
Plagiarism Defined?
Author(s) -
Kara Ronai
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
apples
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1457-9863
DOI - 10.17011/apples/urn.202003282558
Subject(s) - acknowledgement , construct (python library) , china , element (criminal law) , academic integrity , political science , sociology , library science , computer science , law , computer security , programming language
This multiple case study examines seven institutional documents from universities in four countries (Australia, China, Finland and Germany) with the aim of determining how plagiarism is defined in these institutional contexts. This research expands on previous analyses of university plagiarism policies in the Anglosphere (e.g., Kaktiņš, 2014; Sutherland-Smith, 2011), and particularly the notion that institutional definitions of plagiarism contain “six elements” (Pecorari, 2002). Using the six elements model of plagiarism as a theoretical basis, the documents in this study were analysed using deductive content analysis. The findings of this analysis revealed that the definitions of plagiarism were consistent across the contexts, with all policies containing five of the six elements in their definitions. At two institutions, however, the element of intentionality was not addressed in the definition of plagiarism. Furthermore, the extent of discussion of certain elements of plagiarism (e.g., the need for source acknowledgement), and an emphasis on “good academic practice” across the documents revealed the need for ongoing research that considers how institutions construct official definitions of plagiarism.