Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing among Undergraduate Accounting Students: Implications for Unintentional Plagiarism

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 10:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Accounting Education: An InternationalJournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raed20

Perceptions of Authorial Identityin Academic Writing amongUndergraduate Accounting Students:Implications for UnintentionalPlagiarismJoan Ballantine a & Patricia McCourt Larres ba University of Ulster , Northern Ireland, UKb Queen's University , Belfast , Northern Ireland, UKPublished online: 16 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Joan Ballantine & Patricia McCourt Larres (2012) Perceptions of AuthorialIdentity in Academic Writing among Undergraduate Accounting Students: Implications forUnintentional Plagiarism, Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21:3, 289-306, DOI:10.1080/09639284.2011.650452

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.650452

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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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 &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09639284.2011.650452

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.650452

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Perceptions of Authorial Identity in

Academic Writing among Undergraduate

Accounting Students: Implications for

Unintentional Plagiarism

JOAN BALLANTINE∗ and PATRICIA McCOURT LARRES∗∗

∗University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK; ∗∗Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

Received: November 2010

Revised: June 2011; September 2011

Accepted: October 2011

Published online: April 2012

ABSTRACT The current study explores first, second and third-year UK accounting students’perceptions of authorial identity and their implications for unintentional plagiarism. The findingssuggest that, whilst all students have reasonably positive perceptions of their authorial identity,there is room for improvement. Significant differences in second-year students’ perceptions werereported for some positive aspects of authorial identity. However, results for negative aspectsshow that second-year students find it significantly more difficult to express accounting in theirown words than first and third-years. Furthermore, second-years are significantly more afraidthan first-years that what they write will look unimpressive. Finally, the results for approaches towriting, which also have implications for unintentional plagiarism, revealed that students acrossall years appear to adopt aspects of top-down, bottom-up and pragmatic approaches to writing.Emerging from these findings, the study offers suggestions to accounting educators regardingauthorial identity instruction.

KEY WORDS: Unintentional plagiarism, authorial identity, approaches to writing

Introduction

Academic dishonesty at college level appears to be a very real problem with one recent

study describing cheating in US college classes, rather alarmingly, as ‘rampant’

(Simkin and McLeod, 2010, p. 441). This is of particular concern to professional accoun-

tants in that, what students learn as acceptable behaviour in the classroom impacts on their

Accounting Education: an international journal

Vol. 21, No. 3, 289–306, June 2012

Correspondence Address: Professor Joan A. Ballantine, Department of Accounting, Room 03C23, University

of Ulster, Jordanstown Campus, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, UK. Email: joan.ballanti-

[email protected]

This paper was edited and accepted by Richard M.S. Wilson.

0963-9284 Print/1468-4489 Online/12/030289–18 # 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.650452

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

expectations of what is acceptable professionally (Swift and Nonis, 1998). Given the ‘bad

press’ which accounting has received in the wake of major scandals such as Enron and

WorldCom, this apparent epidemic of cheating by college students does not augur well

for the ethical future of accounting and the trust we, as accountants, are seeking to re-

establish with the public as regards our honesty, integrity and reliability.

The definition of what constitutes cheating at college level may vary, depending on the

research study. However, there is one area of academic cheating which appears in most

definitions, namely plagiarism. According to the Oxford Dictionary, plagiarism is

defined as ‘the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as

one’s own’. Notwithstanding this concise definition, Bennett (2005) argues that:

in the context of university education . . . plagiarism does not have a single meaning and canrange from the citation of a few sentences without attribution through to the copying out of anentire manuscript (p. 138).

Given this continuum, it is understandable that students might be confused as to when

they are engaging in plagiarism. For example, students may be unsure of when they can

claim a concept or an opinion as their own if the inspiration for it came from another

source. Similarly, they may be uncertain as to whether referencing the source is sufficient

when including another author’s idea verbatim in their text (Ashworth, Bannister and

Thorne, 1997). By the time they reach tertiary education, students are so used to

‘cutting and pasting’ school projects from the internet without acknowledging others’

intellectual property, that plagiarism becomes a grey area of academic dishonesty

wherein they may perceive it to be less serious than, say, cheating in an examination.

Indeed, the instant availability of information via the internet has done much to influence

the readiness to take others’ ideas and pass them off as one’s own (McLafferty and Foust,

2004). Park (2003) includes this general lack of understanding of what constitutes plagiar-

ism as one of the reasons for its incidence in higher education. He argues that a general

lack of understanding occurs among students

when they are not familiar with proper ways of quoting, paraphrasing, citing and referencingand/or when they are unclear about the meaning of ‘common knowledge’ and its expression‘in their own words’ (p. 479).

This general lack of understanding, Park (2003) argues, can lead to unintentional

plagiarism.

Whilst a number of empirical studies have explored students’ perceptions of intentional

plagiarism (see, for example, Bennett, 2005; Kidwell and Kent, 2008; Gullifer and Tyson,

2010), there has been less work which has specifically addressed the issue of unintentional

plagiarism. One recent study which has addressed this issue is that of Pittam et al. (2009).

Responding to calls from a number of authors (see for example, Park, 2003; Valentine,

2006) for a more holistic approach to plagiarism which recognizes that students may

not actually understand plagiarism and be prepared to deal with it when they enter

higher education, Pittam et al. (2009) developed a research instrument, the Student

Authorship Questionnaire (SAQ), which measured attitudes towards authorial identity

in academic writing among UK psychology students. ‘Authorial identity’ refers to ‘the

sense a writer has of themselves (sic) as an author and textual identity they (sic) construct

in their (sic) writing’ (Pittam et al., 2009, p. 159). Authorial identity, Pittam et al. (2009)

argue, is strongly linked with unintentional plagiarism in that, if the former is poorly

developed, then the latter is more likely to occur.

Whilst unintentional plagiarism has been considered to some extent in other literature, a

review of the accounting literature reveals no study which has investigated unintentional

290 J. Ballantine & P. McCourt Larres

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

plagiarism by assessing accounting students’ perceptions of their authorial identity. To this

end, the objective of the current study is to address this deficiency and to add to the

accounting literature on plagiarism by exploring first, second and third-year undergraduate

UK-based accounting students’ attitudes to authorial identity and the implications of these

for unintentional plagiarism. The study achieves its objective by drawing on Pittam et al.’s

(2009) Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) as a means of assessing students’ percep-

tions of authorial identity. In particular, the study considers whether students’ perceptions

of authorial identity differ across an accounting degree programme. It is anticipated that

the results of the study will enhance accounting academics’ understanding of students’

perceptions of issues surrounding authorial identity in academic writing and the impli-

cations of this for unintentional plagiarism. Additionally, the findings of the study are

intended to help inform discussions regarding the development of meaningful instruction

to reduce unintentional plagiarism within accounting programmes.

