awareness about plagiarism amongst university … about plagiarism amongst university students ......
TRANSCRIPT
Awareness about plagiarism amongst university studentsin Pakistan
Muhammad Ramzan • Muhammad Asif Munir • Nadeem Siddique •
Muhammad Asif
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract Research is an original and systematic investigation undertaken to discover
new facts and information about a phenomenon. However a variety of empirical and
ethical issues are on the rise in academia, especially plagiarism is quickly becoming part of
global educational and research culture. More and more students and researchers are
turning to the Internet for cooked solutions and shortcuts for writing assignments, research
papers and thesis. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the seriousness of plagiarism
amongst graduate and post graduate students of Pakistan. It also explores the university
students’ level of awareness of plagiarism. A total of 365 graduate and post graduate
students of randomly selected public and private sector universities participated in this
exploratory empirical study. A self-reported questionnaire survey was used for collection
of primary data. Findings revealed that there was a low level of awareness about plagiarism
and university plagiarism policies and processes amongst the students. Findings also
revealed that many respondents did not understand what plagiarism is? A significant
number of students have fairly admitted that they have intentionally plagiarized written
materials. Based on the findings of the study this paper puts forward recommendations to
create awareness amongst the students regarding plagiarism, plagiarism policies and
provides statistical evidences for formulation of policies and guidelines to combat pla-
giarism in institutions of higher learning in Pakistan. Furthermore, the paper submits
recommendations to minimize the plagiarism based on the authors’ experiences.
M. Ramzan (&) � N. Siddique � M. AsifLahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Opposite Sector ‘‘U’’, D.H.A,Lahore 54792, Pakistane-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
N. Siddiquee-mail: [email protected]
M. Asife-mail: [email protected]
M. A. MunirSuperior University Lahore, Lahore, Pakistane-mail: [email protected]
123
High EducDOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9481-4
Keywords Plagiarism � Research ethics � Academic dishonesty � Plagiarism in Pakistan �Awareness about plagiarism � Plagiarism amongst students
Introduction
The foundation of academic and scholarly world revolves around ethics and integrity,
where new ideas, theories are created, confirmed and re-confirmed, experiments and
research works is carried and published for the benefits of the humanity with a genuine
desire of acknowledgement. For this purpose universities and institute of higher learning
are established that not only generate new ideas, theories, formulas and standards through
experiments, field work and through other research methods, but also produce highly
skilled and competent graduates with high standards of honesty, ethics and professionalism
to serve the communities. It is presumed that due credit will be given to the authors of new
ideas and revolutionary inventions. Current and coming generations can benefit from these
creative works and theories and can advance this knowledge and scholarship through their
indigenous research by giving credit and acknowledgement to original authors where it is
due. However, with enhanced access to a vast amount of knowledge and resources, aca-
demic dishonesty and plagiarism is increasing in the institutions of higher learning around
the globe (Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke 2005). Plagiarism in this study has been defined
as ‘‘the action or practice of taking someone else’s work, ideas, etc., and passing it off as
one’s own; literary theft’’ (Oxford English Dictionary 2010). Academic institutions are
continuously highlighting this issue and devising strategies to minimize plagiarism among
their students and researchers.
Printed books, journals, encyclopedias and newspapers remained main source of pla-
giarism until the mid-nineties. However, the Internet have provided extensive opportunities
of plagiarism because of its easy access to an enormous amount of knowledge and learning
materials. More and more information and knowledge is made available through the
Internet. This provides an opportunity to the students to easy cut paste, download and
plagiarize information (Stebelman 1998; Evans 2000; Galus 2002). McMurtry (2001) has
stated that Internet assists in plagiarizing through providing access to relevant websites in
copying, pasting the relevant text, exchange of papers with friends and students of other
universities and downloading of papers from free websites or purchasing from paper mills.
Literature on plagiarism reveals that most people assume Internet as a source of free
information and public domain and they think since the information available on the
Internet is not copyrighted so it can be easily manipulated, used and presented as their own
work (Stebelman 1998).
