A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
Plagiarism Defined? : A multiple case study analysis of institutional definitions (2020)

Ronai, K. (2020). Plagiarism Defined? : A multiple case study analysis of institutional definitions. Apples : Journal of Applied Language Studies, 14(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.202003282558

JYU-tekijät tai -toimittajat

Julkaisun tiedot

Julkaisun kaikki tekijät tai toimittajat: Ronai, Kara

Lehti tai sarja: Apples : Journal of Applied Language Studies

eISSN: 1457-9863

Julkaisuvuosi: 2020

Volyymi: 14

Lehden numero: 1

Artikkelin sivunumerot: 25-46

Kustantaja: Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä

Julkaisumaa: Suomi

Julkaisun kieli: englanti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.202003282558

Julkaisun avoin saatavuus: Avoimesti saatavilla

Julkaisukanavan avoin saatavuus: Kokonaan avoin julkaisukanava

Julkaisu on rinnakkaistallennettu (JYX): https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/68463

Tiivistelmä

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.

YSO-asiasanat: plagiointi; tieteellinen kirjoittaminen; korkea-asteen koulutus

Liittyvät organisaatiot

OKM-raportointi: Kyllä

Raportointivuosi: 2020

JUFO-taso: 1