Plagiarism: a guide for law lecturers

Alison Bone, University of Brighton

This teaching resource note, compiled in 2005, provides basic information on the nature of plagiarism and how to prevent it, supplemented by extracts from the University of Brighton’s student guide on plagiarism.

---

There has been much recent publicity regarding plagiarism – for example, a special report for BBC Radio 4’s PM programme uncovered an “extraordinary level of plagiarism in British universities”. There appears to be general consensus that its incidence is growing, either in real terms or because the perpetrators are being caught more frequently. This short guide is intended to provide basic information on the nature of plagiarism, who does it and why – but its prime purpose is to enable lecturers to have an informed discussion about the best way to prevent it.

Although there is a general consensus reached through research about the causes of plagiarism, it is also thought that subject groups are best able to tackle it effectively – ie there is a slant to the problem best dealt with by, in this case, the law teacher.

What is plagiarism?

There is a huge amount of material on the nature of plagiarism, much of it written for the explicit purpose of ensuring students do not do it! Jurisprudential scholars will be familiar with the different ethical arguments which support the rules and intellectual property lawyers can wax lyrical about the nature of ‘passing off’, but students need a very clear understanding of (for example) where to draw the line between copying and paraphrasing.

A consensus is needed at subject level about all aspects of plagiarism, as well as consistency of approach between and across different subject disciplines and schools/faculties. Much of the material included here and in other sources repeats the message that unless everyone within the organisation staff and students adopts the same definitions and approaches, the problem will tend to evolve rather than be confronted and dealt with.

Some definitions and what to do with them

Authors such as Ryan (2000) and Stefani & Carroll (2001) emphasise that it is not enough to tell students they must not plagiarise or collude with each other. Students need to be given clear examples of different cheating and other behaviour, with definitions such as:

• copying – reproducing or imitating
• collaboration – working with others
• collusion – agreement to deceive, using words or ideas of colleagues or other students and passing them off as your own
• plagiarism – stealing someones words or ideas and passing them off as your own

(quoted in Ryan (2000) at p55)

Other useful definitions which include some attempt to categorise relative seriousness include:

• repetition – simple copying from unacknowledged source. Not confident of content area – unstructured and unacceptable.
• patching – copying with joining phrases, from several sources. Some general, non-specific, acknowledgement. Weak, multi-structural still unacceptable but harder tospot.

(Wilson quoted in Biggs (1999) at p129)

The most difficult to identify and perhaps to acknowledge as plagiarism is:

• plagiphrasing – paraphrasing several sources and joining them. All sources are in the reference list but pages are unspecified. Still multi-structural and still unacceptable technically, but merges towards conventional academic writing – ideas taken from multiple sources and repacked to make a more or less original and relational type of synthesis. Quotes properly referenced, general sources acknowledged, quite confident of what is being said, the package may be new but are the ideas?

(Biggs (1999) at p129)
As Biggs says:

“Even the shift from ‘plagiphrasing’ (unacceptable) to ‘conventional academic writing’ is not always clear, even to academics. And where that leaves textbook writers I dare not contemplate.”

— (Biggs (1999) at p130)

“But I didn’t mean to…”

What about intention? Does plagiarism require a guilty mind? This again is something for law staff to discuss, and it is possible that you may be more lenient with first year students doing their first assignment. The general view however is that intention is irrelevant and that leniency should relate to the penalty and not to the definition, otherwise serious cases of plagiarism in the final year may be defended by statements such as “I didn’t know” or “I must have accidentally pasted those three pages across….”

At the University of Brighton we have been spending some time devising a guide for first year students to help them understand the nature of plagiarism. This extract consists of a student activity which can form the basis of a constructive discussion:

The examples below are based on an exercise in Academic writing for graduate students by Swales and Feale, University of Michigan, 1993, cited by Jude Carroll in an online article on plagiarism at http://www.ilt.ac.uk/resources/JCarroll.htm [accessed 1/5/03]. (Notice that when citing an Internet source you should give the URL – the Web address – and the date when you accessed the material, since this may change more rapidly than printed information.)

Here are six ways to use sources. Example 1 is plagiarism; example 6 is not. Where do you cross the line?

1. copying a paragraph verbatim from a source without any acknowledgement
2. copying a paragraph and making small changes – for example replacing a few verbs, replacing an adjective with a synonym; acknowledgement in the bibliography
3. cutting and pasting a paragraph by using sentences of the original but omitting one or two and putting one or two in a different order, no quotation marks; with an in-text acknowledgement plus bibliography
4. composing a paragraph by taking short phrases from a number of sources and putting them together using words of your own to make a coherent whole with an in-text acknowledgement plus bibliography
5. paraphrasing a paragraph by rewriting with substantial changes in language and organisation; the new version will also have changes in the amount of detail used and the examples cited; citing in bibliography
6. quoting a paragraph by placing it in block format with the source cited in text and bibliography

Who does it?

