This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library]On: 14 February 2015, At: 03:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Higher Education Policy andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20

Retribution, deterrence andreform: the dilemmas of plagiarismmanagement in universitiesWendy Sutherland-Smith aa Faculty of Education , Monash University , Churchill, AustraliaPublished online: 06 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Wendy Sutherland-Smith (2010) Retribution, deterrence and reform: thedilemmas of plagiarism management in universities, Journal of Higher Education Policy andManagement, 32:1, 5-16, DOI: 10.1080/13600800903440519

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600800903440519

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Higher Education Policy and ManagementVol. 32, No. 1, February 2010, 5–16

ISSN 1360-080X print/ISSN 1469-9508 online © 2010 Association for Tertiary Education Management and theL H Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and ManagementDOI: 10.1080/13600800903440519http://www.informaworld.com

CJHE1360-080X1469-9508Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, Nov 2009: pp. 0–0Journal of Higher Education Policy and ManagementRetribution, deterrence and reform: the dilemmas of plagiarism management in universitiesJournal of Higher Education Policy and ManagementW. Sutherland-SmithWendy Sutherland-Smith*

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Churchill, Australia

Universities face constant scrutiny about their plagiarism management strategies,policies and procedures. A resounding theme, usually media inspired, is that plagiarismis rife, unstoppable and university processes are ineffectual in its wake. This has beenreferred to as a ‘moral panic’ approach (Carroll & Sutherland-Smith, forthcoming;Clegg, 2007) and suggests plagiarism will thwart all efforts to reclaim academic integrityin higher education. However, revisiting the origins of plagiarism and exploring itslegal evolution reveals that legal discourse is the foundation for many plagiarismmanagement policies and processes around the world. Interestingly, criminal justiceaims are also reflected in university plagiarism management strategies. Althoughuniversities strive for deterrence of plagiarism in a variety of ways, the media mostoften calls for retribution through increasingly tougher penalties. However, a primaryaim of the justice system, sustainable reform, is not often reported in the media or visiblein university policies or processes. Using critical discourse analysis, this paper examinesthe disjunction between media calls for increased retribution in the wake of moralpanic and institutional responses to plagiarism. I argue that many universities have notyet moved to sustainable reform in plagiarism management.

Keywords: criminal law; critical discourse analysis; media discourse; plagiarism management; reform; retribution; sustainability; university policy and process

The discourse of plagiarismPlagiarism is not a recent phenomenon. In England in the 1500s, literary writers and poetswere protesting their loss of ownership over the ‘original’ works they created, as once thetexts were produced and disseminated the rights of the work passed to the commissioningpatron. At this time, the courts of England witnessed a series of legal battles during whichthe creators of literary works argued that their intellectual labour warranted legal protectionin the form of proprietary rights (Rose, 1993; Sutherland-Smith, 2008).

As a result, the copyright laws of England were born in the Statute of Anne in 1710.Although the English Statute of Anne (1710) did not protect authors per se, it is importantbecause it legally recognised the idea of literary property or authorial ownership over texts(Sutherland-Smith, 2008). Indeed, the legislation regards the creator of the work as thefather or begetter of the work and the work itself as the child. With the concept that workscould be owned by their creator, came the notion that any use of the author’s work shouldbe attributed to the originator of the work. Failure to do so was likened to kidnapping thewords or ideas of the author. The analogy is clear – taking the words or ideas of another

*Email: wendy.sutherland-smith@education.monash.edu.au

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

6 W. Sutherland-Smith

without attribution is similar to kidnapping the child of another. Plagiarism, as an offencein law, emerged.