The right of ownership is protected in all walks of life; whether it is an idea, an artistic
work, music, song, invention, experiment, or an academic output. Whenever the right of
ownership is violated, it is cheating and unethical. We in academics call it plagiarism.
Mostly the authors of journal articles, books or of software systems share their contribu-
tions with the communities for the solution of the problems. In return they want an
acknowledgement and recognition of their intellectual output so that they could take pride
and encouragement for more contributions.
Findings of a study by McCabe (2005) revealed that in colleges and universities of USA
and Canada one in every five students admitted that s/he had cheated in tests or exams at
least once or more time in last 1 year whereas the number increases to 59% among
undergraduate students. Selwyn (2008) reported that about 60% undergraduate students in
High Educ
123
UK higher educational institutions confessed that they had committed Internet based
plagiarism in last 1 year and expert Internet users were more likely to engage in plagia-
rism.
Razera et al. (2010) in their study found that Swedish students and teachers (n = 275)
need training to understand and avoid plagiarism. Teachers want a clear set of policies
regarding detection tools to deal plagiarism and extensive training in use of detection
software and systems. While the students felt more comfortable in use of electronic pla-
giarism detection tools, teachers feared that students’ knowledge about the working of
detection tools may encourage them to bypass or beat the detection tools by adopting more
innovative ways of doing plagiarism. The study found that lack of motivation, poorly
worded examinations, lack of training in scientific writings were some of the factors that
forced students towards plagiarism.
Tayraukham (2009) investigated the level of plagiarism in higher education (n = 500)
in Thailand and found that students with performance goals were most likely to indulge in
plagiarism behavior as compared to the students who want mastery in a particular subject.
Most of the students plagiarize to get the right answers of their questions, ultimately to
achieve high grades in their studies instead of getting expertise in their subjects of study.
He further mentioned that one of the reasons of this attitude towards plagiarism could be
the culture of Thailand where people copy from their friends and known authors because of
their relationship with the authors but they do not consider it plagiarism. The study also
found that scores on academic ethics, knowledge and behavior amongst the master and
doctoral students were the same. However, doctoral students’ knowledge and behavior of
academic ethics in research methodology was significantly (0.01 level) higher than the
master students. Moreover, doctoral students had significantly (0.05 level) higher attitude
towards academic ethics in research methodology than the master students. Findings also
revealed that students knowledge of academic ethics had a high effect (b = 0.860) to
academic ethics behavior in research methodology.
Students’ awareness about university academic integrity and plagiarism acceptability
level plays an important role in determining their attitudes towards plagiarism. Findings of
the study by Ryan et al. (2009) revealed deficiencies in students’ (n = 990) awareness and
knowledge about plagiarism in University of Sydney. Similarly students’ attitudes towards
plagiarism was significantly (p \ 0.05) different about their knowledge of existence of
university plagiarism policy and the contents of the policy. No significant (p [ 0.05)
relationship was found between the awareness of policy and the contents of the policy.
Most of the students did not perceive that plagiarism was a serious threat to academic
integrity. The study found that majority of the students were involved in plagiarism and
they were not citing the source materials properly. Regarding penalties majority of the
students favored warning for the first time violation of plagiarism policy. Regarding
willingness to report another student’s plagiarism to the teacher a significant majority
(71.9%) said that they will not report the matter to the teacher and they said that this is not
their responsibility. This study recommended creating a balance for prevention, detection
and punishment for plagiarism cases of the students.