Although this guide is intended mainly for legal academics, it is dangerous to assume that only students plagiarise. Poor note-taking and data referencing may result in anybody reproducing material which originally came from another source, and the educational press has had a few recent examples of academics, in one case a Vice Chancellor, being reprimanded or worse for plagiarism.

It is difficult to give accurate information on who plagiarises. According to Walker (1998) up to 90% of all students plagiarise in some universities. There are undoubtedly cultural aspects to the problem too, and many of the UK texts concentrate on different cultural backgrounds. Ryan (2000) quoting Scollen (1995) states that the concept of individual ownership of ideas in Western societies runs contrary to the ideas of collective ownership in some Eastern societies. For an overview of some of the perspectives see Hinett and Bone (2002).

Why do they do it?

Mismatch of expectations is often behind many problems in adult life. Think about the last disagreement you had with your partner, boss, parent, child, family pet, travel agent, train service provider or waiter. There were probably communication issues as well. The same is true of plagiarism. The legal academic community has particular requirements in relation to assessment standards, with the national standard set in the UK by the Quality Assurance Agency both in the Code of practice (2000b) and the Benchmark statement for law. At institutional level standards are articulated in programme specifications. The rules and penalties relating to plagiarism are set out in examination and assessment regulations, and also, occasionally, in a more user-friendly format in course documentation such as handbooks. Despite those in authority believing that the definitions and rules and penalties for infringement are set out clearly, there are still some students who believe that ‘Dogs Law’ a la Jeremy Bentham is being imposed (I beat my dog after he misbehaves and he is supposed to know what it was he did wrong).

Law staff see ideas as property, which, if taken without acknowledgement, amounts to theft. Students do not necessarily buy into this value system; some will just want the piece of paper with their name and mark on it and if they learn anything along the way that is an added bonus. Not all students see cheating as ‘wrong’ or even recognise that (for example) sharing last years identical essay with this years student is cheating.

Which almost brings us full circle. When first year students read (for example) a standard contract textbook they are unlikely to believe that the authors statement of some basic contractual principle is unique to the author. If authors make such statements without quotations then it must be acceptable practice.

For law students there is also the added dimension of the professional bodies. Getting into the legal profession is not only increasingly expensive, but also increasingly competitive. Many LPC/BVC providers and large firms are reluctant to consider graduates with less than an upper second class degree. It follows that if for example coursework assessments are not carefully planned by the course team to avoid bunching, a student may perceive it to be less dangerous to cheat by plagiarising (especially if the chances of getting caught are slim), than to risk a low mark for a rushed essay.

‘Getting caught’ is a bigger danger for the law student than for others. The professional bodies are required to be informed of academic misconduct, and, given the requirement to uphold professional and ethical standards, are unlikely to consider favourably an applicant with the stigma of a plagiarism charge, be it ever so minor, on their student record. This is of course part of the double-edged sword for the law teacher; plagiarism must be investigated and penalised, but the investigation and the penalty may be too onerous to contemplate.

Preventing plagiarism at school/department/subject level

Ideally law teachers in the same institution should all share the same values and give consistent non-conflicting advice to their students. It is particularly important that clear guidance is given on referencing and the use of citation. A staff development session which mirrors the process to be gone through with the students is useful. For this a discussion on plagiarism could involve a real case of which the law group or school has had experience, but this risks an argument over the subjective details which may be known to the audience. A case study approach is preferable. An ideal example is provided by Shapira (1993), based on an Advanced Contract course offered to experienced students. The book includes a helpful appendix with suggestions for how the case study can be used to provoke discussion. (This is of course designed for staff not students.)

Students can be given samples of work and the original source and asked which are acceptable and which are not (and see examples in the student guide). There are many examples on the Internet covering a variety of arts subjects, but one of the best sources is the JISC Plagiarism good practice guide [PDF format], which contains a wealth of detail on how to deal with plagiarism, a comprehensive set of references, some good practice recommendations and a list of free text electronic plagiarism detection devices. In fact the guide is so comprehensive that the temptation to plagiarise it in its entirety is very strong!

Jude Carroll’s handbook (2002) also contains sections on designing courses for deterring plagiarism and how to use assessment to deter plagiarism.

