Plagiarism: The ethical power and place of the teacher · Plagiarism: The ethical power and place of the teacher Josephine Ellis AUT University Josephine Ellis is a senior lecturer

ANZCA08 Conference, Power and Place. Wellington, July 2008

ANZCA08: Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings: http://anzca08.massey.ac.nz 1

Plagiarism: The ethical power and place of the teacher Josephine Ellis AUT University Josephine Ellis is a senior lecturer in the School of Communication Studies at AUT University. Her teaching and research interests are in academic and professional writing, ethics, applications of technology, interpersonal and intercultural communication. She has co-authored two communication text books. [email protected]

Abstract

Despite the introduction of electronic detection software in most universities, plagiarism remains a widespread problem. Complex contextual factors influence student plagiarism behaviours, and while the forbidden and unethical nature of intentional forms of this misconduct by students is almost universally accepted, the rule-based and ethical responsibilities for teachers have received less attention. This paper looks at the theoretical and practical origins and directions of this responsibility, the published documents available to lecturers and students at New Zealand universities and selected polytechnics, and how the term “ethical responsibility” might be operationalised in the area of plagiarism, such that this responsibility is shifted from aspirational concept to effective action. The ethical models involved in plagiarism differ for students and teachers, since the teacher is not the central person in the act. However any “sins of omission” on the part of the teacher who fails to take proactive steps to prevent plagiarism, or takes no action when cases are identified, place the teacher in the same arena of unethical behaviour as the student who achieves this through his/her “sins of commission” of plagiarism. Lack of action for good can be just as unethical as action for harm. New Zealand tertiary organisations all publish rules on student plagiarism, but the documentation on staff responsibilities is variable, ranging from the aspirational to the specific. Honour codes for students and professional codes of conduct for teachers can promote positive behaviour, but are not solutions on their own. Despite the irksome or time-consuming nature of some of the responsibilities, teachers owe a professional and ethical duty to their students, their organisations, their community and themselves to act as ethical role models, and take action to prevent, identify and/or penalise plagiarism.

Introduction

Plagiarism in its multiplicity of forms is a continuing unpleasant presence in

academia, despite the recent introduction of various electronic detection mechanisms.

The large survey (71,071 undergraduates, 11,279 graduates, 12,316 faculty and 1,747

teaching assistants) carried out in the US and Canada from 2002 to 2005 by the Duke

University Center for Academic Integrity showed disturbingly high levels of a variety



of dishonest behaviours (McCabe, 2005). An Australian study (Sheard, Dick,

Markham, Macdonald & Walsh, 2002) found a high incidence of lower-end cheating,

with a lesser but still problematic number of higher-end transgressions. In reviewing

the incidence and treatment of plagiarism in the United Kingdom, Larkham and

Manns (2002) note the problems of obtaining information from universities concerned

about privacy and possibly reputation. However it is evident that the cut-and-paste

facilities of word-processing programs combined with the ubiquity of the internet and

on-line journals have substantially increased the opportunity for and incidence of

plagiarism (Bennett, 2005; Chandrasoma, Thompson & Pennycook, 2004) while

paradoxically the internet-based service of the Turnitin® program reports that it has

contributed to a reduced incidence of plagiarism (iParadigms, LLC, 2006), although

this claim relates only to electronically traceable material. While there is disagreement

in the literature about definitions, precise incidence, and research methodologies,

there is consensus that plagiarism is widespread.

The forbidden and unethical nature of plagiarism from the student perspective is

almost universally accepted, however the ethical position and responsibilities of the

teacher1 are also of critical importance, although receiving less attention in the

literature. While the general nature of this ethical responsibility might be readily

acknowledged, this paper investigates in more particular detail the theoretical and

practical origins and directions of this responsibility, the published documents

available to lecturers and students at New Zealand universities and selected

polytechnics, and how the term “ethical responsibility” might be operationalised in

the area of plagiarism, such that this responsibility is shifted from aspirational concept

to effective action. As professionals it is appropriate that we examine not only the

higher ideals of our ethical principles but also the sometimes irksome practical ways

that these principles need to be manifested.

In addressing such a wide-reaching topic, it is necessary to note some limitations. The

major focus of this paper is the tertiary academic environment, while acknowledging

1 The term “teacher” is used to cover all those who teach in the tertiary environment, including but not limited to professors, lecturers and tutors.



that other areas such as business face significant ethical issues (Ethics Resource

Center, 2007). The ethical case is presented in general terms, since a full ethical

analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. The practical focus of the study has been

limited to New Zealand; specifically the eight universities and three largest

polytechnics.

To plagiarise is defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (1995) as to “take

and use (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc. of another person) as one’s own; pass

off the thoughts etc. of (another person) as one’s own (p.1043). Most academic

organisations in New Zealand use a virtually identical definition, and while academics

may almost universally lay claim to authorial rights, the legal view can be more

complex. In 1938 the United States Law Review (Schweitzer, p.439) reiterated the US

legal position that although patent laws protected ideas applied to mechanical devices

or processes, and copyright protected ideas expressed in a particular format, “Ideas in

the abstract, however, have consistently been denied the status of a property right,

regardless of their originality.” Since ideas are not legally regarded as property, they

cannot therefore be subject to theft - although plagiarism is derived from the Latin

word plagium, meaning stealing a slave or child (Green, 2002). Until a concept is

converted to a tangible form, legal protection cannot be sought. This apparent

limitation has four partial explanations:

• Authors may not claim legal “ownership” of ideas, but they expect attribution

(Green, 2002).

• Legal and ethical judgements are not always synonymous.

• Students and academic writers are part of a community whose rules may lack legal

power, but may still exert normative power.

• Most academic organisations have policies and regulations by which staff and

students must abide, regardless of whether the rule is a categorical or hypothetical

imperative.

