The Perceptions of Academic Staff of Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures and Their ...

503 Pages·2016·3.54 MB·English

School of Education

The Perceptions of Academic Staff of Academic Integrity Policies and
Procedures and Their Responses to Student Plagiarism in Australian
Universities

Carmela De Maio

This thesis is presented for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
of
Curtin University

November 2015

i
Declaration

To the best of my knowledge and belief this thesis contains no material previously published
by any other person except where due acknowledgment has been made.
This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or
diploma in any university.
Human Ethics The research presented and reported in this thesis was conducted in
accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on
Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) updated March 2014. The proposed research
study received human research ethics approval from the Curtin University Human Research
Ethics Committee (EC00262), Approval Number #121/2008.

Signature:
Date:

ii
Acknowledgments
There are many people who helped me on my eight-year long journey towards a doctorate
who deserve my gratitude and thanks.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Kathryn Dixon, from the School of
Education, Faculty of Humanities. Kathryn took over willingly from my previous supervisor
a few years ago and had to quickly familiarise herself with my project. She has been most
helpful in the revision and editing of my work.
A very special thanks goes to my co-supervisor, Professor Shelley Yeo, from the Faculty of
Science and Engineering. Shelley has been with me on my journey since the beginning. Her
experience and dedication to the field of academic integrity in higher education has been of
immense assistance to me.
My heartfelt gratitude goes to Associate Professor Katie Dunworth who was my initial
supervisor and is now based at the University of Bath, UK. She guided me in the
methodology and language of the Humanities and it is only now at the completion of my
work that I have a deeper understanding and respect for research theories and methods in the
field of higher education.
Thank you also to Dr Christopher Conlan, my former Head of Thesis Committee from the
School of Education, for planting the seed for completing a PhD in 2007. It wasn’t easy but it
was worth it.
I would like to sincerely thank all the academic staff from the four public universities in
Perth, Western Australia, for their willingness to participate in the focus groups, online
survey and interviews. I was overwhelmed by their responses and without them I would not
have the invaluable data which forms part of my study. Special thanks also to the Heads of
Human Resources, Human Resource departments, Ethics approval officers and Heads of
Schools at these institutions for allowing me access to their staff.
In relation to assistance with the analysis of data, I thank Dr Amma Buckley of Curtin
University for her help with NVIVO software and Ms Jenny Lalor, formerly from Curtin
University and Ms Christina Kadmos, Director of Kalico Consulting, for their hands-on
assistance with SPSS software.
To my long-suffering husband, Peter, for his love and support and for acting as a sounding
board when times were tough. To my wonderful parents, Antonio and Gabriella, for their
continuous support and offers of food and babysitting when times were difficult.
To my children, Claire and Tim, who started the journey with me as young pre-schoolers and
are now teenagers- mum now has lots more time to spend with you both.
And, finally, for the encouragement, support and feedback provided to me along the way by
colleagues, students and friends, I thank you.

iii
Abstract
Plagiarism by students is an area of growing concern in institutions of higher learning in
Australia. Universities have in place academic integrity policies and procedures to enable
their academic staff to respond to incidences of student plagiarism in consistent and aligned
ways. However, research suggests that academic staff do not respond in ways which they are
expected to according to institutional documents. This lack of consistency and alignment
ultimately affects the reputation of institutions and the integrity of their degrees and awards.
This study uses a mixed methodology as set out by Cresswell and Plano-Clark (2011) to
address seven research questions. In particular, the study explores the understandings of
academic staff of the notion of plagiarism, their perceptions of their institution’s academic
integrity policy and procedures and their responses to student plagiarism. Under the
philosophical stance of pragmatism, document analysis based on the framework of Miles and
Huberman (1994) together with grounded theory as set out by Strauss and Corbin (1990) are
used to generate a comprehensive definition of student plagiarism and a model which might
help explain the responses of academic staff to the issue.
The findings obtained from institutional documents, focus groups, an online survey and semi-
structured interviews suggest that although academic staff view their institution’s academic
integrity policy as fair and easy to follow, they perceive the procedures for responding to
plagiarism as time consuming and hard to follow. The responses of academic staff to specific
incidences of student plagiarism suggest that they respond in ways which are not always
aligned with what is expected of them as found in institutional documents. The reasons for
this non-alignment may include academic staff perceptions of themselves, their students and
their institutions. Two significant outcomes have resulted from this study. Firstly, a
comprehensive definition of plagiarism containing nine elements is provided. This definition
contains more elements than have previously been suggested by the literature or found in
definitions of plagiarism in the academic integrity policies of the universities studied and are:
(1) actor (2) action (3) work (4) possession (5) another (6) acknowledgment (7) intention (8)
deception and (9) personal gain. Incorporating these nine elements, a comprehensive
definition of student plagiarism is as follows:

“A student uses work taken from a source as their own, without acknowledgment and
whether or not they intended to deceive, for assessment or personal gain”.
iv
Another outcome of this study is the development of a ‘Three-view’ model to help explain
academic staff responses to student plagiarism based on how they prioritise students,
institutions and themselves. The findings suggest that if the academic views the student as
important, they are more likely to not follow institutional procedures. Alternatively, if the
academic staff member prioritises their university, then they will follow institutional
processes for responding to student plagiarism. Finally, if the academic prioritises themselves
and their role and position in their university, then they will more likely ignore the academic
integrity policy and procedures of their institution. The model may be represented as follows:
•If academic staff prioritise •If academic staff prioritise •If academic staff prioritise
their students, then they will their institution first, then themselves and their role
flex academic integrity they will follow academic and position, then they
policy and procedures, integrity policy,especially will ignore academic
especially in cases involving in cases involving second, integrity policy and
first year undergraduates. third or fourth year procedures, especially in
undergraduates.
cases where they are
supervisors of
postgraduates.
Institution first- Academic first-
Student first-flex
follow academic ignore academic
academic integrity
integrity policy and integrity policy and
policy and procedures
procedures procedures

Recommendations arising from this study include the need for universities to include this
comprehensive definition of plagiarism in their academic integrity policies and to offer
training and education for their academic staff to enable them to respond to incidences of
student plagiarism in ways which align with what is expected of them by their institutions.

v
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Context and background of this study ........................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Student plagiarism.................................................................................................................. 1
1.1.2 Academic integrity policy and procedures ............................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Academic staff understandings and responses to student plagiarism .................................... 4
1.2 The research issue ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Research objective, aims and questions ........................................................................................ 7
1.4 Research methodology .................................................................................................................. 8
1.5 Significance of this study .............................................................................................................. 9
1.6 Limitations of this study ............................................................................................................. 10
1.7 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................. 11
1.8 Organisation of the thesis ............................................................................................................ 12
1.9 Definition of terms ...................................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 16
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.2 Notions of plagiarism in the literature ........................................................................................ 19
2.2.1 Plagiarism as cheating .......................................................................................................... 20
2.2.2 Plagiarism as academic misconduct or dishonesty .............................................................. 20
2.2.3 Plagiarism as a breach of academic integrity ....................................................................... 21
2.2.4 Summary of notions of plagiarism in the literature ............................................................. 22
2.3 Academic misconduct by students .............................................................................................. 23
2.3.1 Types of student cheating behaviours .................................................................................. 23
2.3.2 Profile of the ‘cheating student’ ........................................................................................... 23
2.3.3 Reasons students give for their cheating behaviours ........................................................... 24
2.4 Exposure of plagiarism in Australian universities ...................................................................... 28
2.4.1 The Curtin University experience ........................................................................................ 28
2.4.2 The University of Newcastle experience ............................................................................. 29
2.4.3 The Victorian universities’ experiences ............................................................................... 29
2.4.4 Media stance on student plagiarism and dishonesty ............................................................ 30
2.4.5 Summary of experiences of student plagiarism ................................................................... 31
2.5 Understandings of plagiarism ..................................................................................................... 32
2.5.1 Plagiarism as defined by institutions in their academic integrity policies and procedures 32
2.5.2 Plagiarism as understood by academic staff ........................................................................ 40
2.5.3 Plagiarism as understood by students .................................................................................. 45
2.6 Differences in the understandings of plagiarism ......................................................................... 47
2.6.1 Academic staff versus institutional understandings of plagiarism ....................................... 47
vi
2.6.2 Academic staff versus students’ understandings of plagiarism ........................................... 48
2.6.3 Academic staff versus other academic staff understandings of plagiarism ......................... 49
2.7 Perceptions of academic integrity policies and procedures ........................................................ 49
2.7.1 Academic staff perceptions of academic integrity policies and procedures ........................ 49
2.7.2 Students perceptions of academic integrity policies and procedures ................................... 50
2.8 Institutional approaches or responses to student plagiarism ....................................................... 51
2.8.1 Use of academic integrity policies and procedures .............................................................. 52
2.8.2 Use of honour codes ............................................................................................................. 53
2.8.3 Use of pedagogy................................................................................................................... 56
2.8.4 Use of technology ................................................................................................................ 58
2.8.5 Approaches from studies on assessment .............................................................................. 59
2.9 Responses to student plagiarism ................................................................................................. 61
2.9.1 Institutional responses .......................................................................................................... 61
2.9.2 Academic staff responses to plagiarism ............................................................................... 62
2.9.3 Students’ responses to accusations of plagiarism ................................................................ 71
2.10 An outline of the trends in the study of plagiarism ................................................................... 72
2.10.1 The 1980s: student cheating behaviours ............................................................................ 73
2.10.2 The 1990s: staff and student perceptions of academic misconduct ................................... 73
2.10.3 The 2000s: strategies for responding to academic misconduct .......................................... 75
2.10.4 From 2010 onwards: where to now? .................................................................................. 79
2.11 Summary of studies on academic integrity ............................................................................... 81
2.12 The academic in institutions of higher learning: early research................................................ 82
2.13 Notions of academic identity in modern universities: current research .................................... 83
2.13.1 What it means to be an academic: perceptions of identity, roles and responsibilities ....... 83
2.13.2 Academics and their relationship to the modern institution: commitments versus
compromises ................................................................................................................................. 84
2.13.3 Academics and policies: an absence of self ....................................................................... 85
2.14 Summary of studies on the academic in the modern institution ............................................... 87
2.15 Limitations of the existing research .......................................................................................... 87
2.16 Summary of Chapter 2 .............................................................................................................. 89
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 91
3.1 Methodology, Paradigm, Research Design and Theoretical Approaches ............................. 91
3.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 91
3.1.2 Paradigm .............................................................................................................................. 91
3.1.3 Research design.................................................................................................................... 92
3.1.4 Theoretical approaches ........................................................................................................ 93
3.1.5 Summary of Methodology used ........................................................................................... 97
vii
3.2 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 99
3.2.1 The four Western Australian public universities ................................................................. 99
3.2.2 The academic staff ............................................................................................................. 103
3.3 Methods of data collection .................................................................................................. 103
3.3.1 Documents –academic integrity policies and procedures of four Western Australian public
universities .................................................................................................................................. 103
3.3.2 Focus groups ...................................................................................................................... 104
3.3.3 Survey ................................................................................................................................ 106
3.3.4 Interviews ........................................................................................................................... 111
