
most unfair.
TABLE 1
Students’Ability to Recognize Plagiarism
Writing Samples
No
Plagiarism
Some
Plagiarism
A Great Amount of
Plagiarism
Chosen as Worst Case of
Plagiarism
Sample A (some
plagiarism)
27 (17.3) 103 (66.0) 26 (16.7) 20 (12.8)
Sample B (much
plagiarism)
7 (4.5) 52 (33.3) 97 (62.2) 86 (55.1)
Sample C (much
plagiarism)
18 (11.5) 94 (60.3) 44 (28.2) 36 (23.1)
Sample D (no
plagiarism)
64 (41.0) 79 (50.6) 12 (7.7) 7 (4.5)
Sample E (no
plagiarism)
100 (64.1) 52 (33.3) 4 (2.6) 0 (0)
Sample F (some
plagiarism)
83 (53.2) 60 (38.5) 13 (8.3) 7 (4.5)
Note. The totals listed may not add up to 156 due to missing data. Parenthetical numbers are percentages.
246 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
●When I write this way, I’munfair to myself because I’m not being myself. Rather, I’m
pretending to be better than I am, and that makes me feel uncomfortable.
●When I write this way, I’munfair to the college because the educational goals of the
college can never be reached if students just copy information.
●When I write this way, I’munfair to myself because the teacher might recognize what I
did and punish or embarrass me in front of other students.
●When I write this way, I’munfair to the writer of the original passage because I’m taking
the credit that he/she really deserves for the words and ideas.
●When I write this way, I’munfair to my classmates because most of them worked harder
by writing in their own words, but I mainly copied and yet get the same or even better
grade.
●When I write this way, I’munfair to myself because I’m not learning much when I just
copy another person’s writing.
●When I write this way, I’munfair to my teacher because he/she is trying to teach me to
write well, but I’m not cooperating.
Table 2 shows that a very high percentage of students (93.6%) strongly or slightly agreed
with the statement that by plagiarizing “I’munfair to myself because I’m not being myself. . .,”
followed by “I’munfair to the writer of the original passage. . .”(91.1%), “I’munfair to myself
because I’m not learning much . . .”(80.1%), “I’munfair to myself because the teacher might
TABLE 2
Students’Perspectives on Why Plagiarism Is Wrong
Strongly
Agree
Slightly
Agree
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
Opinion
Chosen as the Most
Important Reason
1. Myself:
I am not being myself
68 (43.6) 78 (50.0) 7 (.4.5) 0 (0) 3 (1.9) 40 (25.6)
2. College:
Fails to accomplish it
goals.
30 (19.2) 54 (34.6) 42 (26.9) 19 (12.2) 11 (7.1) 6 (3.8)
3. Myself:
Teacher might punish
me
52 (33.3) 44 (28.2) 36 (23.1) 13 (8.3) 11 (7.1) 13 (8.3)
4. Original writer:
These are his/her words
and ideas, not mine.
126 (80.8) 16 (10.3) 2 (1.3) 1 (.6) 11 (7.1) 74 (47.4)
5. Classmates:
They worked harder
than me. . .
21 (13.5) 69 (44.2) 34 (21.8) 20 (12.8) 12 (7.7) 2 (1.3)
6: Myself:
I am not learning
much. . .
57 (36.5) 68 (43.6) 27 (17.3) 2 (1.3) 2 (1.3) 13 (8.3)
7. Teacher:
I am cooperating with
him/her . . .
29 (18.6) 54 (34.6) 49 (31.4) 19 (12.2) 5 (3.2) 5 (3.2)
Note. The totals listed may not add up to 156 due to missing data. Parenthetical numbers are percentages.
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 247
recognize what I did . . .”(61.5%), “I’munfair to my classmates . . .”(57.7%), “I’munfair to the
college. . .”(53.8%), and “I’munfair to my teacher. . .”(53.2%).
