lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Policy and practice in two academic settings: how the administrative structures of Australian and Swedish universities serve a culture of honesty
Monash University.
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Language and Literature.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5299-8982
2010 (English)In: Proceedings of the 4th International Plagiarism Conference, 2010Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Although institutional plagiarism policies around the world vary greatly in terms of the degree of specificity in their provisions, many share a number of common characteristics. Policies typically describe mechanisms according to which suspected individuals can be first judged, and then, if found guilty, sanctioned. Extending the criminal justice metaphor further, institutional policies and procedures for dealing with suspected instances of plagiarism can be said to have two closely related objectives: to identify and punish the guilty (while not mistakenly identifying or punishing the innocent) and to use the threat of detection and punishment to deter transgressive behaviour. The intrinsic value of both of these objectives is clear, but the extent to which institutional practices meet them depends not only on effective detection and deterrence, but also on promoting student learning. This paper questions the extent to which a culture of detection and deterrence promotes the core business of learning in two very different contexts, Sweden and Australia. Swedish universities are (with a single exception) within the public sector and funded, run and regulated by central government.

Australian universities, by contrast, are much more heterogeneous in the way that policies are developed and implemented. The language, as well as the process, for plagiarism management varies across institutions By comparing institutional approaches to plagiarism management in different national contexts, we explore ways in which cultures of honesty are shaped at the level of policy. What are the expectations of universities about promoting ethical learning and establishing a culture of academic honesty in their learning spaces? How are these expectations envisaged in policy? Are these visions achieved in practice? In addressing these issues through an analysis of policy documents and interview data from teaching staff, plagiarism policies apparently focus on detection and deterrence mechanisms at the expense of promoting learning for students. In both Sweden and Australia it appears that existing disciplinary mechanisms disappoint staff in their efforts to shape a culture of honesty.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010.
National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-33490OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-33490DiVA, id: diva2:709215
Conference
The 4th International Plagiarism Conference
Available from: 2014-03-31 Created: 2014-03-31 Last updated: 2015-04-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Fulltext

Authority records BETA

Pecorari, Diane

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Pecorari, Diane
By organisation
School of Language and Literature
Educational Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 1464 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf