Content uploaded by Sue Clegg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sue Clegg
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring staff perceptions of student
plagiarism
Abbi Flint
*
, Sue Clegg and Ranald Macdonald
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
This paper presents analysis of qualitative data from a research project looking at staff perceptions
of plagiarism at a post-1992 university. Twenty-six members of staff from departments and
academic schools from across the university took part in open and semi-structured interviews.
Analysis shows that variable definitions of plagiarism exist; both regarding student activities that
constitute plagiarism and the way in which plagiarism is perceived to be related to cheating. The
factors underlying these personal definitions are unclear, but the analysis suggests that values
perceived to underpin higher education may play an important role. This paper provides new
empirical data on staff perceptions of student plagiarism, which complement previous research on
student perceptions. The potential implications of different perceptions of plagiarism, and a
mismatch between staff and student understandings is highlighted as an area for further
consideration.
Introduction
Plagiarism is a contentious issue in higher education (HE), frequently the subject of
‘colourful’ rhetoric (Park, 2003, p. 472). Plagiarism amongst university students is
perceived, by many, to be widespread and increasing (Roberts & Toombs, 1993;
Larkham & Manns, 2002). Whether this reflects real increases in the rate of
plagiarism, the rate of detection, or increases due to greater student numbers is
unclear (Larkham, 2003), but the fact that there is perceived to be an increase is an
important issue in itself (Dordoy, 2002). Increased access to and use of the Internet
is also thought to create new opportunities for plagiarists (Underwood & Szabo,
2003), and problems associated with massification of HE and increasing numbers of
‘non-traditional’ students create challenges to the way students are educated about
acceptable academic practices (Lillis, 1997). The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
advises higher education institutions (HEIs) to ensure that ‘assessment policies and
practices are responsive and provide for the effective monitoring of the validity,
*Corresponding author. The Learning and Teaching Institute, City Campus, Sheffield Hallam
University, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK. Email: A.L.Flint@shu.ac.uk
Journal of Further and Higher Education
Vol. 30, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 145–156
ISSN 0309-877X (print)/ISSN 1469-9486 (online)/06/020145-12
#2006 NATFHE
DOI: 10.1080/03098770600617562
equity and reliability of assessment’ (QAA, 2000). As part of this they suggest that
universities provide students with: ‘definitions of academic misconduct in respect of
assessment, such as plagiarism, collusion, cheating, impersonation and the use of
inadmissible material (including material downloaded from the internet)’ (QAA,
2000).
In order to deal with issues of plagiarism effectively and equitably, it is necessary
for staff, students and departments to be working from the same definitions and
interpretations (Stefani & Carroll, 2001). At the institutional level a brief survey of
the plagiarism/cheating policies and guidelines of a selection of HEIs shows that,
whilst definitions of plagiarism are consistent with general dictionary definitions,
1
they stress different aspects of this definition. For example, Liverpool Hope
University frame their definition in terms of referencing techniques and writing skills
(our emphasis).
Plagiarism is defined as: The use of material which is not acknowledged to its source
and also the direct use of material, referenced or un-referenced, without a clear
indication that the material is taken verbatim from its source. (Liverpool Hope
University College, 2003)
In contrast, Pyer’s definition locates plagiarism more in terms of personal owner-
ship of work and academic integrity, with a more general allusion to referencing skills
(our emphasis).
Every piece of written coursework submitted to the department must be accompanied
by a Declaration of Academic Integrity which you sign, affirming that the work is your own
and does not contain material from unacknowledged sources. … Plagiarism is simply
theft. It is taking the words, ideas and labour of other people and giving the impression that
they are your own. (Pyer, 2000)
The relationship between cheating and plagiarism, and the constituent student
activities which make up these categories, may also vary. Furthermore, some
institutions have central procedures to be followed by all departments whereas
others have a more general central definition which departments/subject areas can
interpret in their own way (see University of Leeds, 2003).
Previous research on student understandings of plagiarism suggests that a diverse
range of definitions are held, which may differ from staff and institutional views
(Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995; Macdonald & Freewood, 2002; Ashworth
et al., 2003). Recent research at the University of Northumbria, for example, has
highlighted differences between staff and students in the way the scale of plagiarism
is perceived, the seriousness of offences and reasons why students cheat (Dordoy,
2002). Whilst it is important for educators to understand why and how students
cheat (Harris, 2002), it is not within the scope of this paper to provide a
comprehensive view of research on this subject (instead see Park, 2003).