It is of particular note that plagiarism is most often described as an act of misconductor an offence by institutions such as universities or publishing companies. When writerslike Dan Brown, author of The DaVinci Code, are accused of plagiarism, the legal right tosue accompanies the accusation and formal court hearings usually follow. Similarly, theconstruction of plagiarism policies and processes in many universities indicates that legalnotions of plagiarism are embedded in the discourse. The act of plagiarism is described asan ‘offence’ and procedures laid out in policies follow the processes of legal hearings, duringwhich evidence is presented, weighed, a decision made and consequences follow thedecision. Sometimes rights to ‘appeal’ are also laid out in policy, as they are in courtprocedures. The key point is that institutional discourse surrounding plagiarism in universitiesis founded in the language of law. What needs to be questioned is the limited action suchtextual construction can have on the vision of appropriate or possible ways to manageplagiarism.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) allows written texts, such as plagiarism policies andmedia reports, to be interrogated in order that textual meanings can be explored. Fair-clough’s (1992) model of critical discourse analysis is useful as the inter-relationshipsbetween the policy, discursive and social practice domains, such as university and broadpublic spheres, can be examined. The model provides a framework to understand the oftenunconscious shaping of people ‘by social structures, relations of power and the nature ofthe social practice they are engaged in’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 72). For example, usingCDA theory, Tim Atkinson (2008) studied the language of university mission statementsfrom the viewpoint of ‘discursive institutionalism’ to analyse the ways in which ‘actorsuse language and symbols to structure their environments through ‘discourse practices’’(2008, p. 361). His research indicates that higher education institutions need to questiontheir ‘static cultural–cognitive patterns’ and critique whether they serve ‘to promotehigher education ideology or work against discourse that promotes organizational changeand evolution’ (Atkinson, 2008, p. 361). He concluded that university mission statementsare ‘symbolic representations of our connections to the universal academic community’(p. 385), through a discursive ‘set of shared beliefs on an institutional scale’ (p. 383).Similarly, this paper, through critical discourse analysis, scrutinises the discourse of uni-versity plagiarism policies and media interpretations of university plagiarism, to questionsuch ‘static cultural’ interpretations of the phenomenon.

MethodologyThe language of university policies and the media’s reporting of plagiarism are examinedusing CDA as a theoretical framework. Specifically, the discourse contained in plagiarismpolicies in six universities, representing three different national categories, is analysed: theGroup of 8 (Australia), the Russell Group (United Kingdom) and the Ivy League (UnitedStates of America). Universities listed in each national category were then comparedagainst the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) world rankings for the top 200universities worldwide from 2007 to 2008. Using THES rankings, the top six universitiesfor each category were selected as representative of the category, as each of the six universitiesis recognised internationally as a high-quality, world-ranked institution with a reputationfor academic excellence (see Appendix 1 for a full list of such institutions). These institu-tions have a vested interest in maintaining international public confidence that they areseats of learning in which academic integrity is valued and upheld.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 7

The eighteen plagiarism policies were accessed through each institution’s public website,including any details about plagiarism management processes and penalties. Policies weredownloaded and analysed using critical discourse analysis theory (Fairclough, 1992;1995). Individual words used to define plagiarism, describe university approaches to man-aging plagiarism and the range of ‘outcomes’ available were tabled and compared(Appendix 2; Table 1). In addition, 164 media reports on plagiarism from the highereducation sections of two Australian national newspapers, The Age and The Australian,from 2004 to 2008 were also collated and the language used to describe plagiarism(Appendix 3) was analysed. The purpose of such analysis was to gain understanding of theways in which the media portrayed plagiarism and academic misconduct in tertiary insti-tutions to the general public over a period of time. Such comparison affords a broaderperspective of the contextual and social domains in which plagiarism policies are seen tooperate, therefore helping to understand the public perceptions of university performancein managing academic integrity issues such as plagiarism.

University contextualisation of plagiarismAll 18 universities in the study have consistently located plagiarism in disciplinary oracademic misconduct regulations of university policy provisions. Plagiarism managementprocesses are generally passed by the Academic Board or Academic Council of eachuniversity and therefore have university-wide standing and apply to all staff and studentsacross the particular institution. Hence, plagiarism is not something that is able to bedefined or administered differently across the institution, and there is an expectation in thediscourse of the regulations that there is consistency in managing plagiarism across faculties,schools and departments.

These institutions use legal discourse in framing plagiarism, particularly the languageof criminal law. Interestingly, institutions agree that plagiarism is an offence (n = 18),whether it be categorised as ‘misconduct’ (n = 15) or ‘lack of honesty’ (n = 3). Words todescribe plagiarism clearly align with words used in criminal law in these three nations:misconduct (n = 15); dishonesty/lack of honesty (n = 12); misdemeanour (n = 8); theft/intellectual theft (n = 7); misappropriation (n = 6); deceit (n = 3); cheating (n = 2) and

Table 1. Range of outcomes available if plagiarism is proven.