Plagiarism from the Internet resources is generally seen as less crime as compared to
plagiarism by using printed materials. People perceive that Internet is free for all and a
public domain so copying from Internet does not require any citation or acknowledgement
(Oliphant 2002; Baruchson-Arbib and Yaari 2004). Findings of a study by Baruchson-
Arbib and Yaari (2004) found that students’ (n = 284) attitudes towards plagiarism from
online resources was found significantly different (p \ 0.001 for word by word copying
High Educ
123
and different at p \ 0.05 for paraphrasing) from print resources. Respondents’ age was
found significant predictor (b = 0.52) of their attitudes towards use of ideas from print
resources without citations. This study suggested that students should be taught to observe
ethics in use of Internet resources, proper citations of online resources and importance of
copy right laws to reduce the plagiarism from academia. Townley and Parsell (2004) also
found that while preparing assignments most of the students retrieve information using
Internet and they do not treat the online resources as they view printed material in terms of
authorship, copying and plagiarism. Ultimately the teachers are under pressure to deter-
mine whatever they are receiving from the students in terms of assignments and research
papers are free of plagiarism or not. They recommend that the best way to reduce pla-
giarism is to proactively teach students and deploy technologies to help them to avoid
plagiarism instead of using online plagiarism detection software.
Use of online technologies to avoid plagiarism from online resources is the best option
recommended by (Snow 2006). A survey, of 772 students and 190 teachers of Queensland
University in Australia (Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke 2005), was conducted to examine
the perceptions of seriousness, penalties, prevalence and reasons for academic dishonesty
and misconduct. The study found a significant difference between students and faculty
perception about seriousness of academic dishonesty as faculty rating for academic dis-
honesty was higher than the student rating. Students’ recommendations for penalties level
for academic misconduct and plagiarism was lower as compared to the teachers’ recom-
mendations. Students were found well aware of the prevalence of plagiarism in their
institutions as compared to their teachers. Regarding reasons for academic dishonesty the
students and the faculty had significant difference as students rated help to a friend,
difficulty in the assignment, time constraint, less chances of being caught and unintentional
gesture were the reasons for plagiarism, while faculty also shared the first two reasons for
plagiarism but mentioned personal crisis, I don’t think I was wrong and other students do
it, as the reasons for plagiarism. The study also confirms in line with the existing literature
that academic dishonesty and plagiarism is on the rise in Australian Universities and
institutions of higher learning in other countries.
Plagiarism exists in academic institutions due to different reasons. McGowan (2005)
mentioned that in addition to vigilance and detection tools to manage plagiarism, efforts
should be made to help students avoid what he called ‘‘unwitting plagiarism’’ which they
do inadvertently by using language and contents of others. New students in universities and
international students whose first language is not English need transition to the research
culture through understanding the need, practice and skills to do research to avoid unin-
tentional plagiarism.
Dawson and Overfield (2006) determined that students were aware that plagiarism is
bad but they were not clear of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it. Students
required that teachers should also observe the rules to avoid plagiarism and they should be
consistently reminded of awareness about plagiarism to enforce the university resolve to
control this academic sin. Students also desired the knowledge and practice of good
referencing, especially of Internet resources to avoid to be labeled as cheating.
For the last couple of years, Pakistan has focused more on research and development
through giving incentives to students getting admissions in graduate and postgraduate
programs in Pakistan and abroad. Substantial amount of grants, scholarships, financial aid
and rewards are being given to students, researchers and faculty advisors for carrying and
publishing research (Higher Education Commission of Pakistan 2010). The level of focus
on research and scholarship, however, has been changing with the changes in priorities of
the incumbent governments. The temptation to publish papers for promotions and financial
High Educ
123
gains has brought ethical issues in research in our country. There have been reports of
plagiarism cases in universities/institutes of higher learning in Pakistan in the press,
newsletters and Higher Education Commission alerts. Shirazi et al. (2010) and Sheikh
(2008) have argued that plagiarism is a common issue in academic institutions in the world
and it is also increasing in many Pakistani institutions. There are general talks of plagia-
rism and desire to minimize it. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan has provided
guidelines to manage plagiarism and asked the universities and institutes to devise and
implement plagiarism policies in their institutions. However, there is a lack of empirical
data on the nature and level of plagiarism among the students of Pakistan, so the desired
results to minimize plagiarism from academic institutions of Pakistan have not been
achieved so far. The purpose of this study is to explore the level of awareness concerning
plagiarism among the graduate and postgraduate students of universities in Pakistan.