This US model is not universal however, as Green (2002, p.206) notes that in Europe

and other countries, a “doctrine of moral rights is well established”, particularly as

related to an author’s right of attribution. While the World Intellectual Property



Organization’s Berne Convention (1979) with 163 current signatories does refer in

many places to authors’ “rights” and “protection”, this is qualified by Article 6bis ,

Item (3) which states “The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted by

this Article shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is

claimed.” Osen (1997) also notes that the restrictions imposed by the Berne

Convention can limit creativity and some scholarly pursuits.

Apart from the legal versus ethical position of plagiarism, the term also encompasses

a scale of offences of varying magnitude, the perception of the severity of which

could also be said to be culturally grounded (Larkham & Manns, 2002). “Minor”

plagiarism might begin with small, possibly unintentional, errors of referencing or

paraphrasing (Standler, 2000), through collaboration with another student on an

individual assignment (Sheard et al., 2002) across a continuum to more “major” forms

of plagiarism such as the use of an entire work of someone else (Bennett, 2005) or

paying someone else to take an examination for you (Sheard et al., 2002).

These concepts of authorship and plagiarism raise a complex range of contextual and

cultural issues (Park, 2003; Valentine, 2006). Valentine (p.90) proposes that

“plagiarism involves social relationships, attitudes and values as much as it involves

texts and rules of citation”, and that the issue should not be seen as a “binary of honest

and dishonest” since there is a multi-layered interplay of the requirements of a

particular academic discourse; students negotiating an identity within this discourse;

intentional or unintentional behaviour; culture-based models of “work” and its value;

and academics’ judgements on behaviours which they describe as plagiarism. She

suggests (p.106) that students’ citation and referencing instruction should be

accompanied by an explication of how and why the academic context demands

specific behaviours, so that plagiarism and citation are seen as literacy “practices

rather than as skills that result from rule following and the stable and singular identity

of an honest person.” Pennycook (1996) describes experiences in China and Hong

Kong where students were proud of the ability to memorise and reproduce texts, an

action viewed as plagiarism by Western academics, and probes the shifting ground of

“how Western views on textual ownership have developed” (p.204). While Plato and



Shakespeare built on earlier works without attribution, the 17th and 18th centuries saw

the development of the role of the author as individual, a position now often viewed

as a moral absolute; the post-modernist Foucauldian view of the untenability of the

author’s position has not yet taken root in academia. The multi-cultural classroom

may therefore contain students enculturated with varying views of the ethics of

reproducing the words or ideas of others. Liu (2005) however challenges the position

that views on plagiarism are culture-specific, and that copying the work of others is

acceptable academic behaviour in China or other Asian countries, citing his own

university education in China during which time he was clearly instructed that

plagiarism was unacceptable, and Chinese composition textbooks containing the same

viewpoint.

Howard (1992) and Chandrasoma et al. (2004) have also challenged the prevailing

plagiarism definitions and paradigms. Howard proposes that many practices judged to

be plagiarism and penalised accordingly should instead be viewed as transitional

composition strategies. For example the “patchwriting” (p.234) process in which

students use the basic structure of an original piece, then make varying levels of

vocabulary, grammar or syntax changes, she interprets as being a developmental stage

of summary writing, “a preliminary way of participating in unfamiliar discourse”

(p.239), rather than an intentionally dishonest act. Chandrasoma et al. (2004, p.171)

suggest that plagiarism should be reframed “in terms of transgressive and

nontransgressive intertextuality”. In similar vein to Valentine (2006) and Bennett

(2005), they see plagiarism as deriving from many personal, contextual and

developmental factors. Howard’s “patchwriting” thus falls into the nontransgressive

category since its motivation derives more from a lack of confidence in the personal

voice when confronted with the language and conventions of unfamiliar academic

discourse than from a desire to deceive. Indeed, motivation is the first of 10 criteria

that Chandrasoma et al. (2004, p.189) suggest be applied to cases of possible

transgressive intertextuality: “intentionality, development, identity, resistance, student

epistemologies, common knowledge, mediated discourse, interdisciplinarity,

variability, and task type”.



The discourse of plagiarism therefore, in common with most ethical issues, does not

present an unambiguous picture of blame or guilt, right or wrong. Teachers inhabit an

environment which in practical terms regards plagiarism as a sub-set of the broader

offence of academic dishonesty, both of which acts can be described as threats to

academic integrity. While debate progresses on the nature of plagiarism, teachers

must continue to balance an understanding of these philosophical challenges, with the

practical demands of the classroom and their organisations.

Plagiarism, Ethics and Students

While this paper focuses on the ethical responsibilities of the teacher, it is important

also to identify the influences that contribute to the presence or absence of student

plagiarism, since the teacher’s attitudes and behaviours (see Figure 1) are one of the

direct influences on the student’s predisposition to, or the subsequent control of

plagiarism, and the one with the most immediate connection with the student’s

“classroom experience”. If one accepts the unethical nature of the student’s behaviour,

on the basis of the teacher’s causative influence, he/she would also appear to be

ethically accountable.

Granitz and Loewy (2007) have investigated the ethical reasoning behind students’

justification of their plagiarism behaviours: “deontology, utilitarianism, rational self-

interest, Machiavellianism, cultural relativism, or situational ethics” (p.293). The

rankings (p.299) show that deontology ranked highest at 41.8 percent; for these

students, while the abstract concept of plagiarism is acknowledged to be wrong, they

did not acknowledge that their own specific behaviours constituted plagiarism.