The study addresses its research objective in the following manner. Firstly, a literature

review presents a comprehensive consideration of research in the area. Secondly, the

research methodology applied to the study is set out. Thirdly, the results of the tests under-

taken are explained in detail, analysed and discussed in full. Fourthly, conclusions are

drawn and further work identified.

Literature Review

It is widely acknowledged that plagiarism is a significant and growing problem within

higher education (see, for example, Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995; Ashworth

et al., 1997; McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, 2001; Gullifer and Tyson, 2010). Given

its importance, the issue of plagiarism has been studied in a number of contexts (see,

for example, Bowers, 1964; McCabe and Bowers, 1994; Roig, 1997; Allmon, Page and

Robert, 2000; McCabe and Trevino, 2002; Bennett, 2005; Kidwell and Kent, 2008;

Gullifer and Tyson, 2010). One of the earliest studies to consider the issue of academic

dishonesty was that of Bowers (1964). Using data from 5000 US college students

across a large number of campuses, Bowers (1964) reported that 66% of the undergraduate

business studies students surveyed engaged in one or more incidents of academic dishon-

esty. Furthermore, Bowers’ (1964) findings suggested that honour codes were associated

with lower levels of cheating. Bowers’ (1964) seminal study paved the way for a number

of further large-scale multi-campus studies of academic dishonesty in the 1990s. For

example, McCabe and Trevino (1993) surveyed more than 6000 US students enrolled at

31 academic institutions. A number of variables were investigated by McCabe and

Trevino (1993) including the impact of honour codes, students’ understanding and accep-

tance of a school’s academic integrity policy, perceived certainty that cheaters will be

reported, perceived severity of penalties, and the degree to which students perceive that

their peers engage in cheating behaviour. Based on this work, they reported that peer be-

haviour had the most significant relationship with student cheating (see also McCabe and

Trevino, 1997). McCabe and Trevino’s (1993) findings also replicated those of Bowers

(1964) which suggested that lower levels of cheating are associated with institutions

that have an honour code environment.

In a follow-up study conducted across the same campuses as Bowers’ (1964) original

work, McCabe and Bowers (1994) surveyed 1800 students enrolled in US universities.

They reported a dramatic increase in self-reported cheating among male undergraduate

college students between 1963 and 1991. In addition, and confirming the earlier results

of both Bowers (1964) and McCabe and Trevino (1993), McCabe and Bowers (1994)

Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing 291

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

reported that academic honesty is higher and levels of self-reported cheating lower where

academic institutions have an honour code.

Drawing on a smaller sample size than earlier studies, Diekhoff, LaBeff, Clark, Wil-

liams, Francis and Haines (1996) report on various cheating behaviours, including plagi-

arism, amongst first-year US introductory sociology and psychology undergraduate

students. Using data collected via a questionnaire, they compare cheating behaviours

between 1984 and 1994. The results of the study indicate significant increases in the per-

centages of students who reported cheating on quizzes and classroom assignments over the

10-year period. Diekhoff et al. (1996) also report that:

. . . traditional mechanisms of social control are largely ineffective in deterring academic dis-honesty. Internal controls—conscience and guilt are weak. Internal controls, such as friends’disapproval of cheating clearly do not exist (p.500).

In the UK, one of the earliest large-scale studies to consider students’ perceptions of cheat-

ing behaviours, including plagiarism, was that carried out by Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes and

Armstead (1996). Their study reported on the perceptions of 943 second and third-year under-

graduate UK students who were studying a range of subjects. Newstead et al. (1996) reported

that both age and gender were significant determinants of cheating behaviour, including pla-

giarism, with more mature students cheating less than younger students. Additionally, the

results suggested that males engage more in cheating behaviour than do females. In a later

paper, Allmon, Page and Robert (2000) examined the factors that impact on business students’

perceptions of ethical classroom behaviour, including plagiarism. Using a sample made up of

120 business studies students from a regional Australian university and 107 business students

from a regional US university, Allmon, Page and Robert (2000) found that ethical orientation

was not related to the items of plagiaristic behaviour contained in their study. Furthermore,

whilst gender and personality had no impact on attitudes to plagiarism, age and religious

affiliation exhibited a much greater impact on such attitudes. Also in a business studies

context, Bennett (2005) collected data from 249 second, third and fourth-year UK under-

graduate business studies students. He reported that certain variables, namely individuals’

moral position, lack of integration into academic life and poor study skills were associated

with both minor and major plagiarism, as defined in his study.

More recently, Kidwell and Kent (2008) considered attitudes to cheating behaviour,

including plagiarism, among Australian students studying on campus and via distance

learning. They reported that, while age and gender were significant influences on cheating

behaviour, mode of study (namely, on-campus versus distance learning) was found to be

more significant. In another recent Australian study involving 41 students from various

disciplines at various stages of study, Gullifer and Tyson (2010) found that, whilst

those participating were able to define particular cases of plagiarism, they were unable

to discern more subtle forms of plagiarism such as paraphrasing text. This, the authors

argued, led to a level of confusion which subsequently ‘appeared to increase the fear of

inadvertent plagiarism . . . and an overestimation of the severity of sanctions’ (p. 478).

The study also reported that students experienced negative academic consequences of pla-

giarism in the form of a decrease in confidence when writing academic papers.

Plagiarism amongst Accounting Students

A number of studies have examined the issue of plagiarism in an accounting context. In an

early study, Salter, Guffey and McMillan (2001), using a sample of 370 accounting stu-

dents from both a UK and a US university, reported that UK students are significantly

less likely to cheat than are US students. They also report that punishment and the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

threat of punishment is more effective amongst US students than among UK students. In a

later study, Abdolmohammadi and Baker (2007) examined the relationship between pla-

giarism and moral reasoning among US undergraduate and graduate accounting students.