When rating the most unfair statement, almost half of the students (47.4%) considered
unfairness to the original writer as the most important consideration, followed by “unfairness to
self because I’m not being myself. . .”(25.6%), “unfairness to self because of the possibility of
being caught . . .,”and “unfairness to self because of not learning much . . .”(8.3%) . Very few
students chose unfairness to the college (3.8%), teachers (3.2%), and classmates (1.3%) as the
most important considerations.
All the students expressed some concern for all parties mentioned in the Likert scales.
However, a very high percentage of them were mostly concerned with unfairness of the act of
plagiarism to the self, in terms of “not being myself . . .,”“not learning much . . .,”or being
recognized and embarrassed by the teacher. In line with Deckert’s(1993) study, the results of this
study confirm that students were more concerned about their own “learning well and feeling right”
than being concerned “for either the college . . . one’s own classmates, or one’s relationship with
the teacher”(p. 140). However, in contrast to Deckert’s study, participants of this study were much
more concerned about the original author’s rights. In Table 2, the highest percentage (80.8%) of
students who rated strongly agreed on the scale referred to being unfair to the original writer. In
addition, the highest percentage (47.4%) of students chose unfairness to the original writer as the
most important statement. These results then pose a question: Given that all the students are at
leasttosomeextentawareofthe“immorality of plagiarism,”what is leading them to behave in
this unethical manner? The final research question may provide the answer.
Students’Descriptions of Plagiarists
Section 5 of the questionnaire probed students’characterizations of students who plagiarize.
Twenty adjectives that “reflected upon a person’s purpose, honesty, ability, or self-confidence”
were chosen (Deckert, 1993, p. 136). Students were asked to choose three adjectives from this
list that they thought best described those students who might plagiarize. Table 3 depicts that a
high percentage of students characterized plagiarists as “inexperienced,”“innocent,”“deceit-
ful,”“uninformed,”“hurried,”“dishonest,”“immature,”“lazy,”and “weak.”A lower percen-
tage of students characterized these students as “untruthful,”“careless,”“naughty,”“accurate,”
and “awkward.”A negligible number of students chose “unsure,”“confused,”and “stupid.”No
student described plagiarists in terms of being “dull,”“foolish,”and “careful.”
The results show that more than half (56.33%) of the students described plagiarists as
inexperienced, innocent, uninformed, immature, weak, careless, unsure, and confused, which
suggests that they see plagiarism as mostly being committed unintentionally by Iranian students
and not as something done deliberately to deceive others. On the other hand, only (24.1%) of
students chose the adjectives deceitful, dishonest, untruthful, and naughty. These two findings
suggest that plagiarism is considered as something less of a deliberate act to deceive others in
the Iranian context.
Students’Perspectives on Why They Commit Plagiarism
In line with the Devlin and Gray (2007) claim that finding out the reasons that lead to
plagiarism helps one to better deal with and prevent it, another question in this research
248 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
addressed participants’reasoning on why an Iranian M.A. student of applied linguistics might
commit plagiarism. Accordingly, this issue was investigated in this research by collecting
qualitative data. To do so, students were asked to answer an open-ended question: What do
you think are the reasons leading to plagiarism among Iranian M.A. students of applied
linguistics? The students were expected to provide an answer to this question in their own
words and based on their personal experience. Although they were free to make their comments
in either Persian or English, all of them made their comments in English. Of all participants, 67
answered to this question, which provided the qualitative data of this study.
Table 4 shows the major themes derived from the data and their frequencies and percentages.
Each of the emerged themes is briefly elaborated on in what follows.
Students’unfamiliarity with plagiarism. Unfamiliarity with plagiarism was the most
frequently reported theme by more than half of the students (50.74%). Students reported
unfamiliarity with plagiarism, its definition and forms, and ways to avoid it as important
factors that can lead to plagiarism. The following comments by students illustrate this theme
(please note that the comments are in the students’own words):
One reason I did plagiarism was lack of familiarity with the different kinds of plagiarism. It is
really embarrassing that I considered plagiarism to be merely copying exact words of an author.