Ashworth and Bannister (1997) had commented on similar perceptual differences

between academic institutions and students, and Valentine (2006) notes the

complication of a culturally-determined discourse of plagiarism ethics. The

implication of this for teachers is the imperative for providing culturally-informed,

pedagogically-sound instruction. The 18.4 percent ranking for Machiavellianism -

doing whatever one can get away with for personal benefit - indicates that despite the

distaste of some, policing methods are necessary, while the 19.9 percent situational



ethics ranking shows that students need assistance in dealing with the external

influences used to rationalise their plagiarism. The authors also note the important

effect of teachers modelling ethical behaviour. Townley and Parsell (2004) comment

that despite practical obstacles, building students’ awareness of academic community

and its concomitant responsibilities is the most effective way of promoting ethical

behaviour.

Organisation’s principles,

rules & “publicity”

Student’s

principles &

pressures

Teacher’s principles,

prevention and

detection strategies,

& response actions

Student

Plagiarism

Student’s culture

and family principles

& practices

Future professional

aspirations

Ambient society’s

principles & practices

Figure 1. Some factors influencing student plagiarism.

Honour codes have shown some effect on reducing academic dishonesty in US

colleges (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 1999, 2002; McCabe, 2000; Scanlan,

2006; Whitaker, 2007). These codes range from student-centred traditional forms such



as those practised at some private colleges, to modified shared responsibility systems

such as those at Kansas State University (2007) and the University of North Carolina

at Greensboro (2000; Dodd, 2007). Students in these studies comment that it is the

presence of the code rather than its policing processes which has the most influence

on their behaviour. Interestingly, the codes have been shown to be effective not only

in selective private universities, but also in large public colleges (McCabe, 2000).

Plagiarism, Ethics and Teachers

McCabe (2005) reports on a study of 83 campuses in the US and Canada from 2002-

2005 involving over 14,000 staff in which 41 percent acknowledged that they had in

some cases ignored cases of plagiarism, citing the effort and burden of proof required

in confronting offenders. This then is the reality of the ethical challenge faced by

teachers.

Teachers, due to their heterogeneity, cannot be assigned to any one ethical belief

category; however their professional role demands a base level of general

responsibilities, overlaid by varying personal and/or organisational codes. Abbott

(1983) proposes that professional ethics may be viewed from various viewpoints:

imperative functionalist (necessary because of the danger of uncontrolled expertise);

monopolist (designed to exclude others); or as a means of conferring status. Terhart

(1998) notes the possible tension between the autonomy and presumed

trustworthiness of the teacher, and the imposition of a code of conduct. Whether

professional ethics are viewed as a selfish exclusionary monopolistic mechanism, or

an altruistic means of ensuring safe practice, virtually all professions do operate by

such codes, whether formal or informal. As Campbell (2000) says, “increased

awareness of the ethical dimensions and responsibilities of teaching is essential for

both enhanced professionalism and, more significantly, improved practice” (p.203).

The responsibility of teachers for their students has been long debated. The Greek

sophist Gorgias argued that teachers could not be held responsible for their students,

regarding the role of the teacher as morally neutral, a position further interrogated by



Plato (Murray, 2001). The Hippocratic Oath highlighted the ethical connection of

student to teacher, then of that student in the subsequent role of teacher himself

(Campbell, Gillett & Jones, 1992). In modern times, Snook (2003) in The ethical

teacher comments that “Teaching is an activity in which ethical issues are

central…….Teaching, then, involves ethics in its aims, its methods and its

relationships.” (p.13)

The promotion of ethical behaviour through a “Code of Ethics” is problematic, since

many such codes are aspirational rather than regulatory; primary and secondary

teachers registered in New Zealand operate under the New Zealand Teachers Council

Code of Ethics (2003), and it is the registration requirement that gives “teeth” to this

code. Tertiary teachers have no such registration requirement, and also no general

code of ethics, though some may be covered by the Association of Staff in Tertiary

Education (ASTE) Code of Ethics (n.d.), an “aspirational” (p.33) document.

Professional organisations to which some teachers belong espouse codes of ethics,

e.g. Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (n.d.), Engineering Printing and

Manufacturing Union’s Journalists’ Code of Ethics (n.d.), and New Zealand

Communication Association (2007). The construction and acceptance of a unified

tertiary teacher ethics code would be a major task in the current fragmented

educational environment and in the absence of compulsory registration. Ethical

imperatives for tertiary teachers in the interim may need to operate more at the

personal level, which is perhaps the truly important level. While codes of ethics might

be criticised as being either too bland and meaningless, or too controlling and

bureaucratic (Campbell, 2000; Terhart, 1998), ethical behaviour itself seems beyond

reproach; the challenge that has exercised the minds from Plato to Augustine to

Sartre, is to delineate this.

The ethical models operating around the actions of plagiarism differ for students and

teachers. As previously discussed, students who practise plagiarism apply various

ethical models to explain their actions, demonstrating beliefs ranging from not seeing

their actions as wrong (deontological), through rationalisation of their actions

(situational), to knowing they are doing wrong but hoping to escape detection



(Machiavellian) (Granitz & Loewy, 2007). For teachers, however, the ethical model/s

must operate at different loci of the plagiarism act; teachers are not the ones

committing the central act, but rather operate in the first instance at the education,

prevention, detection and/or consequences levels, then also at a broader stakeholder

level. This could also be viewed as the difference between a “sin of commission” in

the student’s case (doing something wrong, e.g. plagiarism), as opposed to a “sin of

omission” for the teacher (not doing something good, e.g. not taking action against

plagiarism). It is perhaps an intuitive response that not acting could not be as seriously

wrong as a specific act of doing, indeed Thomas Aquinas did suggest that in general

the leaving out of good is not as serious as the taking up of evil, however there is still

guilt measured by “the dignity of the virtue and the magnitude of the precept to which

the omission is opposed as well as the amount of deliberation” (Delany, 1911, ¶ 1).

Edmund Burke’s oft-quoted - though possibly apocryphal2 (Knowles, 1999) - “All

that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” reinforces this

judgement.

