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 &
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
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-
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
292 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
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.
Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing 293
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
294 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
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,
Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing 295
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.
296 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
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
Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing 297
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
13. When writing an assignment I begin by
looking for material I can include and
then think about how I can put it
together
3.75 3.99 –1.972 0.049d
14. Writing an accounting assignment is all
about making an argument based on my
own thoughts about the subject
3.25 3.70 –2.957 0.003e
(Continued)
298 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
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:
statistics corrected
for ties
Authorial identity and approaches
to writing statements
Mean
responsescMean
responsesc Z Sig. (P)
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
Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing 299
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:
statistics corrected
for ties
Authorial identity and approaches
to writing statements
Mean
responsesc
Mean
responsesc Z Sig. (P)
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
7. When writing an assignment I begin by
thinking about what I want to say, and
then look for evidence relating to that
3.79 3.82 –0.096 0.924
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
3.35 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
13. When writing an assignment I begin by
looking for material I can include and then
think about how I can put it together
3.99 3.91 –0.764 0.445
14. Writing an accounting assignment is all
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)
300 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
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:
statistics corrected
for ties
Authorial identity and approaches
to writing statements
Mean
responsescMean
responsesc Z Sig. (P)
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.
Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing 301
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
302 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
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
Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing 303
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.
304 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
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.
Perceptions of Authorial Identity in Academic Writing 305
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.
306 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