TABLE 3
Students’Description of Plagiarists
Adjectives Frequency (%)
1. inexperienced 65 (13.86)
2. innocent 63 (13.43)
3. deceitful 43 (9.2)
4. uninformed 43 (9.2)
5. hurried 41 (9.1)
6. dishonest 36 (7.7)
7. immature 35 (7.46)
8. lazy 34 (7.26)
9. weak 32 (6.83)
10. untruthful 23 (4.9)
11. careless 20 (4.26)
12. naughty 11 (2.3)
13. accurate 7 (1.46)
14. awkward 6 (1.26)
15. unsure 4 (.86)
16. confused 2 (.43)
17. stupid 2 (.43)
18. dull 0 (0)
19. foolish 0 (0)
20. careful 0 (0)
Total: 467
a
(100)
a
One student chose two adjectives to describe plagiarists, so the sum of frequencies
is 467 rather than 468.
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 249
In my opinion, many Iranian students are not aware of what is called plagiarism. They don’t think
of it as a kind of cheating.
Some students of applied linguistics may plagiarize due to their lack of knowledge and awareness
without having any definite intention of committing this blatant academic error.
Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007;Pecorari,2003; Wheeler,
2009), which highlight a lack of understanding as a contributing factor to unintentional
plagiarism, this study reveals that students’unfamiliarity with the nature and forms of
plagiarism and how to avoid it is regarded as the most important factor contributing to
plagiarism. The students’basic understanding of plagiarism was insufficient to prevent
plagiarization.
Students’poor academic writing skills. A poor level of academic writing skill was
cited as another major cause of plagiarism by many students (46.26%). Students claimed that
unfamiliarity with the standards of academic writing practice was a major factor contributing to
plagiarism .This is illustrated in the following comments by students:
Another aspect of plagiarism in my opinion goes back to when the students are aware of such a
wrong deed but do not have the essential skills so as not to commit it. Some of Iranian students
really do not know how to integrate their ideas with the ideas of other writers. As a result, they
plagiarize and make themselves free by not mentioning the name of the previous writer and
represent others’words as themselves
Lack of the required knowledge with regard to some semi technical points like referencing, quoting
. . . is a crucial factor.
Many students lack knowledge of writing at higher levels and some others don’t like their teachers
or classmates to consider them as weak students.
TABLE 4
Participants’Views on Why Students Commit Plagiarism
Theme Frequency (%)
1. Students’unfamiliarity with plagiarism 34 (50.74)
a
2. Students’poor academic writing skills 31 (46.26)
3. Teachers’carelessness and leniency 30 (44.77)
4. Students’lack of time 23 (34.32)
5. Students’laziness and deceitfulness 20 (29.85)
6. Educational system and its policies 18 (26.86)
7. Students’low language proficiency 12 (17.91)
8. Students’unfamiliarity with the subject of writing 7 (10.44)
9. Teachers’high expectations 6 (8.95)
Note. The totals listed may not add up to 156 due to missing data.
a
Frequency refers to the number of students’(n= 67) comments contributing to that theme.
Percentage is calculated based on the total number of students (67) who answered the open-ended
question.
250 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
Poor levels of academic writing skills are clearly regarded as important factors that
directly or indirectly contribute to plagiarism. This finding is consistent with previous
studies (e.g., Marshall & Garry, 2006) and corroborates Pecorari and Petric’s (2014) claim
that low academic writing skill is one of two main reasons for plagiarism by new students in
applied linguistics.
Teachers’carelessness and leniency. A substantial number of the respondents
(44.77%) claimed that their teachers’behavior was an important factor that contributed to
plagiarism. Most blamed teachers for not even providing them with a simple definition of
plagiarism. They reported that their teachers had failed to make them familiar with plagiarism
and its types and shirked the responsibility of detecting and correcting plagiarism or punishing
plagiarists. In addition, they maintained that their teachers did not teach them how to avoid
plagiarism and did not provide them with feedback on their writing. Some of their comments
are represented next:
The first reason of plagiarism can be teachers who never talked about such an important matter
before; I mean from the very beginning when students firstly become familiar with the concept of
research, maybe at school ages. . . .