Findings of this study will help universities, institutes of higher learning, especially Higher
Education Commission of Pakistan and education ministries to devise strategies based on
empirical research, so that their policies become more effective in combating the issue of
plagiarism in Pakistan.
Objectives of the study
The purpose of this study is to examine and explore the level of awareness about pla-
giarism amongst the graduate and postgraduate student of private and public sector uni-
versities of Pakistan. The study also aims to explore teachers’ and universities’
effectiveness in detecting the plagiarism and existence of university policies to manage it.
Research design
Survey research was used to get primary data for this exploratory empirical study. For this
purpose, a plagiarism survey questionnaire used by Pritchett (2010) was adopted with little
modification in the questions related to demographic data of the respondents. The ques-
tionnaire comprised of three parts. First part dealt with the working definition of the
plagiarism and data about respondents’ institutes, their gender, age, level of education
program, frequency of Internet use, frequency of citation use, pressure to achieve high
grades and types of expectations. The second part dealt with the existence of universities
plagiarism policy, its level of strictness, effectiveness, and plagiarism detection systems.
The third part comprised of eight statements to elicit the level of awareness of plagiarism
amongst the graduate and postgraduate students of universities of Pakistan. At the end
respondents were asked to write their comments. The Cronbach’s alpha of eight items
plagiarism awareness scale was found reliable with 0.910.
Independent variables
Students age, gender, education level (Graduate/Postgraduate), year of enrollment, type of
institution, post graduation plan, frequency of Internet use, frequency of citation/reference
use, high grades pressure and types of expectations.
High Educ
123
Dependent variable
Students’ level of awareness of plagiarism as a dependent variable was measured on a
5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’. Five points
were allotted to strongly agree, 4 to agree, 3 to neutral, 2 to disagree and one point was
allotted to strongly disagree.
Data collection
Population
Subjects of the study were graduate (MA/MSc/MBA or equivalent) and postgraduate
(MPhil/PhD) students of Higher Education Commission’s accredited universities across
Pakistan. Four hundred graduate and post graduate students from 12 randomly selected
universities were taken as sample.
Data collection procedure
Questionnaire was sent to the respondents through emails and in person through librarians
of these universities in August–September 2010. Initially the response rate was low but
with continuous follow up through phone calls, emails and personal visits in some cases by
researchers, 365 questionnaires were received back by September 2010. Major portion of
15 questionnaires was incomplete, so 350 valid questionnaires were used for data analysis
and interpretation.
Treatment of data
Statistical Products Services and Solutions (SPSS) was used for computation and analysis
of the data. Each respondent was allotted a case number and filed according to that case
number. A code book comprising of variables and value labels was prepared. Data was
entered in SPSS data file in coded format. A frequency analysis of all the variables was run
to detect the errors, missing or wrong codes in the data. Errors and omissions were rectified
and clean coded data was used for analysis. Descriptive analysis, frequency tables and
charts were used for data analysis and presentation.
Data analysis and findings
Out of a total of 350, majority (248) respondents belonged to the public sector and 102
belonged to the private sector universities. The below Table 1 indicates that 195 respon-
dents were male and 150 were female, while five respondents did not share their gender.
Majority (151) of the respondents belonged to 21–23 years age group, followed by 103
who belonged to 24–26 age group, 38 were very young (18–20 years) and 53 were
27 years and above age group of respondents. A significant majority (240) of the
respondents was graduate students and 96 were post graduate students, while 14 did not
respond to this question. Regarding enrolment 116 respondents indicated that they enrolled
in 2009, an equal number (89) of students enrolled in 2008 and 2010, while 48 respondents
enrolled in 2007.