In contrast to the wealth of studies exploring the student perspective there has
been less research looking at staff perceptions of plagiarism. Borg’s (2002) study at
the University of Northumbria suggests staff definitions are influenced by personal
views and disciplinary context, resulting in ‘local’ interpretations. Furthermore, staff
recognized that other definitions and interpretations exist both within and between
146 A. Flint et al.
disciplines (Borg, 2002). Roig’s (2001) study, asking educators to paraphrase
extracts and assess examples of paraphrasing, suggests that the distinction between
acceptable paraphrasing and plagiarism is not clear for all staff. Some staff
paraphrased in a way which would be construed by others as plagiarism (Roig,
2001). Staff may have different levels of concern over notions of equity to students
when detecting and dealing with plagiarism (Larkham, 2003) and perceptions of the
seriousness of offences varies (Larkham & Manns, 2002). A review of the attitudes of
Australian college and high school staff (Morgan, 1996) indicated that disciplinary
differences may be linked to the type of assessment used. For instance, tutors in
maths and science placed more emphasis on students’ choice of material and getting
answers correct whereas staff from humanities and social sciences were more
concerned with students being able to use their own words (Morgan, 1996). Dordoy
(2002) found that 90.7% of the staff interviewed in his study had experience of
detecting plagiarism, but whilst some form of action was taken in the majority of
cases, not all of these instances were taken through formal institutional procedures.
Other studies indicate that staff may be disillusioned with formal procedures (Borg,
2002), see it in a negative light (Larkham & Manns, 2002), or disagree with the
penalties it imposes (Osborn, 2000). Morgan’s (1996) study found a range of
reasons for not engaging in the formal process, from reluctance to take on the extra
workload of a plagiarism enquiry, to concerns that policy is not applied across the
board and may therefore result in some students being penalized more than others.
Keith-Spiegel et al.’s (1998) exploration of why psychology lecturers may choose not
to raise issues of plagiarism found that it was often framed in negative emotions.
Staff were concerned about the personal repercussions of confrontations with
students, they did not always feel protected by university procedures, and felt real
sympathy for the possible impact of sanctions on students (Keith-Spiegel et al.,
1998). Case studies of informal dealings with plagiarism indicate staff may choose to
do this to avoid detrimental impacts on students’ future studies or careers (Shapira,
1993), and to engage students with the moral issues involved (Johnston, 1991). In
these cases staff used their professional academic judgement to determine a course of
action. ‘Whatever his decision, he would have to take account of his own strong
feelings about cheating the effect on [the student’s] career, and the effect on other
students’ morale’ (Shapira, 1993, p. 31).
The three perspectives on plagiarism discussed (student, staff and institutional)
should not be seen as three alternative and mutually exclusive categories. On the
contrary, although there is scope for interpretative difference, interpretations are
typically dynamic and there are areas of common concern. For example, a number of
articles stress the fact that, left unchallenged, plagiarism threatens the reputation of
HEIs and devalues qualifications and educational experience (Lupton & Chapman,
2002; Johnston, 2003). Recent research with students suggests that, similarly, they
felt tutors who did not act on detected plagiarism undermined the quality of their
education (Freewood et al., 2003). However, the differences between student, staff
and institutional policy-led definitions do have important implications for the
implementation of policy and the way in which discourse about plagiarism is framed.
Staff perceptions of plagiarism 147
Rationale
The research project was stimulated by the recognition of a need to explore the
relationship between academic policy and how it is put into practice by teaching
staff. Sheffield Hallam introduced new institutional procedures for dealing with
academic misconduct over the 2003–2004 academic period, as part of the approach
to broader issues of assessment and quality enhancement. The new procedures
involve a streamlined process which reflects the relative seriousness of cases. Minor
cases can be dealt with through a ‘lighter touch’ single stage process by staff within
courses/programmes with a common reporting and monitoring process to ensure
consistency and fairness. For more serious cases the outcome of the two stage
process is considered by academic conduct panels. Although a programme of
briefing events and workshops were held to inform staff of changes and involve them
in dialogue about these issues, it was felt that more investigation was needed to
uncover the interpretative framework staff use when dealing with plagiarism. It was
hoped that this would enable us to unpack some of the complex issues around how
policy is used in practice. It also compliments previous research carried out by the
Learning and Teaching Institute into student perceptions of plagiarism (Ashworth
et al., 1997, 2003; Freewood et al., 2003).