No. of universities with this outcome Outcome specified by the university policy

n = 16 Reprimand the student (sometimes with requirements that the student complete plagiarism avoidance workshops, seminars or online tutorial help)

n = 14 Fine the student a monetary amountn = 18 Fail the student in the particular assessment piece to which

the academic misconduct relatesn = 18 Fail the student in the unit to which the academic

misconduct relatesn = 15 Fail the student in all academic units for the academic yearn = 11 Suspension or cancellation of any university scholarships,

bursaries or awards granted to the studentn = 13 Suspend the student from study for a period (usually not

exceeding 12 months)n = 17 Expel the student from the universityn = 14 Rescind any degree granted to the student or downgrade a

degree (e.g. from Honours to Pass)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

8 W. Sutherland-Smith

stealing (n = 1). Universities vary considerably in the extent to which they describe plagiarism.Some universities give short definitions of plagiarism with little further explanation as toits construction, yet other universities’ plagiarism policies contain long and detailed expla-nations of actions that constitute plagiarism, reasons why the university considers plagiarismto be an offence and details of materials to help students avoid plagiarism. For example,some universities note that the amount of plagiarism appearing in a text may give theplagiarism management personnel guidance as to whether the act is plagiarism or ‘carelessscholarship’ – the general assumption appearing as ‘the more extensive the plagiarism, themore likely it was intentional’ (Go8 university). Other universities list many possiblesources of plagiarism, such as ‘published and unpublished documents, designs, music,sounds, images, photographs, computer codes in print and/or electronic media’ (IvyLeague university).

The word most often used to describe a person against whom plagiarism is alleged is‘offender’ (n = 16), with some institutions using the word ‘accused’ (n = 2). These wordsare used only in criminal law to describe the person charged with a criminal act. They donot appear when describing the action of one person suing another, as happens in civil lawcases. Therefore, the words ‘accused’ and ‘offender’ are located specifically within thelexical field of criminal law and imbue connotations of wrongdoing. This is an importantpoint in terms of the construction of student identity, as ‘we are trapped by our discoursewithin our construction of reality’ (Leask, 2006, p. 187). For example, the very discoursedescribing students as plagiarism ‘offenders’ positions them as ‘wrongdoers’ even beforeany allegations are proven, which could cause some students considerable anxiety. Theprocesses described in university policies are mainly in the form of ‘disciplinary’/‘misconduct’(n = 14) or ‘committee’ (n = 4) hearings, although most universities have preliminary stagesthrough which plagiarism must be established before proceeding to formal hearing. Thesepreliminary processes are often at the level of individual academic or Head of unit decid-ing on the evidence available, whether the student has a case to answer. If the decision isthat there is no case of plagiarism to answer, the academic may dismiss the allegation,counsel the student, recommend resubmission of work and a range of other outcomes.Where a case to answer is established, those processes are described in formal language,with some universities reverting to highly formal register, such as ‘herein stated’ and‘aforementioned’, when outlining the processes for formal ‘prosecution of the case’. Suchlanguage is still found in the law, but rarely used outside it unless in literature and writingwhere the effect of heightened formality is desired. Overall, universities described in greatdetail the processes by which plagiarism is managed, and most (n = 16) provided details asto any appeal rights available to aggrieved parties. The high level of formal vocabularyused in the discourse of plagiarism policies is indicative of legal processes and designed toconvey a sense of the full weight of university process. The language is in contrast to thatused to describe university graduate attributes policies; for example, where the vocabularychosen is more engaging and less intimidating.

Where plagiarism is found to have occurred, university regulations stipulate the rangeof outcomes as ‘penalties’ (n = 17) and one university uses the term ‘sanctions’ (n = 1).Again, this is the discourse of criminal law, as civil law cases use words such as ‘out-comes’ to describe the consequences of the court’s decision. Indeed, the term ‘sanction’ isused only in criminal law for penalties applicable to the accused person. Universities tendto prescribe a range of ‘penalties’, which are listed in Table 1, although not all universitiesincorporate all penalties listed.

Clearly, the discourse of criminal law is the mainstay of many universities’ framing ofplagiarism management policies and processes. There is considerable usage of words of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 9

retribution from criminal law – penalties and punishments abound – but there is little inpolicy to suggest that the potential ‘offender’ is to undertake any reform or rehabilitation(other than attending anti-plagiarism workshops or completing online tutorials in plagiarismavoidance). It is unclear whether students who are advised by disciplinary panels to completesuch measures are then required to inform the responsible plagiarism management authority(the Academic Conduct Officer, Head of unit or panel) that this has occurred, or whether itis expected that mere completion of such self-help exercises will solve the problem. It isalso unclear whether students accused of plagiarism across disciplinary areas or in double-degree enrolments are advised that acknowledgement and citation practices are discipline-specific, which can be confusing for students. For example, the footnote referencingsystems used in Law are quite different to the in-text systems used in many Arts subjects,so students in combined degrees must alter their attribution conventions moving betweenfaculties.