High Educ
123
A majority (132) of respondents planned further study after graduation, 116 planned
government employment, 72 planned for private employment, 20 respondents planned for
self employment, while 10 did not respond. Regarding frequency of Internet use, 101
respondents indicated that they use Internet very often, 76 said they use all the time, an
equal number (61) said that they use fairly often and occasionally, only 47 said that they
use Internet very few times.
In response to a question regarding correct use of references and citations of used
resources in assignments, 103 respondents reported that they cite references very often,
only 68 responded that they cite references all the time, 60 reported that they cite fairly
often, 77 reported that they cite occasionally, while 37 respondents said that they cite very
few times.
A significant majority (218) of respondents admitted that they fall into pressure of
achieving high marks, while 80 did not agree and 52 did not respond to this question. Out
of those who took pressure, a majority (126) of respondents said family expectations, 76
said university expectations and 64 said society expectations as pressure to get high grades.
A total of 121 respondents reported that plagiarism was a last resort when they were under
pressure, while 199 respondents did not agree to this statement.
A good number (149) of respondents reported existence of plagiarism policy in their
universities, 63 reported non existence of university plagiarism policy, 118 reported that
they do not know about the university plagiarism policy, while 20 respondents did not
answer this question. A total of 31 respondents mentioned availability of plagiarism policy
at university website, 59 reported in research guidelines and 26 reported availability of
university plagiarism policy in students’ handbook.
Regarding university plagiarism policy 47 respondents rated it very strict, 89 rated as
strict, 90 rated fair, 46 rated lenient and 56 respondents rated it very weak, while 27 did not
respond. In response to question about plagiarism detection system 52 respondents reported
that they knew it, 126 responded that they have some idea, while a majority (162) reported
Table 1 Demography ofparticipants
Demography of participants Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 195 55.7
Female 150 42.9
Age group
18–20 years 38 10.9
21–23 years 151 43.1
24–26 years 103 29.4
27 ? years 53 15.1
Program of study
Graduate (MA/MSc/MBA/equivalent) 240 68.6
Post graduate (MPhil/PhD) 96 27.4
Enrolment year
2007 48 13.7
2008 89 25.4
2009 116 33.1
2010 89 25.4
High Educ
123
that they don’t know existence of any plagiarism detection system (Turnitin etc.) in their
universities.
A reasonable number (81) of respondents admitted that they themselves or anyone
known to them have intentionally plagiarized, 93 reported maybe, 83 reported they don’t
know, while 85 denied their own or their known fellow students’ involvement in inten-
tional plagiarism. A similar number (81) of respondents reported that they themselves or
anyone known to them were detected for plagiarism, 74 responded maybe, 81 responded
they don’t know, while a majority (112) denied their own or their known persons’ detection
of plagiarism. Out of those detected for plagiarism, 42 reported that they were charged
according to universities unfair means and plagiarism policy, 101 responded they don’t
know and 45 responded that they were not charged for plagiarism policy violation.
Awareness about plagiarism
Seven statements were used to examine the graduate and postgraduate students’ level of
awareness of plagiarism in universities in Pakistan. An inspection of the Table 2 shows
that 124 respondents strongly agreed that they understand the meaning of plagiarism, 132
agreed, and 40 remained neutral, 21 disagreed and 18 respondents strongly disagreed,
while 15 did not respond to this statement. The responses are an alarm for the academia, as
256 (73.1%) students understand the meaning of plagiarism, while remaining simply don’t
know what actually plagiarism means. There is a need of a serious effort to educate the
graduate and postgraduate students, so that they can clearly understand the plagiarism and
avoid it while doing research projects and publishing papers.
A good number (228) of respondents agreed that they understand plagiarism as wrong.
However, 48 respondents did not consider plagiarism as wrong and 53 remained neutral,
which is a serious ethical concern for academia in Pakistan. Faculty, university manage-
ment and responsible institutions at federal and provincial level need to think and devise a
program of imparting ethical education to the students across the country. The major
problem is with their belief about plagiarism, which needs to be addressed so that they do
not indulge in plagiarism and similar academic dishonesties.