Twenty-six interviews of around 45 minutes each were undertaken by the
researcher. Initially, the academic lead on the project identified eight participants,
selected for particular interest or knowledge of plagiarism issues. The issues arising
from these open interviews were used to develop the semi-structured interview
schedule, used in the second round of interviews. For the second round 18 further
members of staff were strategically selected from different departments and schools
to ensure a broad range of teaching experience; including staff from postgraduate,
undergraduate, part time, HND, distance learning, and sandwich courses. The
transcripts were coded using Nvivo software and the context of each participant’s
disciplinary area, level of teaching and the make up of the student body was recorded
and compared. For the purposes of analysis the participants were grouped into three
different disciplinary areas; art and design, humanities and science. These categories
were decided by the researcher and do not reflect any self-ascription by participants
or institutional organization. The interviews yielded a wealth of qualitative data,
some of which has been reported elsewhere (Flint et al., 2005), and analysis is
ongoing. The quotes used in this paper are from a selection of the interview data and
represent the range of views held by participants
Staff perceptions of plagiarism
There was considerable variation in the way that participants conceptualized student
plagiarism, and many felt it was problematic to define. Interestingly, initial analysis
suggests that this variation is not linked to disciplinary context but more tied to
individual, personal interpretations and understandings.
A number of practices were considered to constitute plagiarism by staff across
disciplinary areas. Most commonly cited was copying verbatim, or poorly
148 A. Flint et al.
paraphrasing, material from published sources without appropriate acknowledge-
ment. Published sources included the Internet, books, journals, other published
reports and less frequently broadcasting media (science) and unpublished material
from placement employers (humanities). The types of activities described were
linked to personal experience and therefore to a certain extent were connected with
the disciplinary context. For instance, participants from art and design talked
about plagiarism in terms of appropriation of ideas and design more than those
from science and humanities. There was less consensus about other activities.
For instance, falsifying research data was considered to be plagiarism by two
participants, whereas another felt this belonged to a broader category of cheating.
One participant felt that cheating in a test or exam constitutes plagiarism. Activities
which involved another party, such as copying and collaboration amongst students,
created considerable diversity of opinion. Although copying from other students was
included in most definitions of plagiarism, for some participants from humanities
and science, this was considered to be a different kind of cheating. Different types
of collusion were described, from students working together on assignments or
problems, to individuals getting help from other people. Not all staff agreed
that collusion should be considered a form of plagiarism and many felt the
boundaries between acceptable levels of collaboration and undue collusion were
not clear for staff or students. Common understandings of these terms cannot be
assumed.
I think there are some very, very difficult dividing lines between plagiarism and peer
groups helping each other, and that’s a really big problem for staff and students. … And
it can be very difficult for me to define where the dividing line is. And if I’m having
trouble, students are having trouble. (Interview 1, science)
Staff used their judgement to decide when the students had actually crossed the line
into plagiarism. Many talked about the intention, extent and scale of the offence
being linked to the severity of punishment, and for some the incorporation of a
‘small amount’ of others’ work was acceptable. In summary, most partici-
pants recognized that the definition of plagiarism was complex and varied
between individual staff members and students, and could take one or a variety of
forms.
It can be un-attributed copying, lifting stuff from texts without indicating the author,
which is where it’s partly about poor referencing techniques. It can be undue
collaboration among students, it can be getting other people, parents, friends, relatives,
other people paid to do the work for them, or lifting stuff from the Web. So it can take a
variety of forms, it can also be falsifying data. (Interview 8, humanities)
Relationship between cheating and plagiarism
Figure 1 illustrates, in very simple form, the kind of conceptions participants held
about the relationship between cheating and plagiarism. Model A represents the
view that cheating and plagiarism are synonymous: ‘It’s cheating isn’t it? ... I think if
Staff perceptions of plagiarism 149
the intention is to cheat in an exam, or copying someone else’s work, then it’s the
same crime effectively, don’t you think? Same offence’ (Interview 18, humanities).