Universities also charge academic staff and students with the responsibility for appro-priate citation practice education. This raises questions about the university’s responsibilitiesin a number of ways. Universities must provide sufficient training for staff (including casualand part-time academic staff involved in teaching and assessment), particularly whereanti-plagiarism software programs are used. It is not sufficient for the institution to merelyplace the additional workload of teaching students about citation and attribution conceptsand mechanics without attention to the need for staff professional development in this areaand also the additional time taken to fulfil such requirements. There is also some discordbetween the detection of plagiarism by individual academics and institutional responsibilitiesfor ensuring that all staff, including casual and part-time academic staff, is sufficientlyaware of their responsibilities. An audit across academic integrity and plagiarism issues inAustralia and New Zealand in 2005 (Phillips, 2005) found that ‘while individual lecturersare required to identify and address suspected plagiarism, and disciplinary procedures arein place for serious breaches, there is a lack of information about what staff should do, anda lack of consistency about what staff actually do’ (p. 2). Some of the policies examineddo not contain information about where and how tenured and sessional staff are to becomefamiliar with their responsibilities or seek training in the use of anti-plagiarism software,should the institution require its use.

Universities also place the burden of understanding plagiarism and attribution conven-tions on students. There are myriad information-laden web-based self-help tutorials andworkshops on related sites for the universities in this study. Many are excellent resourcesand can be helpful. Nevertheless, the lack of additional, detailed individual assistanceabout the techniques of engaging in academic writing conventions, particularly forstudents studying in off-campus or distance modes, raises issues of equity for plagiarismmanagement policy makers.

Analysis indicates that universities have construed plagiarism within the ambit of legaldiscourse and the policies and processes used to describe plagiarism management – fromdetection to outcome. The focus in the language of universities is deterrence, detectionand often retribution in the form of ‘penalties’ when proven. Media articles also portrayplagiarism in the tertiary sector in legal language.

The end of academic integrity: media discourse about plagiarismOne hundred and sixty-two articles from the Higher Education sections of two nationalnewspapers, The Australian and The Age, carried plagiarism-related articles between 2003and 2008. The purpose in collecting articles over a five-year period is to ascertain with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

10 W. Sutherland-Smith

what consistency newspapers report plagiarism and whether the language of reportingchanges over time. Table 2 illustrates that plagiarism has been consistently reported in thenational media, with peaked reporting occurring during incidents such as the University ofNewcastle plagiarism case1 reported from 2003 to 2005.

Although there are peaks and troughs in the numbers, plagiarism has been reported inthe national media each year from 2004 to 2008. A closer scrutiny of the articles them-selves reveals that the discourse describing plagiarism incidents is often charged withemotion, closely aligned to the language of criminal law and reflects notions of retributionand punishment. Headlines include dire predictions about the state of academic integrity atAustralian universities, such as ‘Black marks: plagiarists swarm unis’ (November 20,2006); ‘Plagiarism is rife!’ (January 17, 2003) and ‘Only those who’ve never done it saycheats don’t prosper’ (November 8, 2006). This language itself suggests that our seats ofhigher learning are over-run with students who are determined to plagiarise. Words suchas ‘cheating’, ‘theft’, ‘fraud’ and ‘misconduct’ appear in the bodies of articles to describeplagiarism, which are aligned with the language used by universities to characteriseplagiarism. Unlike universities, however, which often separate the terms ‘plagiarism’ and‘cheating’, the media tend to use the terms ‘plagiarism’ and ‘cheating’ interchangeably,creating the impression that plagiarism and cheating are the same. This point is worth furtherdiscussion, as many universities have taken great pains to outline why cheating is differentfrom plagiarism and prescribe different outcomes for the offence of cheating and the act ofplagiarism. Differentiation between plagiarism and cheating is often based on the premisethat cheating is a deliberate and calculated act which deserves punitive responses, whereasplagiarism may be inadvertent and requires a more educative response (e.g. see MonashUniversity, Go8, 2008).