Table 2 Students’ awareness about plagiarism
Plagiarism awareness statements Stronglyagree
Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglydisagree
NR Mean
I understand the meaning of plagiarism 124 132 40 21 18 15 3.79
I understand plagiarism to be wrong 125 103 53 34 14 21 3.65
Copying from a book without creditingthe source constitutes plagiarism
79 111 63 45 22 30 3.26
If a student violates the plagiarismpolicy he/she will be caught
60 105 85 43 17 40 3.08
If a student violates the plagiarismpolicy he/she will be caught and faceserious consequences
29 100 94 74 25 28 3.11
Our faculty is effective at catchingstudents who plagiarize
38 95 103 68 28 18 2.86
University is effective at catchingstudents who plagiarize
52 106 93 54 18 27 2.98
High Educ
123
In response to a statement regarding copying from a book without crediting a source
constitute plagiarism, 190 respondents showed their agreement, 67 did not agree and 63
remained neutral, while 30 did not respond to this statement. The results reveal a dismal
picture of the graduate and postgraduate students’ understanding and belief of copying
without acknowledgement. This could be one of the reasons of plagiarism cases in our
universities. This implies that students need to understand what actually constitutes pla-
giarism and how to avoid it.
A total of 165 respondents showed awareness that if a student violates plagiarism policy
he/she will be caught, 60 think that violators will not be caught. A large number (85) of
respondents were not sure of the plagiarism policy violation detection, while 40 did not
respond to this question. The results indicate that a large number of students do not believe
in the universities plagiarism detection system and processes. It again indicates the need
for an extensive plagiarism awareness campaign in the universities of Pakistan.
Regarding consequences after plagiarism detection 129 respondents agreed that the
violator will be caught and punished, 99 believed that the violator will get escape and will
not be punished, 28 did not respond to this question, while a good number (94) respondent
remained neutral regarding consequences after plagiarism detection in their universities.
The results speak of in-effectiveness of universities value and ethics system in the minds of
students. They take it for granted and too lenient to be caught and awarded accordingly.
This perception may encourage plagiarism amongst students if not mended properly.
In response to a statement that our faculty is effective at catching students who pla-
giarize, 133 students showed their awareness in agreement, a large number (103) remained
neutral, 96 respondents showed disagreement with this statement, while 18 did not
respond. The findings reveal that the students thought that their faculty is not effective in
detecting the plagiarism of students. There is a need to create awareness amongst graduate
and postgraduate students of the universities that faculty is effective and capable in
detecting the plagiarism, so that they do not indulge in academic dishonesty/plagiarism.
Moreover, there is a need to make plagiarism detection system visible and accessible to the
students. This may serve as a deterrent for students to plagiarize.
Going beyond the concerned faculty, students’ awareness about their university’s
effectiveness in detecting the plagiarism cases, less than half (158) of the respondents
showed agreement that university is effective enough to identify the cheating and pla-
giarism cases, 93 remained neutral, 72 showed disagreement, while 27 did not respond to
this question. These responses indicate that a large number of students are not aware of
their university’s effectiveness in detecting the plagiarism cases. University managements
need to use these empirical evidences to devise programs for students’ awareness about the
university systems and processes to combat the evil of plagiarism.
Involvement in plagiarism
As shown in Fig. 1, in response to a direct question 85 (24%) respondents very fairly and
honestly admitted that they have plagiarized from written materials, 161 (46%) said that
they have not plagiarized, 79 (23%) remained neutral, while 25 (7%) did not respond to
this question. Findings revealed that plagiarism exists amongst the graduate and post-
graduate students in universities. Despite these self reported responses by the students a
significant number of respondents could not clearly mentioned that they have not plagia-
rized from written materials.