Carelessness on the part of instructors: This is the case that, when instructors . . . don’t take a look at
students’writings and projects to see something unethical in them. This happened a lot that my . . .
classmates submitted a project authored by I don’t know whom, to two or three instructors. No
instructor happened to get it.
Nobody pays much attention to what I write. Many of our teachers don’t care about what we write.
They just want a paper.
Students clearly regard their teachers’behavior as an important factor contributing to
plagiarism. This finding is consistent with Rezanejad and Rezai’s (2013) study in which they
reported that Iranian students do not think that their instructors take plagiarism and unethical
behaviors seriously enough. When teachers disregard plagiarism and unethical behaviors in
their students’actions and writings, there is likely to be a higher incidence of plagiarism among
students (Burnett, 2002).
Hyland (2001) elaborated this point when he argued that despite the obvious need to provide
students with feedback on plagiarism, English as a Second Language teachers and EFL teachers
are reluctant to do so in that they are cognizant that it is to some degree something related to
“Western cultures.”Likewise, Bjorklund and Wenestam (1999) maintained that nearly 20% of
instructors ignore obvious cases of students’plagiarism due to the problems associated with it.
The results of studies such as Rezanejad and Rezai’s (2013) indicate that a high percentage
(41%) of Iranian language professors “can detect plagiarism but they do not care to penalize
students”(p. 283). Rezanejad and Rezaei believed that some professors may detect and feel
concern about plagiarism but will not mention it or take action if the plagiarist has a “high
profile.”Professors may simply fail to respond due to a lack of ability to detect plagiarism.
They found that the participants in their study believed that 34.5 % of their professors did not
have the ability to detect plagiarism. Rezanejad and Rezaei argued that despite a considerable
percentage (56.6%) of teachers’efforts to eradicate plagiarism, “it appears that due to the lack
of a set of standard rules and regulations from the Iranian institutional policy makers and
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 251
departments, the university professors try to rely on their own standards to punish plagiarism
cases”(p. 288). They argued that this may account for teachers’ignorance of students’
plagiarism as well. As previously mentioned (see Iranian Students’Behavioral Guiding
Manual, n.d.), there are rules and regulations for dealing with and punishing students who
commit plagiarism. However, it seems that Iranian professors are not sufficiently aware of
them. There seems to be too few efforts on the part of authorities to make students and teachers
informed of these rules and regulations. Moreover, these rules need to be more systematic and
overarching. Park’s(2003) recommendations for UK universities could also be applied to
Iranian universities. There is a need for “[Iranian] institutions to develop cohesive frameworks
for dealing with student plagiarism that are based on prevention supported by robust detection
and penalty systems that are transparent and applied consistently”(Park, 2003, p. 471).
Teachers should attempt to familiarize their students with the “what”and “how”of plagiar-
ism. Moreover, they should understand plagiarism fully and consistently provide their students
with feedback and discipline on their writings. Wells (1993) stated that this is far from simple
and indeed a thorny issue for educators:
Surely every teacher of writing and WPA [Writing Program Administration] has been confronted
by cases of cheating where students submitted identical papers, where they incorporated into their
paper long passages of text from another source, where they purchased a ready-made term paper, or
where, out of laziness or haste, they just did not bother to document bits and pieces of material from
secondary sources. When cases of plagiarism arise, teachers and program administrators are forced
into the unwelcome role of disciplinarian, but the atmosphere of suspicion in such confrontations
conflicts with the trust and mutual respect that is fundamental to the best writing instruction. (p. 59)
Students’lack of time. The fourth theme that emerged in this study referred to students’
shortage of time with regard to the numerous tasks that they are expected to do. More than one
third of the students (34.32%) highlighted this issue in their comments:
MA students are expected to accomplish too much within a short period and they try to find a way
out to lessen this pressure. They find plagiarizing as a good choice.
First in the list is the lack of time or poor management of time. Sometimes I could not do all the
things I was expected to do within the short period of time provided.
Actually, I think sometimes we commit plagiarism because we are pressed for time and have to
meet the deadlines. I wish our teachers could extend their deadlines when they see us pressed for
time.