As depicted in Figure 1, plagiarism occurs within a social context in which the teacher

holds a position of power and influence. Folger and Cropanzano’s (2001) “Fairness

Theory” (Figure 2) provides a useful model for analysing this accountability.

2 According to the Knowles-edited (1999) Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, this quotation is attributed to Burke by many sources, but it cannot be located in his writings.



Figure 2. Fairness Theory Model of Accountability (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001,

p.4.)

States of well-being

The implication of the actions associated with plagiarism for the well-being of others

is quite extensive. To ignore plagiarism harms the student involved by contributing to

his/her participation in an act with serious external penalties, and possible personal,

moral, intellectual and professional consequences. Other students are harmed by an

unfair shift in their relative performance ranking, and by the temptation to commit the

same offence if it is observed to go unpunished (e.g. Chandrasoma et al., 2004,

States of Well-being

Refers to the implications of actions for the well-being of others.

Principles

Refers to the ethical standards or tenets used to evaluate the morality of certain actions

Conduct

Refers to the commission or omission of discretionary action capable of affecting others



p.185). The organisation is harmed by the devaluing of its reputation and hence the

credentials it awards. There is also a fundamental breakdown in the purpose of

assessment which is to determine students’ knowledge and understanding. The wider

community of stakeholders also depends on educational organisations to provide their

stated services and products in the form of quality education and valid credentials.

Professions such as medicine, law and business expect that ethical behaviour is

reinforced for their students (Hall & Bernadino, 2006; Iyer & Eastman, 2006;

Jacobson, 2007; Rennie & Rudland, 2003), although Callahan (2004) paints an

alarming picture of the cheating environment in some US high schools and colleges

which he proposes has paved the way for the unethical climate that has pervaded

some areas of US society. Academic dishonesty clearly has an impact on the well-

being of many.

Principles

It is not possible to attribute any one school of ethical principles to all teachers,

however acts of dishonesty are generally judged to be unacceptable, whether based on

the moral virtue of Aristotle, the absolute edicts of Kant, the “greatest good”

evaluation of Utilitarianism, or being contrary to the “good” ideal of Moore (Cahn &

Markie, 2002). Nietzsche’s “ubermensch3” might not be constrained by such rules,

and postmodern ethics presents infinite challenges to what, if any, the rules should be

(Bauman, 1993), but to retain credibility, academic organisations must operate within

stated boundaries. Proscribing dishonesty would seem to be a reasonably universal

value, however this raises the problem of espoused ethical theories as opposed to

theories-in-use (Argyris & Schon, 1974), the latter always involving personal

decision.

Conduct

This is probably the key element of accountability for teachers, since despite the

acknowledged philosophical complexities of the notion of plagiarism, inaction clearly



amounts to “omission of discretionary action capable of affecting others” (Folger &

Cropanzano, 2001, p. 4). Discretion is a key professional element, since while some

employers do explicitly prescribe staff actions related to plagiarism (see Figure 3),

others may not, possibly relying on professional responsibility; the autonomy that

tertiary teachers favour carries with it parallel expectations. In such cases where an

employer publishes policies or procedures as described below, the plagiarism issue is

influenced not only by the choices inherent in an ethical dilemma, but also by the

imperatives related to rule-based or legal responsibilities. However, rules are always

open to interpretation, so their presence does not always predetermine outcomes.

Policies and Procedures

A survey of the published documents related to plagiarism or academic dishonesty

was made of the eight universities and three largest polytechnics in New Zealand. The

list of documents from these organisations in Figure 3 has been obtained from paper

copies of the Calendars, or the organisation’s website. A letter was sent to each

organisation, listing these located documents and asking if anything of significance

was missing. To date, seven have responded confirming that the list is substantially

complete. The number or type of documents listed from each organisation is in no

way intended to be an indicator of the attitude or actions of that organisation towards

academic dishonesty; they are intended solely to give an overview of the context. It is

clear that there are specific rules forbidding student plagiarism in all of these

organisations, but the published policies on the responsibilities of teachers are much

more variable, ranging from aspirational statements of ethical behaviour to quite

explicit instructions on education of students, preparation of assignments, detection of

infringements and processes for determining penalties. While clear policies are

commendable, in a professional environment which precludes continual surveillance

they cannot and should not be the sole driver of appropriate behaviour; they do

however introduce a component of fiduciary responsibility to the ethical decision-

making process since these rules become part of the contract that employees enter into

to fairly and honestly perform the job for which they are being paid.

3 There is no direct translation of “ubermensch” , but approximations such as an “ideal type” or



Directed to: Students Teachers

Auckland University of Technology.*

2008 Calendar. (2007).

The general academic regulations: Part 1, Section 2 Integrity. (p.85).

The general academic regulations Part 6, Section 2: Academic discipline. (p.102).

Discipline statute. (pp.647-659).

Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies Policy and Procedure on Academic Discipline (2006).

Strategic Plan 2007-2011 Charter, (p.3).

r

r

r

r

a

r

a

Lincoln University

Charter. (2003).

2008 Calendar. (2007).

Statutes and general regulations, Section F Dishonest practice and breach of instructions, (pp.50-51).

Statement of strategic direction 2005-2015.

Profile 2007-2009

Academic quality management , (p.14).

Lincoln university values, (p.27).

a

r

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

Manukau Institute of Technology*

Statute No. 11 Academic regulations. (2002).

Statute No. 8 Student discipline. (2005).

Policy No. 017 Misconduct in assessment. (2007).

r

r

r

r

Massey University*

2008 Calendar. (2007).

Dishonesty in any assessment or examination. (p.27).

Code of student conduct. (p.34).

Massey University. (2007). Administration guide. Plagiarism. (p.14)

Teaching and learning policy working draft.

r

r

r

a

a

a

The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.

Examination Regulations. (2007).

r

r

Unitec*

General Disciplinary Statute. (2003).

Code of Conduct. (2004).

Disciplinary Policy & Procedures. (2004).