Model B indicates cheating and plagiarism are different discrete activities:
Cheating to me is, is where you’re copying off someone … you’re getting information in
a more illicit way, whereas plagiarism is where you’re actually either sharing information
or taking it directly from … an open source, and it’s not so underhand if you know what
I mean. I think that would be the distinction, one’s more overt than the other.
(Interview 11, science)
Model C recognizes that there is some overlap but also some significant
differences between cheating and plagiarism:
There is the issue to do with how you use references and how you use other people’s
thinking in developing your own. And the other issue is to do with cheating. I’m not
saying that these can’t sort of meld into each other because I’m afraid they sometimes
do. (Interview 17, humanities)
Model D suggests that plagiarism is a subsidiary category of cheating: ‘I think all
plagiarism is cheating, but not all cheating is plagiarism’ (Interview 14, science).
All of these conceptions were present in the data from humanities, all but D from
science, and all but A from art and design. The most common view from all
disciplines was that plagiarism and cheating share some common characteristics
but also have essential differences (C). Although the models provide a useful
summary of the range of conceptions, in reality staff appeared to hold different
conceptions in different situations rather than holding one fixed model. Many
found it difficult to explain how they perceived the relationship between cheating
Figure 1. Different ways of conceptualizing the relationship between cheating and plagiarism
(inspired by diagram in Carroll, 2002)
150 A. Flint et al.
and plagiarism. Most indicated there were both similarities and differences, and the
nature, intentionality and scale of the offence often dictated the closeness of the
relationship.
Similarities between plagiarism and cheating were often linked with intent.
Plagiarism was much more likely to be seen as cheating if it was perceived to be
intentional, in which case ‘both [plagiarism and cheating are] trying to gain
advantage by unfair means’ (Interview 1, science). Some staff made distinctions
between cheating and plagiarism in relation to the form of assessment; with cheating
linked to exams and plagiarism to coursework.
Copying from other students was seen by many as a form of plagiarism
synonymous with cheating. This was perceived as more serious than incorporating
small pieces of unacknowledged published text.
When they copy off each other, then yes, I would call that cheating. … But sometimes
when they’re using the literature without proper referencing I don’t think they’re
deliberately setting out to fool us, in which case it’s not cheating as such. (Interview 6,
humanities)
Those who shared this view felt that cheating was more serious than plagiarism.
Indeed one participant pointed out that the penalties for cheating were often more
serious than the sliding scale applied to those who plagiarized. However, there were
a few participants who felt that plagiarism was more serious than other forms of
cheating and should be punished accordingly. ‘Plagiarism is more serious. It is
probably the most serious form of cheating, at least academically I think’ (Interview
3, art and design).
For these the idea that student work should be original and individually completed
was seen as one of the core values of HE. Plagiarism was framed in terms of personal
ownership, describing it as ‘using other people’s ideas’ or submitting something
‘when it wasn’t really your own work’, rather than copying from inanimate sources.
By contravening this core academic value, plagiarism raised strong emotions for
some staff. Furthermore, some saw it as symptomatic of increased instrumentalism
in students, which was perceived to be exacerbated by the massification and
commercialization of HE.
Also it becomes more of a situation when you’ve got that many students where it
becomes like, ‘Well I’m just in a sausage factory … what difference does it make? … and
if to get through this unit means cobbling an essay off the internet then I’ll do that’. And
I think it’s those kind of situations that produce the cynicism that’s basically plagiarism.
(Interview 16, art and design)
The kind of conceptions that the participants held of plagiarism were not always
consistent with policy. In fact one participant explicitly stated that they had a highly
personal definition. ‘It all depends on whether we are talking about the technical
definition of plagiarism and what I would consider to be plagiarism in students’
(Interview 10, art and design).
Sheffield Hallam’s (2003) assessment regulations and procedures place plagiarism
firmly inside the broader category of cheating (consistent with Model D), whereas
the staff we interviewed held multiple models depending on their situation. The
Staff perceptions of plagiarism 151
procedures recognize that plagiarism can take a variety of forms and describe these
in detail as: complete plagiarism, partial plagiarism, self-plagiarism/duplication, and
collusion. Although self-plagiarism is explicitly described in the procedures, only one
participant included this in their own definition. Other dishonest activities such as
falsifying data, impersonation, dishonest practice, and irregular behaviour relating to
exams are considered to be different types of cheating.