The internet tool Turnitin was used to detect plagiarism. They reported a significant

inverse relationship between moral reasoning and instances of plagiarism with greater

instances of plagiarism occurring at the end of the semester. Abdolmohammadi and

Baker (2007) argue that this finding might be due to increased pressures which students

feel as they approach the end of their academic year.

In a later study, McGowan and Lightbody (2008) designed an accounting assignment to

improve Australian second-year accounting students’ understanding of when and how to

reference materials appropriately. The authors started from the premise that traditional

approaches to teaching students about plagiarism and referencing largely focus on provid-

ing students with guidelines, an approach which they refer to as passive. McGowan and

Lightbody (2008) evaluated the accounting assignment over a two-year period via the

use of an anonymous questionnaire. The results suggest that the assignment was successful

in terms of enhancing students’ understanding of plagiarism and referencing. Tonge and

Willett (2009) also describe the design of an assignment for UK final-year undergraduate

management accounting students, which amongst other things, was designed to discourage

both poor scholarship and plagiarism. The assignment required students to use a number of

higher-level academic skills such as critical thinking, reflection and self-evaluation to

write a journal article. Very low instances of plagiarism (i.e., ,2%) on the unit in

which the assignment is taught were reported by Tonge and Willett (2009). Furthermore,

using evidence from staff involved in the design, experience in setting and marking the

assignment, feedback from students who had undertaken the assignment, and external

examiners’ comments, they came to the conclusion that the assignment had generally

been successful in terms of discouraging plagiarism. In the most recent study in the

area to be published, Guo (2011) examined the factors influencing plagiarism among

381 undergraduate and postgraduate accounting students based at two UK universities.

Using a questionnaire, Guo (2011) reports that male students are more likely to engage

in plagiarism than are female students and students who perceive themselves to be

poorly integrated into university life and those with low levels of moral capability are

more likely to engage in plagiarism. Finally, Guo (2011) found that ‘ambiguous knowl-

edge of authorship and limited command of English caused by various cultural back-

grounds could trap overseas students into plagiarism’ (p. 32).

Unintentional Plagiarism

Whilst a substantial body of literature has investigated the occurrence of and reasons for

intentional plagiarism, less attention has been devoted to investigating the concept of unin-

tentional plagiarism. A limited number of studies have considered unintentional plagiar-

ism as part of their discussion around plagiarism per se. In an early study, Roig (1997)

found evidence to suggest that US students were unclear about what plagiarism actually

means. Ashworth et al. (1997) also reported confusion among UK full and part-time

Master’s students from a range of disciplines as to what the term plagiarism actually

encompasses. The concept of confusion was also found by Gullifer and Tyson (2010) in

their Australian study. They argued that academic writing, as a learning process, should

include instruction about plagiarism. However, in the absence of such instruction, con-

cerns were expressed that unintentional plagiarism might occur. Additionally, Gullifer

and Tyson (2010) found an element of fear amongst the students, irrespective of year of

study or discipline, with regard to committing unintentional or inadvertent plagiarism.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

More recently, three studies have focused solely on unintentional plagiarism by exam-

ining students’ authorial identity, namely Pittam et al. (2009), Elander et al. (2010) and

Kinder and Elander (forthcoming). Pittam et al. (2009) draw on the concept of ‘authorial

identity’ as a means of understanding unintentional plagiarism. Pittam et al. (2009) draw

heavily on the work of Abasi, Akbari and Graves (2006) which investigated five ‘English

as a second language’ (ESL) students. Abasi, Akbari and Graves (2006) found that author-

ial identity, if developed poorly, is more likely to lead to unintentional plagiarism.

Drawing on this concept, Pittam et al. (2009) explored UK psychology students’

‘beliefs and attitudes’ (p. 154) about authorial identity using both focus groups and ques-

tionnaires. The focus groups led them to report the existence of both confusion and fears

around accidental plagiarism which, Pittam et al. (2009) argued, is reflected by under-

developed authorial identities. The second aspect of Pittam et al.’s (2009) work involved

the development of a research instrument, the SAQ, which was used to measure attitudes

towards authorial identity in academic writing among UK psychology students at both

undergraduate and postgraduate level. Using exploratory factor analysis, Pittam et al.

(2009) identified six factors, three of which represent aspects of authorial identity (i.e. con-

fidence in writing, understanding authorship and knowledge to avoid plagiarism) and three

representing broad strategies or approaches to writing which have implications for author-

ial identity (i.e. top-down, bottom-up and pragmatic approaches to writing). Pittam et al.

(2009) suggest that the top-down approach is analogous to one in which the student begins

with higher-level arguments and concepts before looking for relevant evidence. This

approach, they argue ‘may be related to a deep approach to learning’ (p. 164). A

bottom-up approach to writing, on the other hand, is characterized by the student

looking for materials that can be brought together to form written work. This ‘may be

related to a surface approach to learning’ (p. 164). Finally, the pragmatic approach,

which Pittam et al. (2009) argue may be related to a strategic approach to learning, is

characterized by students using secondary materials in order to achieve higher marks or

save time. Pittam et al. (2009) found year of study effects for two aspects of authorial iden-

tity, namely confidence in writing and knowledge to avoid plagiarism. With respect to the

former, there was a significant increase between years one and two, and a significant

decrease between years two and three. For the latter, year one was significantly lower

than subsequent years of study. With respect to understanding authorship and the three

approaches to writing scales (i.e. top-down, bottom-up and pragmatic approaches), no sig-

nificant findings were reported.

Drawing on the work of Pittam et al. (2009), Elander et al. (2010) evaluated an interven-

tion which was designed to avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving authorial identity.

Using the SAQ, Elander et al. (2010) collected data from 364 undergraduate and postgradu-

ate students at three post-1992 London universities. The intervention ‘aimed to encourage

students to see themselves as authors in their academic writing, and help them understand

what being an author involves in positive terms, rather than focusing on practices associated

with plagiarism that they should avoid, or on narrow writing skills such as paraphra-

sing’(p. 159). The intervention was supported with a range of learning materials designed

to enhance students’ understanding of authorial identity including instruction about author-

ship and examples of high-profile cases of suspected or alleged plagiarism. Elander et al.