Charter. (2006).

r

a

r/a

a

a

“superior to human” have been suggested (Ackerman, 1990, p.7).



Academic Statute 2008, Part E: Academic misconduct, (pp.40-42). r

University of Auckland*

Guidelines: Conduct of coursework. (2003).

Policy on third party editing & proof-reading of theses and dissertations. (2006).

University teaching and learning policies, guidelines and procedures: An introductory guide for visiting, temporary and casual teaching staff. (2006).

2008 Calendar. (2007), Academic statutes and regulations 2c, 7a, 8d, 9a, 23.( pp. 38-46).

Use of third party assistance in undergraduate and postgraduate coursework: Guidelines for students. (2007).

ReferenCite. (2007).

Guidelines for the conduct of research.

Teaching and learning: Academic honesty and plagiarism.

r

r

r

r

a

r

a

r

r

r

r

a

University of Canterbury*

2008 Calendar. (2007). General course and exam. regulations, Sect.J Dishonest practice and breach of instructions

Assessment policy: Principles and guidelines. (2007).

r

r

University of Otago

Senate policy on assessment of student performance: Appendix G: Dishonest Practice. (2005)

University of Otago. (2007) 2008 Calendar.

Examinations and assessment, Item 5 Dishonest practice, ( p.202.)

Discipline, Student conduct, (p.221)

University of Otago. (2007). Dishonest practice guidelines.

University of Otago. Higher Education Development Centre: Teaching Matters and Resources: Marking.

University of Otago. Introduction to working at the University of Otago.

University of Otago. Plagiarism and examination conduct: Dishonest practice information.

University of Otago. The teaching and learning plan 2005-2010.

r

r

r

r

r

r

a

r

a

University of Waikato.

Code of ethics for academic staff. (2005).

2008 Calendar. (2007)

Assessment regulations: Part 1, Section 8 Plagiarism and cheating. (p.123)

Student discipline regulations. (p.750-764).

r

r

a

Victoria University*

Assessment statute: Academic policy group. (2005).

Conduct Policy: Human resources policy group.

Dealing with student plagiarism procedures: Academic policy group. (2006).

Assessment handbook 2006.

University Teaching Development Centre: Academic integrity and plagiarism resources. (2006).

r

r

r

a

r

r

r

r



Student conduct statute: Student policy group. (2007).

Student Learning Support Service: Staff: Plagiarism. (2007). Academic integrity and plagiarism. (2008).

r

r

a

* Organisation has confirmed that list is adequate r = rule, policy or directive statement

a = resources, information or aspirational statement

Figure 3. NZ university and polytechnic selected documents related to plagiarism and academic dishonesty.

A further question is how this information is propagated to students and staff. A UK

student gained much publicity when he threatened to sue the university that was

withholding his degree because of plagiarism noted at the end of his three-year

programme. The student claimed that he did not know that his cut-and-pasting of

Internet sources was forbidden, that similar behaviour had gained him good marks

throughout his studies, and no-one had ever identified that what he was doing was

wrong and taken remedial action (Baty, 2004). While this student’s reaction might

seem self-serving, it does raise the issue of how proactive universities are in teaching

students how to avoid plagiarism, rather than the “Gotcha” approach (Price, 2002,

p.88). Ohio University’s mechanical engineering department received international

exposure when previously undetected serious plagiarism was discovered in the theses

of a large number of graduated students, leading to the disciplining of two academics

(Grose, 2006). These cases highlight the problems of educating both students and

staff, and the legal, employment and publicity issues that can arise if this is not done

satisfactorily. Although based on US law, Bricault’s (2007) discussion of the legal

aspects of dealing with academic dishonesty has general relevance, particularly the

specific content and effective communication of policies. Macdonald and Carroll in

“Plagiarism – a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach” (2006,

p.233) suggest that such an approach begins with education in the shared

responsibility of the education process.

Conclusion

There is ongoing valuable interrogation of the plagiarism paradigm/s, the related

academic and socio-historical discourse, the influence of culture and context, and

questioning of textual ownership and authorial voice. The student as individual

negotiating identity in a strange landscape, to be guided and given the “latch-keys that



might unlock new discourse communities” (Howard, 1992, p.240) is a more

constructive model than that of devious miscreant to be trapped. This model also

provides a partial solution for those discomfited by what they perceive as an

adversarial “teacher catching student” role. A collaborative process offers

opportunities for engagement by both students and teachers in the meanings behind

the rules, and an introduction to the values, powers and responsibilities of the

academic community, while not denying that the less pleasant aspects of detection and

penalty must still be a balancing but not dominating part of the equation.

So within this framework, what are a teacher’s ethical responsibilities for plagiarism

in practical terms? From either a deontological or teleological perspective, inaction

on plagiarism is clearly unethical. Applying the Fairness Theory model (Folger &

Cropanzano, 2001, p.4), the responsibility falls in all three dimensions: “States of

Well-being” and “Principles” represent more of a philosophical argument, while

“Conduct” enacts the consequences of that argument. The “well-being” of the

academy depends on honesty and integrity, and despite empathy with student actions

driven by contextual factors, the truly transgressive exemplars of plagiarism are

clearly contrary to the “principles” of honourable behaviour. To act in accordance

with these decisions requires demonstration of ethical “Conduct”, where the

“discretionary” behaviour referred to in the “commission or omission of discretionary

action capable of affecting others” does not amount to inaction. This “sin of

omission”, while tempting, must be resisted.

Folger and Cropanzano’s framing of ethics as a behaviour achieving fairness and

accountability matches well with students’ concerns; they often tolerate the complex

demands of academia with amazing equanimity, however “That’s not fair” can be

their ultimate condemnation. Providing an environment where students are rewarded

justly for their own work is something to which they have a fundamental right.

Involving them in the collaborative process of achieving this can only be constructive.