Discussion
The analysis presented creates a number of challenges for HEIs. It is clear from the
data that staff hold differing perceptions of plagiarism, and the relationships between
cheating and plagiarism, which are not always consistent with institutional policy
definitions. Whilst we acknowledge that there are issues with the definition of some
terms used in discussion about plagiarism, such as ‘unintentional plagiarism’, it is
not our intention to debate the validity of those definitions here.
Differences in the way staff, students and institutions define plagiarism can
influence the implementation of policy in a number of ways. Firstly, the fact that
staff have internalized definitions means that all instances of plagiarism are mediated
by these before consulting policy. This may result in inconsistent application of policy
and differential treatment of students. Our data suggest this occurs both within and
between particular subject groups or schools. Furthermore, when staff recognize
differences between their own and policy led definitions this can lead to conflicting
viewpoints, which may not always be resolved. For instance, our data revealed some
staff felt that, because their experience of the formal process did not match their
personal understandings of how instances of plagiarism should be dealt with, they
would be more inclined to deal with plagiarism at an individual and informal level.
Furthermore, many staff place considerable value on academic professional
judgement and may perceive centralized policy to pose a threat to this.
Such codes, though, can quickly come to resemble little more than a rulebook to
prevent unlawful or unethical conduct taking away the need for a lecturer to make a
professional judgement in the process. The assumption at the heart of a detailed code of
conduct is that professionals (or employees) cannot be trusted to act in the right way.
(Macfarlane, 2004, p. 35)
The danger is that informal dealings, or personal and local interpretations of
policy, may act to negate the aims of centralized policy, i.e., ideas of equity and
consistency, in dealing with plagiarism (Borg, 2002). For example, at Sheffield
Hallam one of the principles underpinning the university’s action on cheating and
plagiarism is that the process should be fair, transparent, and consistent; clearly
informal dealings cannot ensure these attributes.
This also has implications for how we educate students about plagiarism.
Individual students may receive conflicting information on definitions of plagiarism
and the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable practice from different
module tutors. More than one participant from our data set expressed concern about
inconsistency in the way staff educate students about plagiarism.
152 A. Flint et al.
The fact that individual understandings of the core values of academia were used
to frame their definitions of plagiarism and how it is dealt with also has implications
for how students are educated about plagiarism. Common understandings of these
core values cannot be assumed for all members of the academic community
(including students). The notion of intellectual integrity and originality being
paramount to academic achievement is inherent in HE (Macfarlane, 2004) and
perpetuated by external processes such as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE),
which rates single authorship journal articles as the highest form of academic output
(Larkham & Manns, 2002). As such, plagiarism can be seen as an attack on the
principles of scholarship (Freewood et al., 2003), rather than a transgression of rules.
It is important to bear in mind that ideas of the importance of originality are not
objective but stem from the particular cultural context of western and European
academic institutions (Larkham, 2003). Haggis has suggested that some students
may have problems with the concepts involved in academic literacy rhetoric, such as
‘argument’ and ‘evidence’, and in the process of ‘concretizing’ these abstractions
may commit plagiarism (Haggis, 2003). The challenge of academic writing can be
daunting and confusing for students (Johnston, 2003). Clearly this creates
challenges for the way we develop student skills and the expectations we have of
students at university level. Routes into HE are diverse, meaning that institutions
cannot make assumptions about the sorts of preparation students receive prior to
university, or their motivation or understandings of HE. This diversity of routes into
HE means that academic institutions need to make explicit the expectations the
university has of students. Furthermore, we need to think carefully about how we
engage students with ideas of academic integrity, and induct them into a culture
where plagiarism would not occur to, nor be tolerated by any members of the
academic community.