(2010) measured authorial identity and approaches to writing both before and after the inter-

vention. Elander et al. (2010) reported significant increases in both the authorial identity and

approaches to writing scales as a result of an instructional intervention designed to improve

authorial identity. With respect to year of study effects, Elander et al. (2010) reported sig-

nificant increases for all three authorial identity factors (namely, confidence in writing,

understanding authorship, and knowledge to avoid plagiarism). Finally, whilst all four


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

years of study benefited from the intervention, the most significant improvements were

reported for first-year students in respect of three scales, namely understanding authorship,

knowledge to avoid plagiarism, and pragmatic approach to writing.

In the most recent study to consider unintentional plagiarism, Kinder and Elander

(forthcoming) compare dyslexic and non-dyslexic students’ authorial identity and

approaches to writing and learning. Using data collected from 62 UK students enrolled

on undergraduate first, second and third-year and Master’s-level courses from a range

of disciplines, Kinder and Elander (forthcoming) report that dyslexic students have

weaker authorial identities than do non-dyslexic students. Additionally, they report that

dyslexic students have ‘less congruent approaches to writing and learning’ (p. 1) when

compared to non-dyslexic students. Based on their findings, Kinder and Elander (forth-

coming) suggest that dyslexic students may benefit from specific interventions designed

to increase both confidence in writing and understanding authorship.

Hypotheses Statements

The empirical studies of Pittam et al. (2009) and Elander et al. (2010) provide evidence of

year of study effects with respect to aspects of authorial identity and approaches to writing

across a number of disciplines. However, neither study included accounting students in

their sample. To address this deficiency, the current study draws on the seminal work in

the area by Pittam et al. (2009) and Elander et al. (2010) and considers accounting stu-

dents’ perceptions of their authorial identity and approaches to writing, and the impli-

cations of these perceptions for unintentional plagiarism across three years of

undergraduate study. To that end the following hypotheses for testing are stated in the

null form:

H1: There is no significant difference in perceptions of authorial identity and approaches towriting between first and second-year undergraduate accounting students

H2: There is no significant difference in perceptions of authorial identity and approaches towriting between second and third-year undergraduate accounting students

Methodology

In order to address the objective of the research, a questionnaire was distributed to first,

second and third-year accounting undergraduates at a UK university. All of the students

present returned completed usable questionnaires to provide a 100% participation rate.

In total 217 responses were received. This comprised 81 responses from first-year students

(representing 62% of the total first-year population); 71 responses from second-year stu-

dents (representing 63% of the second-year population); and 65 responses from third-year

students (representing 65% of the third-year population). For all three years, statistical

tests were carried out to test for self-selection bias between students who were present

at the lecture where the questionnaire was distributed and those who were not. A chi-

square test was used to test the statistical significance of the difference in the discrete vari-

able (gender) between students who completed the questionnaire and those who did not.

The test revealed no significant difference (a ¼ 0.05) in each year.

The questionnaire used in the study consisted of two sections. Section one was struc-

tured to collect demographic information including gender, the country where pre-univer-

sity education had been obtained and students’ age. Section two consisted of 18 statements

eliciting perceptions of authorial identity and approaches to writing. (These 18 statements

are shown in Tables 2 and 3.) Ten of the statements (namely 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15 and

16) relate to authorial identity while the remaining eight statements (namely 7, 9, 10, 11,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

13, 14, 17 and 18) relate to students’ approaches to writing which have implications for

unintentional plagiarism. Together, the 18 statements form the SAQ developed by

Pittam et al. (2009). Examples of statements include:

. ‘I would never be accused of plagiarism’ (a positive authorial identity statement);

. ‘I just don’t have the time to put everything in my own words when writing an assign-

ment’ (a pragmatic approach to writing statement); and

. ‘I am afraid that what I write myself about accounting will look weak and unimpressive’

(a negative authorial identity statement).

Respondents were asked to register their agreement for statements 1-17 by choosing

from among five points on a Likert scale ranging from ‘Agree Strongly’ to ‘Disagree

Strongly’. The SAQ also contained an eighteenth statement which required students to

indicate the proportion of their written assignments that consisted of quotations or

materials taken directly from books, journals or the Internet using the following scale:

0–20%, 21–40%, 41–60%, 61–80% and 81–100%.

One of the researchers distributed the questionnaires to first, second and third-year

accounting students in their respective classes. The purpose of the questionnaire was

explained to the student groups and a reassurance given that students’ responses would

be used for research purposes only. Finally, anonymity was ensured to encourage honest

responses to a relatively sensitive subject. Approximately 20 minutes were allocated to

enable the students to complete the research instrument. Prior to distribution, ethical

approval for the study was obtained from the university’s research ethics committee.

In common with other UK accounting departments which wish to develop an ethos of

good authorial identity with the aim of eliminating unintentional plagiarism, the account-

ing students who are the focus of the current study are made aware of aspects of authorial

identity and plagiarism in a number of ways. First, the issue of plagiarism is addressed in

the students’ handbook which is provided to all incoming first-year accounting students at

registration. It should be noted that the handbook is retained, and remains relevant, for

accounting students during the completion of their three-year degree programme. The

handbook defines plagiarism as the presentation of the work of others as the writer’s

own without appropriate acknowledgement. This includes auto-plagiarism (to use excerpts

from your own previous work without appropriate acknowledgement) and self-plagiarism

(to submit one piece of work more than once, e.g. where such has been previously sub-

mitted for a different assignment). The students’ handbook also makes it clear that plagi-

arism is unprofessional and a totally unacceptable form of behaviour which the university

regards as a serious disciplinary offence. As a means of illustrating plagiarism, a number

of examples of its occurrence are provided, ranging from the use of someone else’s words

to the use of others’ ideas without adequate attribution. In addition to the above, the

students’ handbook also makes it clear that assessed work may be submitted to the

online plagiarism software checker Turnitin. Finally, the students’ handbook sets out

the procedures which academic staff are required to follow if plagiarism is detected.

These procedures are further reinforced by the university’s regulations on plagiarism.

Secondly, first-year students are required to attend a level-one (i.e. first-year) student

development programme. This programme requires the students to attend weekly workshop

sessions during the first semester of their first year. The programme is delivered by the

student support services department and aims to ease the transition which first-year students

are required to make from school to university. One particular focus of this programme is the

development of authorial identity including academic writing and appropriate referencing.