High Educ
123
Discussion and recommendations
The purpose of this study was to investigate the graduate and postgraduate students’
awareness and understanding of plagiarism in universities of Pakistan and to determine the
existence of plagiarism policies, detection tools, and effectiveness of the faculty and
university’s plagiarism detection systems and processes.
It was encouraging to note that students responded positively in filling and sending the
questionnaire and fairly answering to the direct and indirect sensitive questions about
plagiarism in their universities and their own involvement and awareness of plagiarism.
Both male and female graduate and postgraduate students of public and private sector
universities participated in this study with great zeal by timely returning the filled
questionnaires.
Findings reveal that majority of students plan government employment after their
graduation. Majority of the respondents were regularly using Internet to access electronic
journals and databases for their assignments and research papers. The study also reveals
that our graduate and postgraduate students fall into society and family pressures to get
higher grades as it is considered an important achievement in getting employment and
status in our society. Such pressures, sometimes, force students to indulge in unfair means
such as plagiarism as a short cut to perform better in exams and produce number of
publications. These findings are in line with the study of Tayraukham (2009) carried in
Thailand where students plagiarize to gain society prestige and jobs. When under pressure,
a significant number of students responded that plagiarism is a last resort to come up to the
university expectations to publish research and complete assignments in time. We need to
consider pressures on students and constraints to prepare assignments, workloads and
expectations for publications according to their capabilities and capacities and not to
unnecessarily burden them.
Fig. 1 Plagiarism from written materials
High Educ
123
It was discouraging to find that many students were not aware of the university’s
plagiarism policies as these policies are not visible, publicized and published to the extent
to make it available to all the university students. Moreover, the students feel that their
university’s plagiarism policy is not strict enough and is rather too lenient to be effective in
detecting and punishment for the persons who violate the university unfair means and
plagiarism policy. It should be visibly published in students’ handbooks, university policies
documents, and websites and should be well oriented through organized information lit-
eracy programs. It is strongly recommended to organize seminars, workshops and sym-
posia to educate students about plagiarism, its consequences and tools and techniques to
avoid plagiarism and fair publishing.
Findings of study by Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke (2005) in Australia revealed that
students and teachers wanted a clear policy on plagiarism. We would also recommend
formulation and implementation of a clear and effective plagiarism policy in universities of
Pakistan.
A large number of students very fairly admitted that they have intentionally plagiarized
and they also know that their fellow students are involved in plagiarism. These findings
confirm the findings of Shirazi et al. (2010) that plagiarism is on the rise in Pakistani
institutions. However, the current study revealed that academic institutions which are
suppose to be role model are the victim of plagiarism in Pakistan. These finding have
serious implications for the credibility and quality of our educational degrees and research
output. We need to minimize the unethical practices especially plagiarism to raise the
confidence of national and international community in our institutes of higher learning. A
focused agenda to eliminate plagiarism from our universities and research institutions is the
minimum that Higher Education Commission of Pakistan and universities should adopt.
Findings regarding level of awareness of plagiarism amongst our graduate and post-
graduate students clearly indicate that their understanding of plagiarism is poor; they do
not believe that existing plagiarism policies are effective in detecting the plagiarism and
consequently awarding punishments to those who violate the plagiarism policies. Evi-
dences of the study lead to recommend offering full-fledged courses on ethics and pla-
giarism in our universities.
In addition to the above recommendations that are based on empirical evidences, we
would like to recommend the following based on our experiences and observations:
• Set a climate where academic integrity is valued
• Design thoughtful assignments
• Be conscious and create consciousness for research ethics
• Create awareness about intellectual integrity and reputation of individuals, institutions
and Pakistan
• Prepare, publish and promote ethics and values in your universities
• Define and discuss what plagiarism is?
• Include a plagiarism policy (in line with HEC guidelines) in your syllabi
• Determine students’ level of knowledge in paraphrasing, citing, summarizing and using
manuals
• Encourage and promote use of software such as Endnote and Reworks etc. for
automated referencing and citations.