Previous research on student understandings of plagiarism at Sheffield Hallam
(Ashworth et al., 1997; Macdonald & Freewood, 2002) indicates that student
perceptions may differ from those of staff. For example, some students differentiated
between plagiarism of published material and copying from or colluding with
another student, with copying and collusion not always considered to be plagiarism
(Macdonald & Freewood, 2002). Some students did not feel that the emphasis staff
placed on issues around plagiarism was justified, especially regarding plagiarism in
undergraduate essays (Ashworth et al., 1997). This attitude may be indicative of the
fact that many students do not engage with the idea that plagiarism is associated with
core values of academia, such as academic integrity, although this is how many staff
understand it. Furthermore, differences between individual staff members’ percep-
tions of plagiarism may have implications for the student experience. Students
noticed and were affected by inconsistent staff approaches to plagiarism, and in
some cases did not feel they clearly understood the definitions or guidelines provided
by the university (Ashworth et al., 1997; Macdonald & Freewood, 2002). ‘Students
wanted a much more consistent approach by tutors in explaining what it is,
providing the appropriate training such as in referencing and then dealing with it’
(Macdonald & Freewood, 2002, p. 5).
Staff perceptions of plagiarism 153
Clearly these issues need to be considered when designing and implementing
institutional policy. The new procedures for dealing with academic misconduct
at Sheffield Hallam, described in the rationale, were informed by the research
undertaken with students. One of the principles underlying the procedures is
that they are ‘fair, transparent and consistent’ (SHU, 2003), and it is hoped that
the new procedures for dealing with minor cases of plagiarism will enable this
consistency.
Conclusion
Data from the 26 interviews with teaching and departmental staff carried out during
this study suggest that staff have highly personalized definitions of plagiarism. Whilst
these are undoubtedly influenced by their experience of plagiarism issues within
HEIs, they are not always consistent with institutionally espoused policy definitions.
The disjunction between these definitions creates problems for the implementation
of centralized university policy. Previous work on student perceptions suggests there
is potential for a mismatch between staff and student understandings of plagiarism.
For some staff, definitions are influenced by notions of assumed core values of
HE; specifically, ideas of individual intellectual ownership of work and academic
integrity. These abstract concepts may not be shared with students, and raise
challenges for the way we involve students in a dialogue about plagiarism.
The challenge ahead is to consider how staff, student, and institutional
perspectives can be reconciled or unified, as well as balancing them with the QAA
Code of Practice and maintaining the reputation of the university as one that values
high academic principles. The next stage is to use the data from the staff interviews
to develop further guidelines and staff development activities to engage staff without
alienating them. This fits with an approach of using research to inform policy and
practice (Clegg et al., 2004), as well as developing a better understanding of the issue
and sharing this with others.
Note
1. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, to plagiarise is to take ‘(the work or an idea of
someone else) and pass it off as one’s own’ (Pearsall, 2001).
References
Ashworth, P., Bannister, P. & Thorne, P. (1997) Guilty in whose eyes? University students’
perception of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment, Studies in Higher
Education, 22(2), 187–203.
Ashworth, P., Freewood, M. & Macdonald, R. (2003) The student lifeworld and the meanings of
plagiarism, Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 34(2), 257–278.
Borg, E. (2002) Northumbria University lecturers’ experience of plagiarism and collusion,
Proceedings from the first Northumbria conference 2002: Educating for the future.
Available online at: http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/LTA/media/docs/Conference%20
Publication%202002/ (accessed 11 February 2004).
154 A. Flint et al.
Carroll, J. (2002) A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (Oxford, Oxford Centre for
Staff and Learning Development).
Clegg, S., Macdonald, R., Smith, K., Bradley, S. & Glover, S. (2004) Using research evidence to
inform policy and practice—the Sheffield Hallam University model, paper presented at The
Higher Education Academy Third Mike Daniel Symposium for Institutional Research UMIST,7
July.
Dordoy, A. (2002) Cheating and plagiarism: student and staff perceptions at Northumbria,
Proceedings from the first Northumbria conference 2002: Educating for the future.
Available online at: http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/apppage.cgi?USERPAGE57509 (accessed 10
March 2006).
Flint, A., Macdonald, R. & Clegg, S. (2005) Emotion, practice, and plagiarism: exploring the staff
perspective, in: A. Peden Smith & F. Duggan (Eds) Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policy
Conference, 29–30 June 2004, Proceedings (Newcastle, Northumbria University Press)
65–72.
Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Newstead, S. E. (1995) Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why?,
Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 159–172.
Freewood, M., Macdonald, R. & Ashworth, P. (2003) Why simply policing is not the answer, in:
C. Rust (Ed.) Improving student learning: ten years on (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development).
Haggis, T. (2003) Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘approaches to
learning’ research in higher education, British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 89–104.
