Judging plagiarism: a problem of morality and convention

Abstract

This paper considers the problem of plagiarism as an issue of morality. Outrage about student plagiarism in universities positions it as dishonesty and a transgression of standards. Despite this, there has been little work analysing the implications of positioning plagiarism as a moral matter in the making of judgments about plagiarism and academic dishonesty. This paper sets the scene by reviewing research about the characteristics of students who cheat and analysing student and lecturer differences. It then discusses perspectives from moral behaviour, moral philosophy and moral reasoning. The paper concludes that emotion and reason are brought to moral judgments, and so makes a case for those who are making judgments about plagiarism to reflect on whether they are faced with a matter of morality or convention. Greater awareness of the domains of convention and morality, the issues of justice and care, the roles of emotion and reason and what is involved in making judgments, will open ways of understanding reactions to plagiarism so that better ways to deal with accusations and make judgments can be developed.

An Analysis of the Effect of Mobile Learning on Lebanese Higher Education

“…However, official university policy typically forbids personal judgement when an instructor is considering whether to prosecute suspected cheaters (see Mitchell (2011), for example). It is critically important that students have a good understanding of what the course policies are with respect to plagiarism, as students may have views differing from those of their instructors (O'Regan, 2006;East, 2010). We show how to address this issue in the Mitigating Confusion section on page 13.…”

“…East (2010) provides an anecdote where an instructor took a controversial stand against plagiarism that resulted in an entire class being charged with academic misconduct. The issue becomes thorny when it is questionable whether the students were knowingly dishonest, and consequently it is incumbent upon a course instructor to clearly and explicitly state what the policies for the course are.…”

Police, design, plan and manage: developing a framework for integrating staff roles and institutional policies into a plagiarism prevention strategy

“…This assumption informs two dominant plagiarism prevention models in educational practice. The 'ethical' model emphasises student integrity through specific course units or by means of a code of conduct to which students must adhere (East, 2010;Park, 2003;Sutherland-Smith & Saltmarch, 2009). This model depends on a prior socialisation process whereby students are already inculcated within an educational framework that entwines academic and personal integrity (Kiehl, 2006).…”

“…In fact, the growing amount of research and published reports on the subject suggests that the occurrence of plagiarism is increasing if not just at the level of institutional concern. Part of this concern relates to the growing availability of online sources of information from which individuals can effectively 'cut and paste' to simplify the process of forming their own work (East, 2010;Howard, 2007;Sutherland-Smith, 2008). To help minimise this, universities provide extensive information to staff and students on what they understand as influential determinants of student plagiarism.…”

Uma cultura de integridade para o Ensino Superior

“…Essa complexidade pode ser levada ao extremo se considerarmos o argumento de Bruun (2014), segundo o qual uma política de tolerância zero em relação ao plágio é contraproducente com a lógica académica, uma vez que essa política aniquila a inspiração e a criatividade. A relevância deste argumento atravessa o debate sobre a questão de saber se o plágio é predominantemente uma questão ética ou um problema comportamental (East, 2010). Embora conheçamos as teorias que apontam a pirataria como uma fonte de inovação, não vamos tão longe quanto o argumento de Bruun.…”