Nonetheless, some journalists present plagiarism as a subset of cheating practices, andbracket plagiarism alongside identity fraud in exams, contract cheating and other forms ofmisconduct. This use of language paves the way for the media to link the ‘moral’ act ofplagiarism to the ‘immoral’ nature of the student who plagiarises; such discourse paints animage of the student as a tainted creature, not to be trusted (Carroll & Sutherland-Smith,forthcoming). The media also tends to draw links between acts of plagiarism and ‘dishonestyin life’, which is supported by studies like that by Nonis and Swift (2001). Their researchwith business and law graduates found that students who engaged in plagiarism at universityare ‘more likely to engage in dishonest acts in the workplace’ (p. 69). Acts of dishonestyin the workplace included taking company merchandise or equipment, giving false reasonsfor missing work and ‘a host of other dishonest behaviours’ (p. 73). Linking the act ofplagiarism to the character of the student has long been disputed by researchers inacademic writing, who maintain that often students copy texts in the process of learning toengage in academic writing processes and they need assistance rather than punishment

Table 2. Total number of articles in the higher educationsection of two national Australian newspapers.

Year The Australian The Age

2008 25 172007 11 112006 22 162005 17 102004 26 7Total 101 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 11

(see Godfrey & Waugh, 2002; Sutherland-Smith, 2005; Thompson, 2005 in Australia;Ashworth, Freewood & Macdonald, 2003; Carroll, 2002; Clegg & Flint, 2006 in the UK;and Howard, 1999, 2007, 2008; Vojak, 2006 in the USA for a discussion of ‘moral’ con-cepts of plagiarism and differentiation between plagiarism and cheating).

Although media discourse generally heralds the use of anti-plagiarism software packages,such as Turnitin (iParadigms, 2008), as one measure to ‘halt cheats in their path’ (May 21,2007), newspapers continue to promote the perception in the community that ‘plagiarismis rife’ and ‘cheating is rampant’ (January 7, 2003) in tertiary institutions. Furthermore,articles repeatedly suggest that the Internet is a source of plagiarism and cheating andthere is no stopping cyber-dishonesty. A sample of headings across 2004–08 read: ‘Weboffers cheats tailor-made assignments (September 30, 2004); ‘Age of digital deception’(May 31, 2005); ‘Students cheating online’ (June 14, 2006); ‘Production-line fakes’(April 11, 2007) and ‘Cut & paste ‘not plagiarism’’ (July 16, 2008). These articles outlinethe ease with which students can cut and paste Internet material and the work of othersinto their assignments, use online services to pay others to engage in ‘contract cheating’(Lancaster & Clarke, 2007) and academics have little chance of keeping up with thistrend. Some journalists suggest plagiarism management in higher education is outdatedand give the impression that nothing can be done to counteract the tsunami of plagiarismbrought about by technologies such as the Internet. Media discourse fuels a public percep-tion that universities are crawling with dishonest students, which ‘lowers standards’ inhigher education (January 15, 2003). In Australia, the University of Newcastle’s plagiarismcase in 2003 was kept in the media for two years and only ceased being regularly reportedin the national press with the release of the Independent Commission against Corruption’sreport on the handling of the incident in June 2005 (ICAC, 2005) and the significant revisionby the university of plagiarism management practices as a result of ICAC recommendations.Media reporting of plagiarism appears to be in contrast to most academic research findingsabout plagiarism in higher education.

Academic research on plagiarism suggests that although plagiarism is present in someuniversity students’ work, it is certainly neither rampant nor unstoppable, as suggested bythe media (Cogdell & Aidulis, 2007; Culwin, 2006; Evans, 2006; Sutherland-Smith, 2008;Szabo & Underwood, 2004; Thompson & Pennycook, 2008). Although some studiesindicate that Internet plagiarism is palpable (Marsden, Carroll & Neill, 2005; O’Connor,2002; Zobel & Hamilton, 2002), many research studies indicate that the majority ofuniversity students undertake assessment tasks with no intention of plagiarising the workof others (Carroll, 2002; Howard, 1999; 2008; Hunt, 2004). Whether inspired by mediareports or not, universities have continually revisited their management practices inacademic integrity issues.

University responses to plagiarism management issuesUniversities have responded to the changing demands of plagiarism management by updatingand continually revisiting academic integrity matters as part of quality assurance and risk man-agement practices. Most often, universities respond to plagiarism through enhanced detectionand deterrence processes, such as university-wide reviews of plagiarism policy and practices orincreased use of detection through software. Responses detailed in revised policy statements orcommittee reviews by universities in this study include:

• Reviews of disciplinary processes and procedures;• Directions to academic staff to keep and maintain academic rigour and standards;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

12 W. Sutherland-Smith

• Increasing the number of final exams in units and decreasing assignment work duringsemester, in the belief that invigilated exams will reduce plagiarism;