As participants claimed, when students are expected to do many tasks within a short time,
they are forced to search for a solution that might include plagiarism even though they may
consider it unethical. This finding is consistent with DeVoss and Rosati’s (2002) argument
that students’time limitations and urgency may lead them to take a project or article form
another source in order to save time or meet deadlines. Students may require support and
assistance in developing better organizational and time management skills if they are to
avoid plagiarism.
Students’laziness and deceitfulness. Some students confessed to insufficient efforts,
dishonest and deceitful behaviors, carelessness, or loose moral standards in their desire to be
recognized as good writers or through their need to obtain good grades. This led to the
252 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
emergence of the fifth theme, which was elaborated on by more than one fourth (29.85%) of the
students. This is illustrated in the following students’comments:
In my opinion, students are more at fault. I think that it is directly related to the person and his
character. Plagiarists are not honest and do not believe in their own capabilities.
Some students aim at getting high grades and they do not care wether they learn sth from what they
are doing or not. They can plagiarize to get good grades and that’s a pity.
Some . . . students are interested in passing courses without making any efforts. They think they can
get everything they want by deceiving others. But they are wrong.
This finding is in line with Sohrabi, Gholipour, and Mohammadesmaeili (2011), who
attributed high plagiarism rates in Iran to the rapidly growing culture of “indolence”facilitated
by the emergence of the Internet. They argued that when the dominant concern accepted by
students and professors alike becomes graduating. Then original research and “hard work”lose
their value and this hinders the development and progress of the educational system.
Educational system and its policies. The sixth theme revealed the students’dissatisfac-
tion with general educational policies regarding the act of plagiarism, which was echoed in
more than one fourth (26.86%) of the students’comments. They argued for stronger policies
against plagiarism and believed that their educational system was not as vigilant or deterring as
it should be when dealing with plagiarism. Some samples of their comments follow:
Cheating is actually considered as a crime in other countries and has severe consequences.
Although, I think, the same rules are exercised here, they do not always receive enough attention.
When . . . entrance in courses to some extents guarantees receiving a degree, students don’t care
about the potential learning chances that assignments provide. Thus, plagiarism is an easy way to
get rid of instructors’demands.
The educational system is the other side of this growing problem. The system needs to challenge
those students who commit plagiarism and punish them as seriously as it is possible.
It is interesting that students called for stricter policies for dealing with plagiarism. What
these students argued for is also emphasized in the literature. For example, Sheila and Mindi-
Barth (1993), after highlighting the importance of formulating strict policies on plagiarism,
argued that ambiguous policies, vague definitions, and weak strategies for detecting and dealing
with plagiarism are hazardous in that they may persuade students into accepting the belief that
plagiarizing is not a wrong and serious act. Clearly defining what is meant by plagiarism and
making students familiar with the penalties of committing any type of plagiarism might help
ameliorate or solve this problem.
Students’low language proficiency. Some students (17.91%) mentioned their poor
language proficiency as an important factor that could result in plagiarism. This is illustrated in
the following comments:
My weak linguistic competence manifests itself more when I try to write something academic.
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 253
I myself sometimes feel that my language proficiency is not that good to avoid plagiarism in my
writings. To tell the truth sometimes I cannot fully understand how to express my ideas through
words. I think the same applies to my classmates, too.
I have always had problems with grammar in my writing; this has pushed me forward to consult
other sources for help. Sometimes I find myself incapable of writing what I have in my mind
because I may make big mistakes.
In this study, we expected language proficiency to be a more significant factor in contribut-
ing to students’plagiarism. However, only 17.91% of the students considered language
proficiency to be an important issue in contributing to plagiarism. This may be because the
participants were M.A. students of applied linguistics who had completed many English
language courses and accordingly could be considered as having a good proficiency in the
English language. This may be why they considered language proficiency as a less important
factor in leading toward plagiarization. This finding is consistent with the previous literature
that highlights the level of higher education in decreasing plagiarism rates (Deckert, 1993; Lin
& Wen, 2007; Wajda-Johnston, Handal, Brawer, & Fabricatore, 2001).