Additionally, the issue of plagiarism is discussed at some length as part of this programme.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Thirdly and finally, individual staff members who provide instruction during the first,

second and third years of the accounting degree reinforce aspects related to authorial iden-

tity when discussing the requirements of continuous assessment and examinations, insofar

as they require the application of academic writing. For example, the importance of devel-

oping one’s ideas and arguments first and then looking for academic sources to back this

up are discussed by teaching staff. Additionally, the issue of plagiarism, and its avoidance,

is regularly discussed in the context of continuous written assessment.

Data Analysis

Table 1 sets out the demographic information gathered from the respondents arranged by

year of study and divided into three panels, namely gender, education, and age. Table 1(a)

reveals that the split between male and female accounting students remains very even

across the three years. This is an encouraging statistic, providing evidence that accounting

is no longer the male-dominated profession it once was (see, for example, French and Mer-

edith, 1994). Table 1(b), entitled education, refers to the country where respondents

received the bulk of their pre-university education. It would appear that the vast majority

of the students surveyed received the bulk of their pre-university education in the British

Isles. Finally, Table 1(c) classifies the respondents’ age into two bands, namely 17–22

years and 23 years or above. The majority of respondents to the questionnaire are aged

17–22. In summary, reference to Table 1 reveals relative homogeneity with respect to

both education and age, and an even split between males and females.

Data pertaining to the first and second-year accounting students are compared and ana-

lysed separately from the data in respect of second and third-year students. Since all of the

data collected are on an ordinal scale of measurement, the Mann–Whitney U (M–W U)

test of significant difference was considered to be the most appropriate analytical tool for

testing for significance between each of the two groups of students (Siegel and Castellan,

1988). The mean responses of the 18 authorial identity and approaches to writing state-

ments for first and second-year students, together with the results of the M–W U test,

are set out on Table 2 while those for second and third-year students are set out on

Table 3.

Table 1. Student demographics

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

No. % No. % No. % No. %

(a) Gender

Male 41 51 35 49 32 49 108 49

Female 40 49 36 51 33 51 109 51

Total 81 100 71 100 65 100 217 100

(b) Education

British/Irish 77 95 70 99 65 100 212 97

Outside the British Isles 4 5 1 1 0 0 5 3

Total 81 100 71 100 65 100 217 100

(c) Age

17–22 years 79 98 70 99 63 97 212 97

23 years and above 2 2 1 1 2 3 5 3

Total 81 100 71 100 65 100 217 100


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 2. First and second-year accounting students’ responses to authorial identity and approaches to

writing statements

First-year a Second-year b

First & second-

years compared:

statistics corrected

for ties

Authorial identity and approaches

to writing statements

Mean

responsescMean

responsesc Z Sig. (P)

Authorial identity statements

1. I know what it means to be the author of a

piece of written work

4.07 4.46 –3.320 0.001f

2. I know what the responsibilities of an

author are

3.57 3.79 –1.188 0.235

3. I would never be accused of plagiarism 3.77 4.14 –2.249 0.025d

4. I know how to provide references for

citations and quotations in my written

work

3.86 3.90 –0.119 0.905

5. I enjoy writing in my own words 3.11 3.62 –2.554 0.011d

6. I find it difficult to express my subject

(i.e. accounting) in my own words

2.58 3.46 –4.569 0.000f

8. I know how to show which parts of my

assignments were not written by me

3.84 3.94 –0.719 0.472

12. I know what it means to express a

concept or idea in my own words

3.93 4.04 –1.042 0.297

15. I am confident that when I write

something about accounting it will look

impressive

2.91 3.27 –1.924 0.054

16. I am afraid that what I write myself

about accounting will look weak and

unimpressive

2.69 3.14 –2.646 0.008e

Approaches to writing statements

7. When writing an assignment I begin by

thinking about what I want to say, and

then look for evidence relating to that

3.62 3.79 –1.436 0.151

9. Writing an accounting assignment is all

about finding material in books, journals

and the Internet and arranging it in the

form of an essay

3.25 3.35 –0.435 0.663

10. I just don’t have time to put everything

in my own words when writing an

assignment

2.89 2.65 –1.595 0.111

11. I get better marks when I use more

material taken directly from books,

journals or the Internet in my

assignments

3.42 3.30 –0.781 0.435


looking for material I can include and

then think about how I can put it

together

3.75 3.99 –1.972 0.049d


about making an argument based on my

own thoughts about the subject

3.25 3.70 –2.957 0.003e

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reference to Table 2 provides encouragement with respect to the concept of authorial iden-

tity in that the mean responses for the positive statements which comprise the measure

(namely, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, and 15) are higher for second-year students than for first-year stu-

dents. This provides some evidence that second-year accounting students perceive themselves

to have greater authorial awareness than do their first-year counterparts. Notwithstanding

these positive findings, improvements could be made to aspects of authority identity. For

example, while the mean score reported with respect to both first and second-year students

for statement 15, namely ‘I am confident that when I write about accounting it will look

impressive’, is above average, there is obvious room for improvement given the importance

of developing students’ confidence in terms of writing about accounting at an early stage of

their studies. With respect to the M–W U test, significant differences are reported for the fol-

lowing positive authorial identity statements: statement 1, ‘I know what it means to be the

author of a piece of written work’ (a ¼ 0.001); statement 3, ‘I would be never be accused

of plagiarism’ (a ¼ 0.05); and statement 5, ‘I enjoy writing in my own words’ (a ¼ 0.05).

In all three cases, second-year students returned a significantly higher mean response than

did their first-year colleagues. These findings provide some evidence that students who are

more advanced in their studies have a greater awareness of their authorial identity. This

may reflect the nature of an accounting degree programme, wherein academic work at first-

year level tends to concentrate on the application of technical skills and knowledge

whereas second year requires a focus on more challenging written assignments, which will

generally require the application of greater authorial skills.

With respect to the two negatively phrased authorial identity statements (namely state-

ments 6 and 16), responses from both first and second-year students are disappointingly

high, namely above the average. These results clearly show room for improvement.

With respect to significance testing, significant differences were found between first and

second-year students for both statements. It would appear that second-year students find

it more difficult to express accounting in their own words (statement 6) (a ¼ 0) and are

more anxious that what they write about accounting will look weak and unimpressive

(statement 16) (a ¼ 0.01) than is the case among first-year students. While, prima

Table 2. Continued

First-year a Second-year b

First & second-

years compared:


for ties



Mean

responsescMean


17. I get higher marks by writing more of

my assignments in my own words

2.79 3.23 –2.748 0.006e

18. What proportion of your written

assignments would consist of

quotations or materials taken directly

from a book, journal of the Internet?