The most effective collaborative model involves not only teachers and students, but

also the organisations and contexts within which they operate. Teachers’ workloads



seem to increase inexorably, so instigating or carrying out these strategies may seem a

burden, but they are critical for maintaining academic integrity.

1. Advocate clear policies and procedures, disseminated effectively as part of an

organisational commitment to integrity.

Teachers can not achieve this alone, but they need to promote organisational

action, including debate on the role of honour codes.

2. Educate and motivate students.

Students need to be taught how to interpret, paraphrase and reference, offered

formative exercises, and introduced to the concept of integrity in the academic

community.

3. Design effective assessments.

Update and contextualise assessments, including analysis and personal

interpretation where suitable, to limit opportunities for “information dump”

copying.

4. Balance unsupervised and supervised assessment tasks.

For undergraduate students, how will you check that unsupervised work is

done personally?

5. Educate yourself.

There are a large number of indicators that a work might be plagiarised (e.g.

Iowa State University, 2004). Could you identify these in your students’ work?

6. Do not rely solely on electronic detection

There are many other types of plagiarism to which desperate students may

resort.

7. Mark “thoughtfully”.

This is the most challenging aspect. Applying the points from (5) above

requires skill, concentration and time.

8. Follow up on suspected cases.

It may be unpleasant and time-consuming but it is necessary.



9. Use small infringements for teaching purposes, as well as applying

appropriate penalties.

In first year classes in New Zealand and Australia, students come from many

cultural and educational backgrounds. Small errors or misunderstandings can

provide teaching opportunities in ethical behaviour.

10. Apply penalties fairly and consistently.

Serious transgressions need commensurate penalties that all students are made

aware of at the beginning of and throughout their studies.

11. Be an ethical role-model.

Our behaviour must provide for students an exemplar of fairness, honesty and

integrity, as at a minimum we can practise no less than we ask of them.

Academic dishonesty undermines the values of academia, and the value of any

credentials it bestows. We behave unethically towards ourselves, our students, our

organisations, and wider society if we are less than conscientious in plagiarism’s

control or elimination. Lack of action for the good of eliminating plagiarism can be

just as unethical as action for harm by transgressors, thus the power and place of the

teacher in this scenario presents an ongoing challenge.

References

Abbott, A. (1983). Professional ethics. The American Journal of Sociology, 88(5), 855-885.

Ackerman, R.J. (1990). Nietzsche: A frenzied look. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ashworth, P. & Bannister, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2). 187-203.

Association of Staff in Tertiary Education. ASTE Handbook. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from



http://www.aste.ac.nz/all/framespages/publications/astenews/ASTE%20Handbook%20final.pdf.

Auckland University of Technology. (2006). Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies Policy and Procedure on Academic Discipline. Auckland: Auckland University of Technology.

Auckland University of Technology. (2007). The general academic regulations: Part 1, Section 2 Integrity (p.85). 2008 Calendar. Auckland: Auckland University of Technology.

Auckland University of Technology. (2007). The general academic regulations: Part 6, Section 2 Academic discipline (p.102). 2008 Calendar. Auckland: Auckland University of Technology.

Auckland University of Technology. (2007). Discipline statute (pp.647-659). 2008 Calendar: Auckland: Auckland University of Technology.

Auckland University of Technology. (2007). Strategic plan 2007-2011. Retrieved February 13, 2008 from http://www.aut.ac.nz/resources/staff/vice_chancellor/strategic_plan_8.pdf

Baty, P. (May 27, 2004). Plagiarist student set to sue university. The Times Higher Education Supplement. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=188935

Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bennett, R. (2005). Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 137-162.

Bricault, D. (2007). Legal bases for dealing with academic dishonesty. College and University, 82(4), 15-21.

Cahn, S.M. & Markie, P. (2002). Ethics: History, theory, and contemporary issues (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.

Campbell, A., Gillett, G. & Jones, G. (1992). Practical medical ethics. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, E. (2000). Professional ethics in teaching: towards the development of a code of practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 203-221.

Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C. & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: transgressive and nontrasgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 171-193.



Delany, J.F. (1911). Omission. In The Catholic encyclopedia, XI. New York, NY: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251b.htm

Dodd, T.M. (2007). Honor Code 101: An introduction to the elements of traditional honor codes, modified honor codes and academic integrity policies. Retrieved February 7, 2008 from http://www.academicintegrity.org/educational_resources/honor_code_101.php.

Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU). (n.d.). Journalists’ code of ethics. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://ourmedia.org.nz/node/57

Ethics Resource Center’s national business ethics survey: An inside view of private sector ethics. (2007). Arlington, VA: Ethics Resource Center.

Folger, R. & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice. (pp.1,4) Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Granitz, N., & Loewy, D. (2007). Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 293-306.

Green, S.P. (2002). Plagiarism, norms, and the limits of theft law: Some observations on the use of criminal sanctions in enforcing intellectual property rights. Hastings Law Journal, 54(1), 167-242.

Grose, T.K. (2006). The burden of plagiarism. ASEE Prism, 16(3), 37-39.

Hall, A. & Bernardino, L. (2006). Teaching professional behaviours: Differences in the perceptions of faculty, students, and employers. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 407-415.

Howard, R. (1992). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11, 233-245.

Iowa State University. (2004). Strategies for detecting plagiarism. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.lib.iastate.edu/commons/resources/facultyguides/plagiarism/detect.html

iParadigms, LLC. (2006, October 4). Largest study of cheating in the world reveals 82% drop in plagiarism after using Turnitin.com for five or more years. PR Newswire Association LLC.

Iyer, R., & Eastman, J.K. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business students different from other college students? Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 101-110.

Jacobson, C.P. (2007). Academic misconduct and bar admissions: A proposal for a revised standard. The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 20(3), 739-754.