3.4 Methods of data analysis ..................................................................................................... 113
3.4.1 Document analysis of academic integrity policies and procedures and definitions of
plagiarism .................................................................................................................................... 113
3.4.2 Analysis of focus groups data ............................................................................................ 114
3.4.3 Analysis of survey data ...................................................................................................... 114
3.4.4 Analysis of interview data .................................................................................................. 115
3.5 Issues related to validity in mixed method studies.............................................................. 116
3.6 Ethical issues and bias......................................................................................................... 119
3.7 Limitations of this study ..................................................................................................... 119
3.8 Summary of Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................ 120
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 121
4.1 Profile of academic staff ........................................................................................................... 122
4.2 Understandings of plagiarism –definitions from institutional documents and academic staff . 124
4.2.1 Institutional definitions of plagiarism ................................................................................ 125
4.2.2 Summary of institutional definitions of plagiarism ........................................................... 131
4.2.3 Definitions of plagiarism by academic staff ...................................................................... 131
4.2.4 Summary of academic staff understandings of student plagiarism .................................... 136
4.3 Academic staff perceptions of student plagiarism in four Western Australian public universities
........................................................................................................................................................ 138
4.3.1 Survey respondents’ perceptions of student plagiarism ..................................................... 138
4.3.2 Survey respondents’ perceptions of other academic staff .................................................. 140
4.3.3 Focus group participants’ perceptions of student plagiarism ............................................. 141
4.3.4 Interview respondents’ perceptions of student plagiarism ................................................. 142
4.3.5 Summary of academic staff perceptions of student plagiarism in four Western Australian
public universities ....................................................................................................................... 143
4.4 Academic staff perceptions of academic integrity policy and procedures in four Western
Australian public universities.......................................................................................................... 143
4.4.1 Survey respondents’ perceptions of academic integrity policy and procedures ................ 144
4.4.2 Focus group participants’ perceptions of academic integrity policy and procedures ........ 146
viii
4.4.3 Interview respondents’ perceptions of academic integrity policy and procedures ............ 148
4.4.4 Summary of academic staff perceptions of academic integrity policies and procedures in
four Western Australian public universities ................................................................................ 149
4.5 Academic staff responses to student plagiarism in four Western Australian public universities
........................................................................................................................................................ 150
4.5.1 Survey respondents’ responses to student plagiarism ........................................................ 150
4.5.2 Academic staff responses to the three vignettes ................................................................ 151
4.5.3 Focus group participants’ responses to student plagiarism ................................................ 161
4.5.4 Interviewees’ responses to student plagiarism ................................................................... 162
4.5.5 Summary of academic staff responses to incidences of student plagiarism in four Western
Australian public universities ...................................................................................................... 163
4.6 Institutional responses to student plagiarism in four Western Australian public universities .. 164
4.6.1 Institutional representatives’ responses to the three vignettes ........................................... 165
4.6.2 Summary of institutional responses to incidences of student plagiarism in four Western
Australian public universities ...................................................................................................... 170
4.7 Alignment of academic staff and institutional responses to incidences of student plagiarism in
four Western Australian public universities .................................................................................... 172
4.7.1 Comparing the responses of academic staff with institutional representatives’ responses to
the three vignettes ....................................................................................................................... 172
4.7.2 Summary of responses of academic staff as compared with institutional representatives to
the three vignettes ....................................................................................................................... 176
4.7.3 Comparing the responses of interview participants with institutional representatives’
responses to incidences of student plagiarism ............................................................................ 177
4.8 Factors influencing the responses of academic staff to student plagiarism .............................. 180
4.8.1 Factors considered important by survey respondents when responding to the three vignettes
.................................................................................................................................................... 180
4.8.2 Summary of factors considered important by survey respondents when responding to the
three vignettes ............................................................................................................................. 184
4.9 Reasons for the responses of academic staff to student plagiarism- eliciting themes from the
findings ........................................................................................................................................... 187
4.9.1 Academic staff prioritise students when responding to plagiarism .................................... 187
4.9.2 Academic staff prioritise themselves and their role in the modern university when
responding to plagiarism ............................................................................................................. 189
4.9.3 Academic staff prioritise the institution when responding to plagiarism ........................... 197
4.9.4 Academic staff inconsistencies when responding to plagiarism ........................................ 198
4.9.5 Summary of themes elicited from the findings .................................................................. 201
4.10 Summary of Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................ 202
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 207
5.1 Background to this study .......................................................................................................... 207
5.3 Key findings from this study ..................................................................................................... 211
ix
5.4 Outcome 1: A nine-element definition of student plagiarism ................................................... 213
5.5 Outcome 2: A ‘Three-view’ model for academic staff responses to student plagiarism .......... 217
5.5.1 The ‘three-priorities’ concept ............................................................................................. 217
5.5.2 The ‘three-responses’ concept ........................................................................................... 220
5.5.3 A ‘Three-view’ model ........................................................................................................ 223
5.6 Significance of this study .......................................................................................................... 225
5.7 Limitations of this study ........................................................................................................... 225
5.8 Summary of Chapter 5 .............................................................................................................. 226
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 228
6.1 Conclusions drawn from the findings ....................................................................................... 228
6.2 Recommendations for institutions of higher learning ............................................................... 229
6.3 Recommendations for academic staff ....................................................................................... 231
6.4 Suggestions for future research ................................................................................................. 232
References ........................................................................................................................................... 233
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 257

x