2.23 4.03 –8.407 0.000f

an ¼ 81.bn ¼ 71.c(5 ¼ strongly agree through to 1¼ strongly disagree);dSignificant at the 0.05 level.eSignificant at the 0.01 level.fSignificant at the 0.001 level


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 3. Second and third-year accounting students’ responses to authorial identity and approaches to

writing statements

Second-year a Third-year b

Second & third-

years compared:


for ties



Mean

responsesc

Mean


Authorial identity statements

1. I know what it means to be the author of a

piece of written work

4.46 4.14 –2.590 0.010d

2. I know what the responsibilities of an

author are

3.79 3.86 –0.622 0.534

3. I would never be accused of plagiarism 4.14 4.14 –0.132 0.895

4. I know how to provide references for

citations and quotations in my written

work

3.90 4.17 –1.640 0.101

5. I enjoy writing in my own words 3.62 3.88 –1.554 0.120

6. I find it difficult to express my subject (i.e.

accounting) in my own words

3.46 2.72 –3.789 0.000e

8. I know how to show which parts of my

assignments were not written by me

3.94 4.02 –0.874 0.382

12. I know what it means to express a concept

or idea in my own words

4.04 4.03 –0.114 0.909

15. I am confident that when I write something

about accounting it will look impressive

3.27 3.23 –0.114 0.909

16. I am afraid that what I write myself about

accounting will look weak and

unimpressive

3.14 3.06 –0.383 0.702

Approach to writing statements


thinking about what I want to say, and

then look for evidence relating to that

3.79 3.82 –0.096 0.924


about finding material in books, journals

and the Internet and arranging it in the

form of an essay

3.35 3.25 –0.547 0.584

10. I just don’t have time to put everything in

my own words when writing an

assignment

2.65 2.57 –0.458 0.647

11. I get better marks when I use more

material taken directly from books,

journals or the Internet in my assignments

3.30 3.37 –0.390 0.696


looking for material I can include and then

think about how I can put it together

3.99 3.91 –0.764 0.445


about making an argument based on my

own thoughts about the subject

3.70 3.74 –0.385 0.700

17. I get higher marks by writing more of my

assignments in my own words

3.23 3.38 –1.078 0.281

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

facie, these findings appear to contradict the more positive findings for second-years

reported for statements 1, 3 and 5 above, it could be explained by the fact that second-

year students are, to some extent, feeling the pressure of having moved away from first-

year accounting which mainly focuses on the accurate reproduction of facts to the

second-year syllabus which involves managing more conceptually challenging academic

accounting material. Furthermore, it may also reflect the fact that second-years are feeling

greater examination pressure insofar as their studies contribute 30% to their overall degree

classification whereas the first-year contribution is substantially less at 10%.

Table 2 also provides second and third-year accounting students’ mean scores for the

approaches to writing statements (namely, 7, 9. 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18). Drawing on

Pittam et al.’s (2009) study, statements 7 and 14 reflect a top-down approach to

writing, while statements 9 and 13 represent a bottom-up approach to writing. The remain-

ing statements (i.e. 10, 11, 17 and 18) represent a pragmatic approach to writing. Pittam

et al. (2009) suggest that higher scores for the top-down approach to writing statements

(i.e. 7 and 14) indicate greater authorial identity. For both of these statements second-

year students return a higher mean than do their first-year counterparts. However, the

difference is only significant for statement 14, ‘Writing an accounting assignment is all

about making an argument based on my own thoughts about the subject’ (a ¼ 0.01).

This provides encouraging evidence that second-year accounting students would appear

to be more confident in making an argument about accounting which is based on their

own thoughts than is the case among first-year students. The mean responses to the state-

ments making up the bottom-up (9 and 13) and pragmatic (10, 11, 17 and 18) approaches

to writing, identified by Pittam et al. (2009), are also outlined in Table 2. Pittam et al.

(2009) argue that higher scores in respect of both of these approaches represent less

authorial responses. While both statements making up the bottom-up approach to

writing return a higher mean score for second-year students, the difference is significant

only in the case of statement 13, ‘When writing an assignment I begin by looking for

material I can include and then think about how I can put it together’ (a ¼ 0.05). This

result is disappointing given that Pittam et al. (2009) suggest that a bottom-up approach

may be related to a surface approach to learning. (For a discussion of approaches to learn-

ing, see English, Luckett and Mladenovic, 2004; Ballantine, Duff and McCourt Larres,

Table 3. Continued

Second-year a Third-year b

Second & third-

years compared:


for ties



Mean

responsescMean


18. What proportion of your written

assignments would consist of quotations

or materials taken directly from a book,

journal of the Internet?

4.03 3.81 –1.626 0.104

an ¼ 71.bn ¼ 65.c(5 ¼ strongly agree through to 1 ¼ strongly disagree).dSignificant at the 0.01 level.eSignificant at the 0.001 level.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

2009). With respect to the pragmatic approach to writing statements, mixed results are

evident. On the one hand, second-year students return lower, albeit not significant,

mean responses for statements 10 and 11, while on the other hand, they return significantly

higher mean responses for the remaining two pragmatic approaches to writing statements

(i.e. 17 and 18). With respect to statement 17, ‘I get higher marks by writing more of my

assignments in my own words’ (a ¼ 0.01), the significantly higher mean reported for

second-year accounting students is encouraging. The significant finding with respect to

statement 18, ‘What proportion of your written assignments would consist of quotations

or materials taken directly from a book, journal or the internet’ (a ¼ 0) is, however, dis-

appointing since it would seem to indicate that second-year accounting students are enga-

ging in what might be considered an inappropriate approach to writing which is indicative

of a strategic approach to learning (Pittam et al., 2009).

The results of the hypothesis testing presented above for H1, namely that ‘there is no

significant difference in perceptions of authorial identity and approaches to writing

between first and second-year undergraduate accounting students’, indicate significance

in respect of five of the ten authorial identity statements and four of the eight approaches

to writing statements. However, given the inclusive nature of these results, H1 cannot be

rejected overall.