Kansas State University at Greensboro. (2007). K-State honor & integrity system: Honor pledge violations (August 2007 – July 2008).Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://www.k-state.edu/honor/honorsystem/violations07.htm.

Knowles, E. (Ed.). (1999). The Oxford dictionary of quotations (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larkham, P.J. & Manns, S. (2002). Plagiarism and its treatment in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(4), 339-349.

Lincoln University. (2003). Charter. Retrieved February 8, 2008 from http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/846_Charter_s8984.pdf.

Lincoln University. (2007). 2008 Calendar. Christchurch: Lincoln University.

Lincoln University. Statement of strategic direction 2005-2015. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/941_Strategy_s4249.pdf.

Lincoln University. Profile 2007-2009. Retrieved February 8, 2008 from http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/779_profile_s12220.pdf.

Liu, D. (2005). Plagiarism in ESOL students: is cultural conditioning truly the major culprit? ELT Journal, 59(3), 234-241.

Macdonald, R. & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism – a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233-245.

Manukau Institute of Technology. (2002). Statute No. 11 Academic regulations. Retrieved 23 January, 2008, from http://www.manukau.ac.nz/About%20Us/statutes/Statute11.doc.

Manukau Institute of Technology. (2005). Statute No. 8 Student discipline. Retrieved January 23, 2008 from http://www.manukau.ac.nz/About%20Us/statutes/Statute08.doc.

Manukau Institute of Technology. (2007). Policy No. 017 Misconduct in assessment. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.manukau.ac.nz/students/policy/pol017.doc.

Massey University. (2007). 2008 Calendar. Palmerston North: Massey University.

Massey University. (2007). Administration guide. Retrieved February 23, 2008 from http://tdu.massey.ac.nz/IDTsite/Print/templates/adminguide_2007.doc.

Massey University. Teaching and learning policy working draft. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://policyguide.massey.ac.nz/massey/for/staff/policy/policies/academic/teaching-and-learning-policy.cfm.



McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K & Butterfield, K.D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 211-234.

McCabe, D.L. (May 15, 2000). New research on academic integrity: The success of “modified” honor codes. Synfax Weekly Report, SWR 00.17, 975. Retrieved February 7, 2008 from http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/SFX000515.shtml.

McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K & Butterfield, K.D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357-378.

McCabe, D.L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1).

Murray, J.S. (2001). Plato on power, moral responsibility and the alleged neutrality of Gorgias’ art of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(4), 355-363.

New Zealand Communication Association (NZCA). (2007). Code of Ethics. Approved at New Zealand Communication Association 2007 AGM, Napier, NZ, to be posted 2008 on www.nzca.org.nz.

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2003). Code of ethics for registered teachers. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/ethics/code.stm.

Osen, J. (November, 1997). The cream of other men’s wit: Plagiarism and misappropriation in cyberspace. Computer Fraud and Security, 11, 13-19.

Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students – literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.

Price, M. (2002). Beyond “Gotcha!”: Situating plagiarism in policy and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 88-115.

Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (PRINZ). Code of ethics. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.prinz.org.nz/Prinz/prinzopen.nsf/htmlmedia/body_what_is_prinz.html

Rennie, S.C. & Rudland, J.R. (2003). Differences in medical students’ attitudes to academic misconduct and reported behaviour across the years – a questionnaire study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(2), 97-102.

Scanlan, C.L. (2006). Strategies to promote a climate of academic integrity and minimize student cheating and plagiarism. Journal of Allied Health, 35(3), 179-185.



Schweitzer, S.C. (1938). Restatement of property rights and ideas. United States Law Review, 72, 439-443.

Sheard, J., Dick, M., Markham, S., Macdonald, I. & Walsh, M. (2002). Cheating and plagiarism: perceptions and practices of first year IT students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(3), 183-187.

Snook, I. (2003). The ethical teacher. (p. 13.) Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

Standler, R.B. (2000). Plagiarism in colleges in USA. Retrieved 28 January, 2008,

from http://www.rbs2.com/plag.htm

Terhart, E. (1998). Formalised codes of ethics for teachers: between professional autonomy and administrative control. European Journal of Education, 33(4), 433-444.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th ed.). (1995). (p. 1043.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.

The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2007). Examination Regulations. Retrieved 25 January, 2008, from http://www.openpolytechnic.ac.nz/static/pdf/regs/acreg/2006_examinations_regulations.pdf.

Townley, C. & Parsell, M. (2004). Technology and academic virtue: Student plagiarism through the looking glass. Ethics and Information Technology, 6, 271-277.

Unitec. (2003). General Disciplinary Statute. (2003). Retrieved January 25, 2008, from https://docushare.unitec.ac.nz/dsweb/Get/Document-188.

Unitec. (2004). Code of Conduct. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://docushare.unitec.ac.nz/dsweb/Get/Document-21/HR05%2BCode%2Bof%2BConduct_NF.pdf.

Unitec. (2004). Disciplinary Policy & Procedures. (2004). Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://docushare.unitec.ac.nz/dsweb/Get/Document-14/HR%2B17%2BDisciplinary%2Beff%2B5%2BMar%2B2004.pdf.

Unitec. (2006). Charter. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.unitec.ac.nz/?71B01FBA-3A09-4012-91F8-FD4D80C72E6F#4.

Unitec. (2008). Academic Statute 2008. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from https://docushare.unitec.ac.nz/dsweb/Get/Document-193.

University of Auckland. (2003). Guidelines: Conduct of coursework. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/uoa/about/teaching/policiesprocedures/docs/conductcoursework.pdf.

University of Auckland. (2006). Policy on third party editing & proof-reading of theses and dissertations. Retrieved January 24 from



http://www.postgrad.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/uoa/for/postgradstudents/currentstudents/administration/policies-guidelines/docs/Policy%20on%20Third%20Party%20Editing%20of%20Theses,%20Final.pdf.