Students’unfamiliarity with the subject of writing. Some students (10.44%) maintained
that lack of knowledge or poor knowledge about the topic of research was an important factor
contributing to plagiarism. They suggested that they had no other option when they lacked
knowledge in a special field about which they were expected to write. The following comments
illustrate this problem:
The second reason I did plagiarism was that I did not have enough knowledge on an issue, and
considered my own words as being much inferior to the concept on which I was required to prepare
a project.
Last but not least, plagiarism is perceived as a helpful way to those students who have no
information about their subjects and are required to write about them.
When I am required to write about something which is all Greek to me, how should I get out
safely? Deliberately or indeliberately I may get off track.
When students are not familiar with the basic facts about a subject and are expected and
indeed required to write about it, they may find the task overwhelming and recourse to
plagiarism. The results regarding the two previous themes are consistent with previous studies
(Campbell; Keck; Roig; Shi; as cited in Abasi & Graves, 2008), which highlight problems
concerning students’lack of familiarity with the topic, language proficiency, and task difficulty
as contributing factors to plagiarism.
Teachers’high expectations. Teachers’high expectations of students whose aca-
demic writing skills are not well developed and who are assigned many tasks and projects
in other courses is yet another factor leading vulnerable students to plagiarize. However,
this was the least frequently reported theme (8.95%), as presented in these students’
comments:
I think our professors expect too much of us . . . They ask us to write well written articles . . . and we
are forced to recourse to plagiarism.
254 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
The first semester of MA our teachers asked us to write a paper for each lesson; five projects on
untouched areas. Oh my God. Can I survive? I doubt it? Do I have enough knowledge? How should
I search, read, write. I don’t know.
Teachers should lower their expectations; give us some time to get familiar with the basics of
research and academic writing.
Consequently the experience of teachers’high expectations can result in students’plagiarism.
As DeVoss and Rosati (2002) rightly argued, “Asking a student to create original ideas encourages
plagiarism in the sense that students often feel the need to consult sources for help”(p. 195).
CONCLUSION
The present study attempted to address students’abilities to pinpoint textual plagiarism, their
ethical perspectives on why plagiarism is wrong, their descriptions and characterizations of
plagiarists, and their attributions and reasoning about the contributing factors to plagiarism. The
findings of this study indicate that Iranian M.A. students of applied linguistics are reasonably
familiar with the basic concepts and ethical issues related to plagiarism. However, these basic
understandings are insufficient to prevent acts of plagiarism. This highlights the need for
enhanced training from the early stages of (academic) literacy development, and training to
increase ethical awareness of the immorality of plagiarism and ways to avoid it. This study
suggests that there is a need for clear definitions of the concept and nature of plagiarism.
Moreover, there is a need for more rigorous rules and consistent regulations for dealing with
and disciplining plagiarists, along with training to ensure teachers and students are aware of and
familiar with these regulations and sanctions.
This study indicated that teachers’behavior can be an important factor in increasing or
decreasing plagiarism rates among students. The qualitative data revealed that teacher’
carelessness or leniency in taking this issue seriously in students’writings and projects
coupled with high expectations for performance might serve to increase a tendency toward
plagiarism. Teachers can reduce plagiarism rates among students by providing consistent and
reliable feedback on their writings and enhancing their academic literacies. Plagiarism might
also be minimized by teachers taking greater account of students’abilities and limitations by
setting expectations and project deadlines that are tailored to language abilities and time
constraints.
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
Although the results of this study provide insights into plagiarism among Iranian language
students, it was limited in several ways. First, this study collected data from 156 students of
applied linguistics. Any generalizations should be made with caution. A larger sample coming
from different disciplines would help in making comparisons between disciplines along with
broader generalizations. It can also provide a more coherent picture of plagiarism in Iranian
academic context. Second, this study used written questionnaires to collect the data. Although
this method allowed data to be collected from a larger sample, a richer analysis could be
developed with additional focus group interviews. Third, it was conducted in one cultural
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 255
context (Iran). Future studies might be conducted in different countries to enable cross cultural
comparisons.