• Instigating ‘best practice’ in teaching measures, which are designed to decreaseplagiarism in pedagogical changes to teaching. ‘Best practice’ includes strategiessuch as designing and changing assessment tasks each semester, incorporating location-specific contexts for student responses, and using combinations of oral and writtenor computer-marked and written assessment;

• Teaching specific ‘academic integrity’ units within courses;• Asking staff to address issues of academic integrity in all units offered within faculties

to increase students’ awareness;• Providing ‘academic honesty’ website information for student and staff access,

including samples of plagiarised work and non-plagiarised work to indicate the dif-ferences in citation practices, definitions, links to policy and self-help tutorials;

• Advertising ‘assistance’ mechanisms – through academic writing workshops,library information staff or language and learning experts;

• Increasing punitive measures – more and/or harsher punishments; and• Establishing faculty-specific or university-wide student plagiarism registers held by

the Head of Department or Dean’s office in each department/school/faculty.

Clearly, universities are aware of issues surrounding academic integrity and are tacklingplagiarism management on many levels. Yet, most of these strategies do not move beyonddetection, deterrence and provision of information about plagiarism. The question remainswhether these measures lead towards sustainable plagiarism and academic integrity manage-ment practices. Drawing upon Stephen Sterling’s (2004) notion that ‘sustainable educationis essentially transformative, constructive and participatory’ (p. 35), he argues that universi-ties, like other organisations, are ‘living systems’ (p. 46). Therefore, re-conceiving learningas grounded in ‘the qualities of relationship rather than product’ (Sterling, 2004, p.43) meanstransformative and sustainable learning and teaching practices are central to overcomingacademic dishonesty only when seen as changing and morphing within the living organismthat is the university. When applied to plagiarism management, ‘sustainable’ reform refersnot just to engaging the student with ethically sustainable academic practices, but to engag-ing the institution in discussion about its overall plagiarism management philosophy andpractices (see Atkins & Herfel, 2006; Mason, 2001).

Universities need to re-examine long-held views that increasing punishment anddetection processes results in deterrence of plagiarism and therefore a decrease in itsappearance. The equation is faulty, as deterring students from engaging in acts of plagiarismdoes not necessarily mean they will take a path of academic integrity. In fact, the ‘graduatingtactics’ tied to the consumer attitude of some students may encourage subversive acts ofcheating (Saltmarsh, 2004, p. 445). Although some research has indicated that the ‘threat’of increased detection has resulted in a drop in the number of cases of plagiarism reported(Barrett & Malcolm, 2006; Zobel & Hamilton, 2002), this finding does not mean that merethreats of detection are ‘sustainable’ as an ongoing educational practice. Recent researchpoints to the need to engage in discussion of learning as ‘ethical’ practice for sustainablechange to occur (Atkins & Herfel, 2006; Cogdell & Aidulis, 2007).

Taking a holistic view of plagiarism throughout universities has shown a measure ofsuccess at universities such as Oxford Brookes and Sheffield Hallam in the United Kingdom;for example, where a range of actions, including an overhaul of ‘previous learning andassessment regimes’ (Macdonald & Carroll, 2006, p. 244) have occurred. The researchersconclude that:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 13

The key to ensuring that a holistic approach to plagiarism is adopted, where the emphasis ison promoting scholarly, academic practices rather than focusing on potential problems andchannelling all the institution’s energies into deterring through detection and punishment. Thelatter approach is not the basis for a healthy learning environment whilst the former at leastcontributes to it. (Macdonald & Carroll, 2006, p. 244)

Although acknowledging that it is too early to tell whether these initiatives are educa-tionally sustainable in the long term, the researchers consider that there has been ‘a significantimpact on the way the institution as a whole deals with the issue’ (Macdonald & Carroll,2006, p. 236). Taken together with research that indicates ‘didactic methods alone –codes, pledges, teacher exhortations, and the like – are unlikely to have any significanteffect’ (Leming, 1993, p. 69) on plagiarism practices broadly, the quest for sustainablereform remains a challenge for universities. Focusing on developing plagiarism manage-ment strategies grounded in the web of ethical relationships that constitute the livingorganism of the university is a responsible place to start.