University of Auckland. (2006). University teaching and learning policies, guidelines and procedures: An introductory guide for visiting, temporary and casual teaching staff. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/uoa/about/teaching/policiesprocedures/docs/staff_guide_teaching.pdf.

University of Auckland. (2007). 2008 Calendar. Auckland: University of Auckland.

University of Auckland. (2007). Use of third party assistance in undergraduate and postgraduate coursework: Guidelines for students. (2007). Retrieved January 24, 2008 from http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/uoa/about/teaching/plagiarism/docs/Guidelines%20for%20third%20party%20assistance%20UG%20PG%20Senate%20approved%2005%20Nov%2007.pdf.

University of Auckland. (2007). ReferenCite. Retrieved 9 February, 2008, from http://www.cite.auckland.ac.nz/.

University of Auckland. Guidelines for the conduct of research. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.postgrad.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/uoa/for/postgradstudents/currentstudents/administration/policies-guidelines/docs/General%20Research%20Policies%20&%20Guidelines/Guidelines%20-%20Conduct%20of%20Research.pdf.

University of Auckland. Teaching and learning: Academic honesty and plagiarism. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/teaching/plagiarism/plagiarism.cfm.

University of Canterbury. (2007). 2008 Calendar. Christchurch: University of Canterbury.

University of Canterbury. (2007). Assessment policy: Principles and guidelines. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/ucpolicy/GetPolicy.aspx?file=assessmentpolicy.pdf.

University of North Carolina at Greensboro. (2000). Honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility. The Academic Integrity Policy. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from http://www.academicintegrity.org/educational_resources/pdf/FacultyWorkshops.pdf.



University of Otago. (2005). Senate policy on assessment of student performance: Appendix G: Dishonest Practice. Retrieved February8, 2008, from http://www.otago.ac.nz/administration/assessmentpolicy/appendixg.html.

University of Otago. (2007) 2008 Calendar. Dunedin: University of Otago.

University of Otago. (2007). Dishonest practice guidelines. Retrieved January 24, 2008 from http://oupolicy.otago.ac.nz/policies/FMPro?-db=policies.fm&-format=viewpolicy.html&-lay=viewpolicy&-recid=33053&-find.

University of Otago. Higher Education Development Centre: Teaching Matters and Resources: Marking. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://hedc.otago.ac.nz/hedc/asd/Tutoring-Demonstrating/For-Tutors-Demonstrators/Teaching-matters-and-resources/mainParagraphs/012/document/Marking%20page.pdf.

University of Otago. Introduction to working at the University of Otago. Retrieved 24 January, 2008, from http://www.otago.ac.nz/humanresources/employmentconditions/StaffIntroBook.pdf.

University of Otago. Plagiarism and examination conduct: Dishonest practice information. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.otago.ac.nz/study/plagiarism.html.

University of Otago. The teaching and learning plan 2005-2010. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://hedc.otago.ac.nz/hedc/home/leftParagraphs/00/document/teachinglearningplan.pdf.

University of Waikato. (2005). Code of ethics for academic staff. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.waikato.ac.nz/hrm/internal/policy/codethic1.html.

University of Waikato. (2007). Assessment regulations: Part 1, Section 8 Plagiarism and cheating (p.123). 2008 Calendar. Hamilton: University of Waikato.

University of Waikato. (2007). Student discipline regulations (pp. 750-764). 2008 Calendar. Hamilton: University of Waikato.

Valentine, K. (2006). Plagiarism as literary practice: Recognizing and rethinking ethical binaries. College Composition and Communication, 58(1), 89-109.

Victoria University of Wellington. (2005). Assessment statute: Academic policy group. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://policy.vuw.ac.nz/Amphora!~~policy.vuw.ac.nz~POLICY~000000001124.pdf.

Victoria University of Wellington. (2006). Conduct Policy: Human resources policy group. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://policy.vuw.ac.nz/Amphora!~~monster.staff.vuw.ac.nz~POLICY~000000000015.pdf.



Victoria University of Wellington. (2006). Dealing with student plagiarism procedures: Academic policy group. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://policy.vuw.ac.nz/Amphora!~~policy.vuw.ac.nz~POLICY~000000001134.pdf.

Victoria University of Wellington. (2006). Assessment handbook 2006. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/policy/publications/assessment_handbook_2006.pdf.

Victoria University of Wellington. (2006). University Teaching Development Centre: Academic integrity and plagiarism resources. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/resources/Plagiarism/.

Victoria University of Wellington. (2007). Student conduct statute: Student policy group.. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://policy.vuw.ac.nz/Amphora!~~policy.vuw.ac.nz~POLICY~000000000018.pdf.

Victoria University of Wellington. (2007). Student Learning Support Service: Staff: Plagiarism. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/st_services/slss/staff/plagiarism.aspx.

Victoria University of Wellington. (2008). Academic integrity and plagiarism. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/study/plagiarism.aspx.

Whitaker, E. (2007). Peers and plagiarism: The role of student judicial boards. College Composition and Communication, 59 (1), 125-127.

World Intellectual Property Organization .(1979). Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661

Copyright Statement: Articles submitted for ANZCA08 remain the copyright of the author, but authors by virtue of submission agree to grant the Department of Communication, Journalism & Marketing at Massey University a copyright license to permanently display the article online for public viewing as part of this conference proceedings, and to grant the National Library of Australia a copyright licence to include the ANZCA08 Proceedings in the PANDORA Archive for permanent public access and online viewing. Articles first published in this ANZCA08 proceedings may subsequently be published elsewhere by authors, provided the next version acknowledges this original publication in the ANZCA08 refereed proceedings.

Documents

Plagiarism: The ethical power and place of the teacher · Plagiarism: The ethical power and place of the teacher Josephine Ellis AUT University Josephine Ellis is a senior lecturer