Harris, R. (2002) Anti-plagiarism strategies for research papers. Available online at: www.
virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm (accessed 12 May 2004).
Johnston, K. (1991) Cheating: reflections on a moral dilemma, Journal of Moral Education, 20(1),
283–292.
Johnston, W. (2003) The concept of plagiarism, Assessment paper no. 2 (1) (Manchester Metropolitan
University, Learning and Teaching Unit).
Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B. E. J. & Washburn, J. (1998) Why professors
ignore cheating: opinions of a national sample of psychology instructors, Ethics & Behaviour,
8(3), 215–227.
Lancaster University (2003) University rules. Available online at: www.lancs.ac.uk/users/acadreg/
rules/rules2003.htm (accessed 12 May 2004).
Larkham, P. J. (2003) Exploring and dealing with plagiarism: traditional approaches. Available
online at: http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/information_studies/Imri/Jiscpas/site/
pubs_goodprac_larkham.asp (accessed 8 June 2004).
Larkham, P. J. & Manns, S. (2002) Plagiarism and its treatment in higher education, Journal of
Further & Higher Education, 26(4), 339–349.
Lillis, T. (1997) New voices in academia? The regulative nature of academic writing conventions,
Language & Education, 11(3), 182–199.
Liverpool Hope University College (2003) Undergraduate modular scheme (awards of the
University of Liverpool)—appendices. Available online at: www.hope.ac.uk/compass/
Registry/UMS%20University%20of%20Liverpool%20Awards%202003–2004.pdf (accessed
19 May 2004).
Lupton, R. A. & Chapman, K. J. (2002) Russian and American college students’ attitudes,
perceptions and tendencies towards cheating, Educational Research, 44(1), 17–27.
Macdonald, R. & Freewood, M. (2002) Dealing with plagiarism: using research to develop an
holistic approach, in: A. Goody, J. Herrington & M. Northcote (Eds) Proceedings of the 2002
Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of
Australasia (HERDSA) Available online at: www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/
papers/nonref/pdf/RanaldMacdonald.pdf (accessed 10 March 2006).
Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with integrity: the ethics of higher education practice (London,
Routledge Falmer).
Staff perceptions of plagiarism 155
Morgan, K. (1996) Plagiarism: does it matter? Available online at: www.canberrac.act.edu.au/
plagiarism.htm (accessed 9 June 2004).
Osborn, E. (2000) Punishment: a story for medical educators, Academic Medicine, 75(3), 241–244.
Park, C. (2003) In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students—literature and
lessons, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471–488.
Pearsall, J. (Ed.) (2001) The concise Oxford dictionary (10th edn.) (Oxford, Oxford University
Press). Available online at: www.oxfordreference.com/views/SEARCH_RESULTS.
html?y513&q5plagiarism&category5t23&x55&ssid5356918411&scope5book&time5
0.464284462812731 (accessed 23 April 2004).
Pyer, H. S. (2000) Plagiarism. Available online at: http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/faculties/art/
information_studies/Imri/Jiscpas/docs/external/student_plagiarism_advice.pdf (accessed 30
September 2003).
QAA (2000) Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher
education. Available online at: www.qaa.ac.uk/public/Cop/COPaosfinal/contents.htm
(accessed 13 May 2004).
Roberts, D. M. & Toombs, R. (1993) A scale to assess perceptions of cheating in examination-
related situations, Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53, 755–762.
Roig, M. (2001) Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors, Ethics &
Behaviour, 11(3), 307–323.
Shapira, G. (1993) Did she or did she not?, in: P. Schwartz & G. Webb (Eds) Case studies on
teaching in higher education (London, Kogan Page), 29–35.
Sheffield Hallam University (2003) Assessment regulations and procedures: cheating procedures
for undergraduate and taught postgraduate courses. Internal policy document.
Stefani, L. & Carroll, J. (2001) Assessment: a briefing on plagiarism. Assessment series No.10 (York,
LTSN Generic Centre).
Underwood, J. & Szabo, A. (2003) Academic offences and e-learning: individual propensities in
cheating, British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 467–477.
University of Leeds (2003) Taught students handbook 2003–2004. Available online at:
www.leeds.ac.uk/students/handbook/SECTIONS.htm#cheat (accessed 12 May 2004).
156 A. Flint et al.