ConclusionUniversities are aware of the need to address the controversial issue of plagiarism, as wellas broader issues of academic integrity, to maintain public confidence in the reputation ofthe institution, its courses and quality of its graduates. Media discourse suggests thatplagiarism has over-run tertiary institutions and tougher penalties and increased surveil-lance are needed to overcome the phenomenon. There is a strong suggestion that academicintegrity is merely a utopian dream in the face of increased technology-enhancedacademic dishonesty. However, academic research suggests that plagiarism is not theissue of moral panic portrayed to the general public and institutional processes are workingtowards increasingly more effective plagiarism management.

This paper argues that approaching plagiarism cloaked in the traditional discourse ofthe law is proving to be only moderately successful in terms of formulation of policies andprocesses. Systemic focus on deterrence and punishment is addressing only part of theissue and the educative value of those approaches alone is questionable. Academicresearch suggests plagiarism is multi-layered and requires a variety of strategies within anoverall framework of ethical sustainability. Nevertheless, many institutions are not tack-ling the thorny problem of sustainable reform in academic integrity issues and the incum-bent costs accompanying such wholesale rethinking. Implementing holistic approaches toplagiarism management, through the adoption of ethical discourse about the relationshipsshared by academics, universities and students, offers a foundation to being dialogueabout implementing sustainable reform in university plagiarism management.

AcknowledgementsI wish to acknowledge Linda Mink from Monash University and Jude Carroll, ASKe, OxfordBrookes University for their invaluable advice and support in the preparation of this paper.

Note1. The University of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia was embroiled in a plagiarism man-

agement case in 2003. An independent commission (ICAC) was set up to investigate the university’shandling of plagiarism after continued media reporting of ‘cover ups’ by senior management. Thecommission’s report was released in June 2005 (see ICAC in the reference list).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

14 W. Sutherland-Smith

ReferencesAshworth, P., Freewood, M., & Macdonald, R. (2003). The student lifeworld and the meanings of

plagiarism. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 34(2), 257–278.Atkins, J., & Herfel, W. (2006). Counting beans in the degree factory. International Journal for

Educational Integrity, 2(1), 3–12.Atkinson, T. (2008). Textual mapping of imitation and intertextuality in college and university

mission statements: A new institutional perspective. Semiotica, 172(1–4), 361–387.Barrett, R., & Malcolm, J. (2006). Embedding plagiarism education in the assessment process. Inter-

national Journal for Educational Integrity, 2(1), 38–45.Carroll, J. (2002). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education. Oxford: Oxford Centre

for Staff Learning and Development.Carroll, J., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (forthcoming). Reclaiming the issue of student plagiarism:

The impact of external agents and agencies on universities’ management of studentplagiarism.

Clegg, S. (2007). Extending the boundaries of research into higher education. In Enhancing highereducation, theory and scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference[CD-ROM], Adelaide, 8–11 July.

Clegg, S., & Flint, A. (2006). More heat than light: Plagiarism in its appearing. British Journal ofSociology of Education, 27(3), 373–387.

Cogdell, B., & Aidulis, D. (2007). Dealing with plagiarism as an ethical issue. In T.S Roberts (Ed.),Student plagiarism in an online world: Problems and solutions (pp. 38–59). Hershey, PA: IdeaGroup Inc.

Culwin, F. (2006). An active introduction to academic misconduct and the measured demographicsof misconduct. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 167–182.

Evans, R. (2006). Evaluating an electronic plagiarism detection service. Active Learning in HigherEducation, 7(10), 87–99.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Godfrey, J., & Waugh, R. (2002). Students’ perceptions of cheating in Australian independent

schools. Education Australia Online, 1–3.Howard, R.M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators.

Stamford, CT: Ablex.Howard, R.M. (2007). Understanding “Internet plagiarism”. Computers and Composition, 24, 3–15.Howard, R.M. (2008). Plagiarizing (from) graduate students. In R.M. Howard & A.E. Robillard

(Eds.), Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies (pp. 92–100). Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook.

Hunt, R. (2004). Whose silverware is this? Promoting plagiarism through pedagogy. JISC PlagiarismAdvisory Service Conference, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK, 24–28 June.

Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. (2005). Report on investigation into theUniversity of Newcastle’s handling of plagiarism allegations. Sydney: ICAC. RetrievedOctober 10, 2005, from http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au

iParadigms. (2008). iParadigms: Digital solutions for a new era in information. Retrieved September 29,2008, from http://www.iparadigms.com

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2007). The phenomena of contract cheating. In T.S Roberts (Ed.),Student plagiarism in an online world: Problems and solutions (pp. 144–158). Hershey, PA:Idea Group Inc.

Leask, B. (2006). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor – implications for academic staffdevelopment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183–199.