Table 3 presents a comparison of second and third-year students’ responses to the

authorial identity and approaches to writing statements together with the results of the

M–W U test which was employed to test the hypothesis H2: that there is no significant

difference in perceptions of authorial identity and approaches to writing between

second and third-year undergraduate accounting students. With respect to the positively

phrased authorial identity statements shown in Table 3 (namely, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 and

15), no overall pattern emerges when second and third-years are compared. In terms of

significance testing, only one statement, namely statement 1, reports a significance differ-

ence. It would appear that second-year students perceive that they have greater authorial

awareness with respect to knowing ‘what it means to be the author of a piece of written

work’ (a ¼ 0.01). In terms of the two negatively phrased authorial identity statements

(namely 6 and 16), a significant difference was found in respect of statement 6 only (a

¼0.000). Therefore, it would appear that second-year accounting students find it signifi-

cantly more difficult to express accounting in their own words when compared to third-

year accounting students. This finding suggests that the additional year’s experience

which third-year students have acquired appears to have made a significant difference

to their ability to express accounting in their own words.

Table 3 also reports the mean responses to the approaches to writing statements for both

second and third-year accounting students. The results of the significance testing reveal no

significant differences between second and third-year students for the top-down, bottom-

up or pragmatic approaches to writing statements. This would suggest that accounting stu-

dents’ approaches to writing do not differ between their second and third years of study

and that, therefore, their approaches to writing have become relatively fixed during the

second year. Overall, given the lack of significance found in the present study, the null

hypothesis H2 of no significant difference in perceptions of authorial identity and

approaches to writing between second and third-year undergraduate accounting students

cannot be rejected overall.

Conclusion and Discussion

The findings of the current study suggest that undergraduate accounting students, across

three years of study, have reasonably positive perceptions of their authorial identity as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

evidenced by the mean scores returned for the eight positively phrased authorial identity

statements. This finding is encouraging from two perspectives. First, it bodes well for the

students in question with respect to their authorship during their academic careers in that it

would appear that their experience of academic writing has helped develop an ethos of

good authorial identity with the aim of eliminating unintentional plagiarism. To this

end, it is hoped that their perceptions reported in the study translate into actual positive

behaviour with respect to authorship and the avoidance of unintentional plagiarism.

Secondly, since classroom behaviour is likely to reflect future behaviour in the workplace

(Swift and Nonis, 1998), these findings are also encouraging in terms of authoring work in

a business context. Nonetheless, despite the reasonably positive nature of these percep-

tions, there is scope for improvement. For example, a lack of confidence among account-

ing students in achieving impressive academic writing suggests there is still work for

accounting educators to do in this regard. Improvements in perceptions of authorial iden-

tity might be achieved by adopting a more structured approach such as that outlined by

Elander et al. (2010). Such an approach might include greater exposure across time to

alternative academic writing styles and the implications of these for various forms of pla-

giarism, both intentional and unintentional. Additionally, more ongoing instruction in

authorial identity might be provided beyond the provision in the current study which

focuses primarily on semester one, year one. These interventions should be specifically

designed to improve authorial identity and a greater awareness of unintentional plagiarism.

Significance differences were also found between first and second-years in respect of

the positively worded authorial identity statements. It would appear that second-year stu-

dents have better authorial awareness than do first-years with respect to knowing what it

means to be an author, never being accused of plagiarism, and enjoying writing in their

own words. Since formal instruction in authorial identity in the current study does not

extend beyond first-year accounting, this would suggest that the significant increase in

second-year students’ perceptions of their authorial identity may be influenced by

greater experience of engaging in more critical, independent and reflective academic

writing and informal guidance provided by their respective tutors. However, with the

exception of one statement (i.e. I know what it means to be the author of a piece of

written work’), a lack of significance was found between second and third-year account-

ing students’ perceptions of authorial identity. The lack of significance found between

second and third-year students would seem to suggest that, by the time accounting stu-

dents complete their second year of study, their attitudes to authorial identity are rela-

tively fixed and do not change significantly during their third and final year of study.

A possible implication of this finding is that instruction regarding authorial identity is

unlikely to have a significant impact beyond the second year on an accounting degree

programme. Given that the structure of most accounting degree programmes is

similar to the one explored in the current study, namely that the first year concentrates

more on the development of technical skills and the reproduction of facts whereas the

second and third years focus on the development of more conceptually challenging aca-

demic accounting material, it is anticipated that the findings reported here may be useful

to accounting educators seeking to improve authorial identity and thereby reduce unin-

tentional plagiarism.

With respect to the two negatively phrased authorial statements, the findings suggest that

second-year accounting students find it significantly more difficult to express accounting in

their own words when compared to both first and third-year students. In addition, second-

year students are significantly more afraid that what they write themselves about accounting

will look weak and unimpressive when compared to their first-year counterparts. This may

reflect the fact that the increase in complexity between first and second-year accounting


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

syllabi is greater than the corresponding increase in complexity between second and third-

year accounting syllabi. This would suggest that, by the time students have reached their

third year, they should be much more comfortable with the academic aspects of accounting

which were emphasized for the first time in second year. Overall, this reinforces the earlier

suggestion to accounting educators that instruction regarding authorial identity is unlikely to

have a significant impact beyond the second year. This second-year instruction should, in

particular, address ways to enhance students’ ability to express accounting in their own

words and develop confidence when writing about accounting. It is anticipated that the

increased confidence and improvement in articulation about accounting which students

may derive from such instruction would follow into their third and final year of studies.

The students’ approaches to writing reported in the current study are somewhat mixed.

The absolute mean value scores returned for statements making up the top-down

approach to writing are encouraging across all three years in that Pittam et al. (2009)

suggest this approach may be related to a deep approach to learning. Alternatively, the

equivalent mean value scores returned for statements making up the pragmatic and

bottom-up approaches to writing are disappointing in that accounting students across

all three years appear to be adopting aspects of approaches to writing which Pittam

et al. (2009) argue may be related to strategic (i.e. pragmatic) and surface (i.e. bottom-

up) approaches to learning. For example, second and third-year students, in particular,

appear to use a significant proportion of quotations and/or other materials taken from

various sources when preparing their own assignments. This practice, however, may

lend itself to the occurrence of unintentional plagiarism. With regard to approaches to

writing for the present study, significant differences were found only with respect to

first and second-year students for aspects of all three approaches to writing. The

finding of no significant difference between second and third-years would suggest that

accounting students’ approaches to writing become somewhat fixed in their second

year. Overall, the findings with respect to approaches to writing suggest that authorial

identity instruction in second year should aim to increase students’ awareness of

approaches to writing and how the bottom-up and pragmatic approaches in particular

might lead to unintentional plagiarism.

