Academic misconduct: Key texts 

Exploring conceptions
Our criteria for selection of key texts are influence or comprehensiveness. However, there is no one work on academic misconduct that can be said to have been decisively influential or comprehensive.  Most of the literature considers plagiarism, but there is a diversity of opinion on how it should be approached, what it means, and how significant it is. The selection of papers offered here is intended to offer an overview of the discussion around conceptions of plagiarism. 

Clegg and Flint (2007) propose that plagiarism is being discussed in an atmosphere of moral panic and that the tone of the debate “…suggests plagiarism is a lightening rod for a series of anxieties that run deep within contemporary academia.” [373] The authors go on to argue, in common with others, that not only is there a lack of shared understanding between students and staff of what constitutes plagiarism, but also that this state exists between colleagues. However, where other papers have suggested that the differences lie along discipline lines, here it is argued that personal values are more influential in shaping staff conceptions. [375]

Clegg, S and Flint, A. 2006.  More heat than light: plagiarism in its appearing. British Journal of Sociology of Education 27(3)pp. 373-387

Jude Carroll has been influential in this area, particularly in terms of changing learning and teaching practice (see the texts on practices). The following briefing paper offers another perspective on to what extent plagiarism is a cause for concern. It also presents a short exercise for exploring conceptions of plagiarism.  

Carroll J (2001) What kinds of solutions can we find for plagiarism? Higher Education Academy (online).

Staff conceptions are also discussed in:

Flint, A, Clegg, S and Macdonald, R (2006) Exploring staff perceptions of student plagiarism. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 30(2) 145–156.

The following is a widely-cited study of students’ conceptions of academic misconduct:

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

Many writers conceptualise plagiarism as the antithesis of effective scholarship. An influential text on student writing is:

Lea, M R and Street, B V 1998. Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education. 23(2) 157-172.

This paper discusses student writing within the academic literacies approach, recognising the contexts of individual identity and institutional power. Student and staff conceptions of plagiarism are discussed specifically on pages 167-168. The uncertainty reported by students is contrasted with the certainty conveyed in institutional literature. The impact of legalistic language in discussing plagiarism is examined briefly.

Find papers with Citation linker.