Fourth, in this study, the initial 10 students were asked to collect the e-mail addresses of
their contacts on LinkedIn. Then all the questionnaires were sent to the participants
electronically. This impersonal method cannot ensure the extent to which each participant
puts thorough consideration and time into answering the questionnaires. Future studies may
address this issue by replicating the study in classroom settings. Finally, despite the
assurance of anonymity by the researchers, some students may have not met their privacy
expectations regarding the distribution of their contact information. Moreover, it might
have exerted too much pressure on the initial 10 students to secure the obtained email
addresses.
REFERENCES
Abasi, A. R., & Graves, B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate
students and disciplinary professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,7, 221–233. doi:10.1016/j.
jeap.2008.10.010
Adiningrum, T. S., & Kutieleh, S. (2011). How different are? Understanding and managing plagiarism between east and
west. Journal of Academic Language and Learning,5(2), 88–98.
Ahmadi, A. (2012). Cheating on exams in the Iranian EFL context. Journal of Academic Ethics,10(2), 151–170.
doi:10.1007/s10805-012-9156-5
Alam, L. S. (2004). Is plagiarism more prevalent in some form of assessment than others? In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath,
D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone. Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp.
48–57). Perth, Australia.
Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language?: Plagiarism in writing. New York, NY: Longman.
Bahadori, M., Izadi, M., & Hoseinpourfard, M. (2012). Plagiarism: Concepts, factors and solutions. Iranian Journal of
Military Medicine,14(3), 168–177.
Bennett, R. (2005). Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education,30(2), 137–162. doi:10.1080/0260293042000264244
Bjorklund, M., & Wenestam, C. (1999, September). Academic cheating: Frequency, methods and causes. Proceedings
of the 1999 European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/
educol/documents/00001364.htm
Burnett, S. (2002). Dishonor and distrust. Community College Week,14(24), 6–8.
Butler, D. (2009). Plagiarism scandal grows in Iran. Nature,462, 704–705. doi:10.1038/462704a
Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive
intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity & Education,3, 171–193. doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0303_1
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deckert, G. D. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language
Writing,2(2), 131–148. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(93)90014-T
Devlin, M., & Gray, K. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian university students
plagiarize. Higher Education Research & Development,26(2), 181–198. doi:10.1080/07294360701310805
DeVoss, D., & Rosati, A. C. (2002). “It wasn’t me, was it?”Plagiarism and the Web. Computers and Composition,19
(2), 191–203. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00112-3
Eslami, S. H. (2011). Plagiarism at university level. Ayeneh Pazhoohesh,22(1), 7–17.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Plagiarism and second language writing in an electronic age. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics,27, 161–183. doi:10.1017/S0267190508070086
Ghazinoory, S., Ghazinoori, S., & Azadegan-Mehr, M. (2011). Iranian academia: Evolution after revolution and
plagiarism as a disorder. Science and Engineering Ethics,17(2), 213–216. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9206-6
Habibzadeh, F. (2008). On stealing words and ideas. Hepatitis Monthly,8(3), 171–172.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organisations. London, UK: McGraw-Hill International.
256 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing,11(2), 233–246.
Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding “Internet plagiarism”.Computers and Composition,24(1), 3–15. doi:10.1016/j.
compcom.2006.12.005
Hyland, F. (2001). Dealing with plagiarism when giving feedback. ELT Journal,55(4), 375–381. doi:10.1093/elt/
55.4.375
Introna, L., Hayes, N., Blair, L., & Wood, E. (2003). Cultural attitudes towards plagiarism: Developing a better
understanding of the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds relating to plagiarism. Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, UK: Plagiarism Advisory Service. Retrieved from http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/information_
studies/Imri/Jiscpas/docs/external/lancsplagiarismreport.pdf
Iranian Students’Behavioral Guiding Manual. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2015, from http://student.kashanu.ac.ir
Kroll, B. M. (1988). How college freshmen view plagiarism. Written Communication,5(2), 203–221. doi:10.1177/
0741088388005002005
Lin, C.-H. S., & Wen, L.-Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education: A nationwide study in Taiwan.