Leming, J. (1993). In search of effective character education. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 63–71.Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism – a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional

approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 233–245.Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of

dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journalof Psychology, 57(1), 1–10.

Mason, M. (2001). The ethics of integrity: Educational values beyond postmodern ethics. Journal ofPhilosophy of Education, 35(1), 47–69.

Monash University. (2008). Discipline statute 4.1 plagiarism and cheating. Retrieved March 17, 2009,from http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/academicpolicies/policy/plagiarism.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 15

Nonis, S., & Swift, C. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonestyand workplace dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Journal of Education for Business,77(2), 60–77.

O’Connor, S. (2002). Electronic plagiarism and its impact on educational quality. Paper presentedat the CAVAL Electronic Plagiarism Conference, Melbourne, 6 October.

Phillips, R. (2005). Audit of academic integrity and plagiarism issues in Australia and New Zealand.Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/project/acode/background.html

Rose, M. (1993). Authors and owners: The invention of copyright. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Saltmarsh, S. (2004). Graduating tactics: Theorizing plagiarism as consumptive practice. Journal ofFurther and Higher Education, 28(4), 445–454.

Sterling, S. (2004). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Bristol: The Schu-macher Society.

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). The tangled web: Internet plagiarism and international students’academic writing. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 15–29.

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the Internet and academic writing: Improving academicintegrity. London: Routledge.

Szabo, A., & Underwood, J. (2004). Cybercheats. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 180–199.Thompson, C. (2005). ‘Authority is everything’: A study of the politics of textual ownership and

knowledge in the formation of student writer identities. International Journal for EducationalIntegrity, 1(1), 1–12. Retrieved February 21, 2009, from http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI

Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2008). Intertextuality in the transcultural contact zone. InR.M. Howard & A.E. Robillard (Eds.), Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies(pp. 124–139). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Times Higher Education Supplement. (2007–08). Times Higher Education World Rankings 2007–08.Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Vojak, C. (2006). What market culture teaches students about ethical behavior. Ethics and Educa-tion, 1(2), 177–195.

Zobel, J., & Hamilton, M. (2002). Managing student plagiarism in large academic departments.Australian Universities Review, 45(2), 23–30.

Appendix 1. Universities by national category of excellence and rankedas the top six per category according to THES rankings 2007–08.

Australia Group of 81 Australian National University2 University of Sydney3 University of Melbourne4 University of Queensland5 University of New South Wales6 Monash University

United Kingdom Russell Group1 University of Cambridge2 University of Oxford3 Imperial College London4 University College London5 Kings College6 University of Edinburgh

United States Ivy League1 Harvard University2 Yale University3 Columbia University4 University of Pennsylvania5 Princeton University6 Cornell University

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5

16 W. Sutherland-Smith

Appendix 2. University discourse describing plagiarism/plagiarism processes across18 institutions in the three categories: Group of 8 (Australia), Russell Group (UK) and IvyLeague (USA).

Appendix 3. Media discourse describing plagiarism in two national Australian newspapers2004–08.

Word(s) Group of 8 Russell Group Ivy League

Academic misconduct 6 6 6Misdemeanour 6 5 6Cheating 3 4 5Misrepresentation 4 2 1Theft 2 1 1Dishonest(y) 4 5 5Breach 6 6 6Punishment 3 2 2Penalty 6 6 6Sanction 0 0 1Offender 4 4 4Accused 0 1 1Guilty 6 6 6Proven 5 6 6Not proven 2 3 1Crime (criminal) 3 4 5Ownership (authorial) 1 3 2Unfair advantage 2 3 0Unethical 2 4 4Judged 1 0 2Discipline (disciplinary measures) 6 6 6Code (of conduct/Honour) 1 4 6Intention to deceive/deception 2 3 3

Word No. of times used Sample sentence from the text of the newspaper article

Misdemeanour 28 Uni heads declare war on the cheatsTheft 92 Academia must solve the plague of plagiarismCheating 112 A creeping tolerance of degrees of cheatingDishonest(y) 101 There is a moral obligation to adhere to prescribed

standards and expectationsFraud(ulent) 86 To steal someone’s ideas is comparable to stealing their soulBreach(es) 47 Plagiarism is enough to end your university careerConspiracy 4 There is something truly rotten in the state of academeGuilt(y) 67 Engaging in calculated deceitIllegal 88 Unis aim to crackdown on cheatingUnethical 20 Plagiarism is cheating and is not ethical practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:35

14

Febr

uary

201

5