• Review research process and note-taking techniques
• Enhance academic writing skills, establish writing centers
• Require students to schedule research sessions with librarians and faculty advisors’/
writing center
High Educ
123
• Promote the use of software such as Turnitin (www.turnitin.com) for detection and
management of plagiarism in universities/institutions across Pakistan
We understand that the faculty and academic staff of the universities are important
stakeholders in controlling the cheating and plagiarism in academic institutes. Because of
limited resources, this study is restricted to graduate and post graduate students of Pakistan.
Similar studies should be conducted to investigate the status and awareness of plagiarism
among undergraduate students, faculty and academic staff of the academic institutions in
Pakistan. Moreover, studies about attitude, behavior and perception towards plagiarism,
research ethics and cheating needed to be conducted among the students at all level, faculty
and academic staff.
Acknowledgments The authors are indebted to the participants of this study.
References
Baruchson-Arbib, S., & Yaari, E. (2004). Printed versus Internet plagiarism: A study of students’ perception.International Journal of Information Ethics, 1(6), 29–35.
Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academicdishonesty in Australian universities. Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 19–44.
Dawson, M. M., & Overfield, J. A. (2006). Plagiarism: Do students know what it is? Bioscience EducationE-Journal, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol8/beej-8-1.aspx.
Evans, J. A. (2000). The new plagiarism in higher education: From selection to reflection. Interactions, 4(2).http://www.warwick.ac.uk/ETS/interactions/vol4no2/index.htm. Accessed 28 September 2010.
Galus, P. (2002). Detecting and preventing plagiarism. The Science Teacher, 69(8), 35–37.Higher Education Commission. (2010). HEC plagiarism policy (http://hec.gov.pk/Pages/main.aspx)
(Accessed: 28.09.2010).McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective.
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1), 10–11.McGowan, U. (2005). Academic integrity: An awareness and development issue for students and staff.
Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2(3), 48–57.McMurtry, K. (2001). E-cheating: Combating a 21st century challenge. THE Journal, 29(4), 36–40.Oliphant, T. (2002). Cyber-plagiarism: Plagiarism in a digital world. Feliciter, 48(2), 78–80.Oxford English Dictionary. (2010). Plagiarism, n. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/144939. Accessed: 28
September 2010.Pritchett, S. (2010). Perceptions about plagiarism between faculty and undergraduate students. Ph. D
dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego.Razera, D., Verhagen, H., Pargman, T. C., & Ramberg, R. (2010). Plagiarism awareness, perception, and
attitudes among students and teachers in Swedish higher education—a case study. Paper Presented atthe 4th International Plagiarism Conference–Towards an authentic future. Northumbria University inNewcastle Upon Tyne-UK, 21–23 June, 2010.
Ryan, G., Bonanno, H., Krass, I., Scouller, K., & Smith, L. (2009). Undergraduate and postgraduatepharmacy students’ perceptions of plagiarism and academic honesty. American Journal of Pharma-ceutical Education, 73(6), Article 105.
Selwyn, N. (2008). ‘Not necessarily a bad thing…’: A study of online plagiarism amongst undergraduatestudents. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 465–479.
Sheikh, S. (2008). The Pakistan experience. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(4), 283–287.Shirazi, B., Jafarey, A. M., & Moazam, F. (2010). Plagiarism and the medical fraternity: A study of
knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, 60(4), 269–273.Snow, E. (2006). Teaching students about plagiarism: An internet solution to an internet problem. Innovate:
Journal of Online Education, 2(5). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=306.Accessed: 28 September 2010.
Stebelman, S. (1998). Cybercheating: Dishonesty goes digital. American Libraries, 29(8), 48–50.Tayraukham, S. (2009). Academic ethics in research methodology. The Social Sciences, 4(6), 573–577.Townley, C., & Parsell, M. (2004). Technology and academic virtue: Student plagiarism through the looking
glass. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(4), 271–277.
High Educ
123