Educational and Student Policy
Plagiarism: policy, processes and procedures
Report of LTS event on Thursday 1 December 2011
Alice Benton, Head of Educational and Student Policy, introduced the session by demonstrating the University plagiarism website: (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/). This is an essential resource for Faculties and Departments. Mrs Benton reminded attendees that the University encourages all Departments to sign-up for Turnitin access, explaining that this could be accessed directly or through CamTools. Information and further guidelines are available on the website.
The Education Section is an important first point of contact for Departments when faced with plagiarism issues. Departments should not hesitate to contact their liaison officer for advice and guidance on any issue of policy or University procedure.
Dr Alan Winter, Senior Proctor (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/proctors/), gave an overview of the University procedures and processes that may be undertaken when plagiarism is suspected. He highlighted the University-wide statement on plagiarism, which emphasises that a student may be found culpable of plagiarism 'irrespective of intent to deceive'. Attendees were reminded that the reason for guarding against plagiarism is to protect the integrity of the University examinations' system and the status of its degrees. Of about a dozen cases that the Proctors see each year, a small number are referred to the University Advocate.
Dr Winter advised that when approaching a suspected case of plagiarism, it was important not to assume that the student had cheated deliberately but to make a clear distinction between bad scholarship and real intent to deceive. Students often need advice on good and bad practice, especially with the relative ease of being able to download material from the internet to that might become combined with own work. Copying of work or collusion between two students is also an identifiable issue. Dr Winter urged attendees to treat such occurrences carefully because students should be encouraged to discuss their work and learn from each other, but the importance of submitting own work should be emphasised.
Good practice guidance that Faculties and Departments are asked to provide for their students was discussed. Dr Winter considered the golden rule 'examiners must be in no doubt about which part is the student's' own work and which is not’ a useful dictum. It was emphasised that local guidance on referencing and discipline-specific style conventions is greatly beneficial to students.
The University procedure flowchart for how to deal with suspected plagiarism in non-research degrees was then explained (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/examiners/nonresearchchart.pdf):
The process begins with an initial suspicion from the Examiner or Assessor (or simply, member of academic staff marking the work). This person should mark the work for the scholarship that is shown, and not with the suspicion that there was intent to cheat at this stage. Dr Winter recommended the insertion of quotation marks, footnotes, etc. where it was perceived there ought to be as a demonstration of suspicion.
The Marker would then send the evidence of suspected plagiarism to the Chair of Examiners, who will make a judgement on the case. If relatively minor, the case can be handled within the Faculty/Department. This should happen with a non-disciplinary interview - with no hint to the student that there is suspicion of intent to deceive - and marks can then deducted for reasons of poor scholarship, but not as a punitive measure. However, if the case appears more serious, or if the Chair is not sure what the situation is, then the Proctors should be contacted and they will call an Investigative meeting at which the following must be present: the student's Tutor or someone of a similar position; the Examiner/Marker who first suspected unfair means; the Chair of Examiners; the Proctor.
In most of the cases brought before the Proctors, it is clear that the student has quoted from elsewhere without acknowledgement, and usually the student will state their ignorance of the gravity of their actions - it is often the case the procedure will end here. However, on occasion further action will be taken and, once referred to the Advocate, it is no longer a Proctorial issue - it becomes a disciplinary case.
An Investigative meeting should not be held while student is still taking exams - Faculties should let the examination process finish and then seek arrange a meeting. It is ideal if this can be held before the final Examiners' meeting, because then an already published Class List need not be altered.
Three conclusions can be reached at the meeting:
- poor scholarship, but not unfair means - at which point the Proctors leave the process and the Examiners mark accordingly;
- the student pleads guilty to unfair means but the offence is minor e.g. only for a small part of the Tripos, and/or a first offence, in which case an appropriate mark can be awarded by the Examiners in consultation with the Proctors;
- unfair means suspected in a major case and/or second offence, which must be referred to the Advocate.
Dr Winter reported that in 4 cases out of 5 student will plea poor scholarship - they will admit to committing an act of plagiarism but claim unawareness that it was wrong.
Questions at that arose at this stage included: what would happen if plagiarism occurred during coursework, for instance in Michaelmas Term, well before the exam process begins?
Dr Winter said that it should be deal with quickly, so in those circumstances the meeting didn’t have to occur between the end of the exam process and the final examiners meeting.
With reference to 'second offence' - was there a way of tracking a student's previous cases of plagiarism?
It was noted that there would only be an official record if the case had reached the University Court. Pippa Rogerson at this point noted that unofficial means were also available, e.g. though a Director of Studies.
Would it be appropriate to put a note of it on supervisor reports on CamSIS?
Dr Rogerson and Dr Rosy Thornton though considered this appropriate provided the note did not remain on the student's University record.
Dr Pippa Rogerson, former University Advocate (http://www.cam.ac.uk/univ/works/advocate.html),
emphasised that academics should keep in mind the difference between plagiarism committed by a first-year Undergraduate’s compared to that of a PhD student. Examiners must be aware of the expectations of a first-year in comparison to a PhD thesis. Most academics would be able to make these assessments - it was also acknowledged that the various standards expected can depend upon the academic discipline.