To conclude, the current study makes a valuable contribution to accounting education in

that it is the first of its kind to address the issue of authorial identity in the context of

accounting. In so doing it provides original insights into first, second and third-year

accounting undergraduate students’ perceptions of authorial identity in a UK university,

and the implications of these for unintentional plagiarism. Whilst the current study

reports some similarities to those of Pittam et al. (2009) in terms of year of study

effects, comparisons beyond this are limited for two reasons. First, Pittam et al. (2009)

surveyed students in disciplines other than accounting and secondly, they report their find-

ings in the context of an exploratory factor analysis, the results of which are not directly

comparable with the analysis reported in the current article.

It is anticipated that the findings of the current study will encourage accounting educa-

tors in other institutions to recognize the significance of authorial identity and approaches

to writing and how this impacts on unintentional plagiarism. Since nothing has been

written to date about unintentional plagiarism in an accounting context, further research

is required to develop the concept of authorial identity. For example, using accounting

data, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) could be applied to verify the factor structure

reported by Pittam et al. (2009) in their seminal article. Additionally, following Elander

et al. (2010), future work, using the SAQ, could test the effectiveness of interventions

designed to enhance accounting students’ authorial identity.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to acknowledge the very constructive and extremely helpful comments

received from an anonymous reviewer in the preparation of this paper.

References

Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N. and Graves, B. (2006) Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the

complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school, Journal of Second Language

Writing, 15(2), pp. 102–117.

Abdolmohammadi, M. J. and Baker, C. R. (2007) The relationship between moral reasoning and plagiarism in

accounting courses: a replication study, Issues in Accounting Education, 22(1), pp. 45–55.

Allmon, D. E., Page, D. and Robert, R. (2000) Determinants of perceptions of cheating: ethical orientation, per-

sonality and demographics, Journal of Business Ethics, 23(4), pp. 411–422.

Ashworth, P., Bannister, P. and Thorne, P. (1997) Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of

cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment, Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 187–203.

Ballantine, J. A., Duff, A. and McCourt Larres, P. (2009) Accounting and business students’ approaches to learn-

ing: a longitudinal study, Journal of Accounting Education, 26(4), pp. 188–201.

Bennett, R. (2005) Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university, Assessment and Evalu-

ation in Higher Education, 30(2), pp. 137–167.

Bowers, W. (1964) Student Dishonesty and its Control in College (New York, NY, Bureau of Applied Social

Research, Columbia University).

Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Williams, L. E., Francis, B. and Haines, V. J. (1996) College cheat-

ing: ten years later, Research in Higher Education, 37(4), pp. 487–502.

Elander, J., Pittam, G., Lusher, J., Fox, P. and Payne, N. (2010) Evaluation of an intervention to help students

avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity, Assessment and Evaluation in

Higher Education, 35(2), pp. 157–171.

English, L., Luckett, P. and Mladenovic, R. (2004) Encouraging a deep approach to learning through curriculum

design, Accounting Education: an international journal, 13(4), pp. 461–488.

Franklyn-Stokes, A. and Newstead, S. E. (1995) Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why? Studies in

Higher Education, 20(2), pp. 159–172.

French, S. and Meredith, V. (1994) Women in public accounting: growth and advancement, Critical Perspectives

in Accounting, 5(3), pp. 227–241.

Gullifer, J. and Tyson, G. (2010) Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: a focus group study,

Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), pp. 463–481.

Guo, X. (2011) Understanding student plagiarism: an empirical study in accounting education, Accounting

Education: an international journal, 20(1), pp. 17–37.

Kidwell, L. A. and Kent, J. (2008) Integrity at a distance: a study of academic misconduct among university

students on and off campus, Accounting Education: an international journal, 17(1), pp. 3–16.

Kinder, J. and Elander, J. (forthcoming) Dyslexia, authorial identity, and approaches to learning and writing: a

mixed methods study, British Journal of Educational Psychology.

McCabe, D. L. and Bowers, W. J. (1994) Academic dishonesty among males in college: a thirty year perspective,

Journal of College Student Development, 35(1), pp. 5–10.

McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K. (1993) Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other contextual influences,

Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), pp. 522–538.

McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K. (1997) Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: a multi-

campus investigation, Research in Higher Education, 38(3), pp. 379–396.

McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K. (2002) Honesty and honor codes, Academe, 88(1), pp. 37–41.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K. and Butterfield, K. D. (2001) Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of

research, Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), pp. 219–232.

McGowan, S. and Lightbody, M. (2008) Enhancing students’ understanding of plagiarism within a discipline

context, Accounting Education: an international journal, 17(3), pp. 273–290.

McLafferty, C. L. and Foust, K. M. (2004) Electronic plagiarism as a college instructor’s nightmare—prevention

and detection, Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), pp. 186–189.

Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A. and Armstead, P. (1996) Individual differences in student cheating, Journal

of Educational Psychology, 88(2), pp. 229–241.

Park, C. (2003) In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students—literature and lessons, Assessment

and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), pp. 471–488.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P. and Payne, N. (2009) Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial

identity in academic writing, Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), pp. 153–170.

Roig, M. (1997) Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarised? Psychological Record,

47(1), pp. 113–122.

Salter, S. B., Guffey, D. M. and McMillan, J. J. (2001) Truth, consequences and culture: a comparative examin-

ation of cheating and attitudes about cheating among US and UK students, Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1),

pp. 37–50.

Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn (New York:

McGraw-Hill).

Simkin, M. and McLeod, A. (2010) Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3),

pp. 441–453.

Swift, C. O. and Nonis, S. (1998) When no one is watching: cheating behaviors on projects and assignments,

Marketing Education Review, 8(2), pp. 27–36.

Tonge, R. and Willett, C. (2009) Learning to think: using coursework to develop higher-order academic and prac-

titioner skills among final year accounting students, Accounting Education: an international journal, 18(2),

pp. 207–226.

Valentine, K. (2006) Plagiarism as literacy practice: recognising and rethinking ethical barriers, College

Composition and Communication, 58(1), pp. 89–109.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing among Undergraduate Accounting Students: Implications for Unintentional Plagiarism