Higher Education,54(1), 85–97. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9047-z
Lunsford, A. A. (1997). Intellectual property in an age of information: What is at stake for composition studies? In L.
Z. Bloom, D. A. Daiker, & E. M. White (Eds.), Composition in the twenty-first century: Crisis and change (pp.
261–273). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Marshall, S., & Garry, M. (2006). NESB and ESB students‟attitudes and perceptions of plagiarism. International
Journal for Educational Integrity,2(1), 26–37.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English,47(8), 789–808.
doi:10.2307/376613
Myers, S. (1998). Questioning author(ity): ESL/EFL, science, and teaching about plagiarism. Teaching English as a
Second or Foreign Language,3(2), 1–21.
Paldy, L. G. (1996). The problem that won’t go away: Addressing the causes of cheating. Journal of College Science
Teaching,26(1), 4–6.
Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education,28(5), 471–488. doi:10.1080/02602930301677
Pecorari, D. (2002). Original reproductions: An investigation of the source use of post graduate second language
writers (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). UK: University of Birmingham.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second–language writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing,12(4), 317–345. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004
Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. New York, NY: Continuum Books.
bk_AQCmts23b
Pecorari, D., & Petric, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching,47(3), 269–302.
doi:10.1017/S0261444814000056
Plano Clark, L., & Creswell, J. W. (2014). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Rettinger, D. A., & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating. Research in Higher
Education,50(3), 293–313. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9116-5
Rezanejad, A., & Rezaei, S. (2013). Academic dishonesty at universities: The case of plagiarism among Iranian
language students. Journal of Academic Ethics,11, 275–295. doi:10.1007/s10805-013-9193-8
Shabecoff, P. (1990, June 9). Gloom over tropical forests. Inrernarional Herald Tribune,p.9.
Shahghasemi, E., & Akhavan, M. (2015). Confessions of academic ghost authors: The Iranian experience. Sage Open,
5(1), 1–7.
Sheila, M., & Mindi-Barth, M. (1993). Academic dishonesty among college students. Issues in education. Washington,
DC: Office of Research.
Sohrabi, B., Gholipour, A., & Mohammadesmaeili, N. (2011). Effects of personality and information technology on
plagiarism: An Iranian perspective. Ethics & Behavior,21(5), 367–379. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.604294
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the Internet, and student learning: Improving academic integrity. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2010). Retribution, deterrence and reform: The dilemmas of plagiarism management in
universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,32(1), 5–16. doi:10.1080/13600800903440519
PLAGIARISM AMONG IRANIAN STUDENTS 257
Wajda-Johnston, V. A., Handal, P. J., Brawer, P. A., & Fabricatore, A. N. (2001). Academic dishonesty at the graduate
level. Ethics & Behavior,11(3), 287–305. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1103_7
Wells, D. (1993). An account of the complex causes of unintentional plagiarism in college writing. WPA: Writing
Program Administration,16(3), 59–67.
Wheeler, G. (2009). Plagiarism in the Japanese universities: Truly a cultural matter? Journal of Second Language
Writing,18(1), 17–29. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.004
Worton, M., & Still, J. (1990). Intertextuality: Theories and practices. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Xiaojun, Z., Hongli, S., & Fan, Z. (2010, June). Preventing plagiarism and academic misconduct: A case study of
Chinese universities. Paper presented at Fourth International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Zafarghandi, A. M., Khoshroo, F., & Barkat, B. (2012). An investigation of Iranian EFL Masters students’perceptions
of plagiarism. International Journal for Educational Integrity,8(2), 69–85.
Zamani, B. E., Azimi, A. S., & Soleimani, N. (2012). Differences in students’viewpoints about effective factors on
plagiarism according to their gender and academic disciplines. Ethics in Science & Technology,7(3), 1–12.
258 BABAII AND NEJADGHANBAR