It was generally agreed that the integrity of the academic community depends upon rigorous standards being upheld. No one wants to see a PhD being awarded to a plagiarised thesis, but equally understanding needs to be made of different academic backgrounds and understanding of expectations. It is clear that education and dissemination of best practice in this area is essential.
Dr Rogerson explained that much work should be done in avoiding plagiarism before any cases reach the Advocate stage. Faculties and Departments need to be sure that students understand what is expected of them. It may not be enough for a Faculty to have their plagiarism guidance on the website, but instead to oblige student to undertake training. It was noted that plagiarism often comes about from attempting to cut corners and save time, and that it was well worth supervisors making a habit of encouraging students not to 'plagiarise their way out of a problem'.
A key aspect to be considered is whether the case presented to Examiners constituted a substantial act of plagiarism, and if so, how substantial? Dr Rogerson noted that this could by three or four key paragraphs and within the context this would be considered substantial. On the other hand, five or six copied lines - or unacknowledged paraphrasing - are unlikely to be considered substantial.
Intent does not need to be proven - even at the prosecution level. This is not to say that proof of intent is not useful to the process, particularly further back, as this will distinguish cases that need to be taken further than the academic investigation.
Dr Rogerson then illustrated the University's processes using several case studies, which can be downloaded here:
Details of some of those examples are given here:
Case study: a PhD student submitted a thesis wherein between one and two chapters out of seven had been taken from an unpublished paper in the US. It was argued that this was a clear case of plagiarism and that it was both substantial and significant - not just the words, but presenting key ideas as his own that were not and were meant to be an original contribution to knowledge. The student in this case literally vanished so could not be charged.
Case study: a student downloaded material from several internet sources and combined them for a first-year supervision essay. This is not an assessable assignment, but Dr Rogerson would hope that the student's supervisor would talk seriously to the student and explain why this was not acceptable academic practice.
Case study: an MPhil student had handed in an essay worth about 10% of the final mark where the literature review in the introduction had been taken from the internet and from several text books. Dr Rogerson argued that this was very close to the line of sloppy scholarship and could likely be dealt with by a mark deduction within the Faculty. This should involve a meeting with the student and an explanation of proper academic practice.
Case study: a PhD student had used unacknowledged sources, and parts of her thesis had been assembled from many sources. It was not a case where it could be spotted easily based on as change in the style of writing. The student argued that working with the same material as previous authors was the reason for similarity in wording. About 10% of the total dissertation came from three works by other authors. The plagiarism was identified only when the authors of these works peer-reviewed the thesis for publication. Dr Rogerson acknowledged that there were only so many ways in which certain subject-specific phrases could be used, but in this case, it was evident that the student had lifted sentences word for word rather than paraphrased and had not referenced properly. The University Court of Discipline decided that the student should be allowed to resubmit.
Dr Rogerson further explained the University's processes and procures:
If a case has been seen by the Proctors and needs to be taken to the Advocate, several pieces of information should be passed to her. Along with the work, and the report from the academic involved on what has happened - the nature of the plagiarism, how it has been marked already - it is useful for the Advocate to know the other marks the student has already been awarded in the course of their degree. In some cases, MPhil students have already failed the other parts of their degree, so the Advocate questions whether it is worth prosecuting them. Sometimes it is, and so the Advocate will take it further - the difference between having just a fail on their record and a note that they have failed and have also committed the act of plagiarism. The Advocate is the final arbiter in the process and makes this decision on behalf of the University.
The Court of Discipline has the right to expel a student and expunge them from the University record in particularly bad cases. However, largely the result is far less extreme and ranges from a comment on the academic record to dropping a Class or two, and various other academic penalties.
Dr Rogerson's closing remark was that prevention is better than cure, and getting academics behind promoting good academic practice is essential, as is careful supervision including regular (yearly) checks on a student's work. Dr Rogerson also recommended plagiarism 'declarations' on submitted work, and the careful setting of exam questions so they do not rely on previous years' papers.
During the final discussion, it was noted that:
- the library runs seminars on good academic practice, including plagiarism avoidance;
- Dr Rosy Thornton (current University Advocate) advised it a very good idea to involve tutors at an early stage in investigatory processes;
- in cases where examiners have got in touch with co-examiners as soon as there was suspicion and the essay has been marked-down without really talking to the students, Dr Rogerson argued that the student may feel they have not been dealt with fairly, that they been prejudged and penalised too quickly. She noted that it was necessary to encourage examiners to be fair and maintain a sense of balance;
- on collusion, Dr Winter gave an example of one student attempting to teach another; Student A passed an essay to Student B as an exemplar and Student B handed that essay in as his own. In this case, Student A was not penalised, but Student B was. The academic queried further on this, and it was recommended that if there was concern about how to judge them, the Faculty or Department should consult the Proctors;
- in some scientific subjects it is quite common to collaborate in writing-up, but in these cases, the mark for that part of the Tripos is often worth 1% or less, so is it worth dealing with? Even though a small part of the Tripos, it was agreed that it is a preventative measure if the Proctors are consulted and a formal meeting is held;
- Examiners' meetings should not necessarily be delayed if a plagiarism case arose just before it;
- the Education Section can serve as a first point of contact for advice on policy and procedures. Departments may wish to keep their liaison officer informed of all cases of suspected plagiarism.