The impact on assessment practices

When asked to defend the traditional three hour closed book examination many legal academics will state that it is the only way to ensure plagiarism does not occur. This is not the place to discuss alternative means of assessment or the difference between deep and surface learning, but it should be seen as a challenge to devise assessments which require individual creative thought and input. At a recent examination board one external examiner was heard to say “they seem to get really good marks in the examination but when I talk to them they do not seem to know anything”.

Here is THE key question to ask when devising assessment tasks: are you asking them to do something that somebody else has already done?

If the answer is yes, then plagiarism is a possibility. Of course there are some tasks you may wish students to do to enhance their skills, and these will by nature need to be slightly repetitive this is likely to be training rather than education, and ideally should consist of formative rather than summative assessment (assessment with feedback to enable students to improve in the future, as opposed to a final sign-off indicating that assessment of a particular area or set of learning outcomes is concluded).

If students can be persuaded that assessment forms part of learning and they are given challenging tasks it is far more likely that they will want to demonstrate their own abilities, especially if the assessment is done in a non-threatening, preferably mark-free, environment. Tracking the process is one means of acknowledging that assessment takes time and that ideas and approaches need to be developed. Outline draft answers can be signed off (NB not marked) a month before their hand-in date. Quizzes and multiple choice tests in class can be used to encourage surface learning, so that thinking time is available for the deeper learning that needs to be developed by summative assessment. There are many more ideas that can be used from other disciplines – see further reading for examples.

Preventing plagiarism at institutional level

Explanation is essential make NO assumptions. The above guidance is intended for use within the law school, but the organisation has a vital role to play. Clear advice at an early stage about the nature of plagiarism and referencing conventions is crucial. Induction is too soon; students receive hundreds of pieces of paper in their first week from many different sources and generally have no way of categorising relative importance. Some students have an introductory session on legal skills including basic research techniques this could incorporate some guidance on how to avoid allegations of plagiarism and collusion alongside the information on how to cite cases and general reference guidelines.

Ideally however this should not be started within the law school but be an organisational responsibility. The University of Brighton student guide gives students the opportunity to discuss what is and is not acceptable practice – feel free to modify and adapt it for your own use. If your organisation uses software designed to spot copying the ‘show and tell’ approach is particularly useful.

Penalties for plagiarism

Advice to students is designed not only to prevent plagiarism but also to ensure that any penalties imposed are fair. Lecturers sometimes turn a blind eye to suspected plagiarism because they think the penalties too draconian. In addition, it may well be possible for a student to appeal against a plagiarism finding by arguing that clear advice was not given on (for example) referencing and the use of footnotes. It is also wrong to assume that advice clearly set out in a first year course handbook, given in an introductory session or included in the assessment criteria intended primarily for a level 1 project will be sufficiently comprehensive for a final year dissertation.

Carroll (2002) has addressed the thorny issue of punishment and the need to ensure an appropriate institutional policy and culture in her excellent handbook (an invaluable resource for anyone interested in this subject). There are no particular issues which relate specifically to law students, except perhaps the stance taken by the professional bodies if plagiarism or other cheating is proven, and determining punishment should not of course be a school-level decision but an organisational one. She identifies the following four factors (Carroll 2002) pp74-75):

• the extent of the academic misconduct
• the students intention or motivation (taking into account the stage of the student in their programme, the number of previous offences and the learning background of the student)
• the conventions in the academic field or discipline (particularly important when working across disciplines)
• the effect of the intended penalty upon the students progression or potential award (and, as noted above, on future career)

Detecting plagiarism

Online tools are available. If the source is suspected to be electronic, an advanced search on Google may prove useful for finding exact matches to a string of text. Lecturers need to be aware that some websites offer essays and answers, both in full and in outline, at a price. These ‘paper mills’ contain disclaimers stating that their purpose is to give examples for use as study aids, but the operators do not of course necessarily care to what use their material is put once the fee is paid.

It is not always possible to discover the source that has been used, and some tutors feel that an allegation of plagiarism may fail in such a case. Many procedures dealing with plagiarism involve a discussion with the student of the subject matter of the suspected plagiarised work, and it is important to remember that the burden of proof is only one of the balance of probabilities. Students can be asked to produce draft notes as well as original sources, and should expect to have to defend their viewpoints vigorously, if only to explain sloppy referencing or poor paraphrasing.

And finally…

Here is a suggested checklist of matters that need to be addressed for the problem of plagiarism to be recognised and minimalised:

• the law school needs to be confident that all lecturers/tutors (including part time staff) are aware of the institutional rules and procedures concerning plagiarism and other academic misconduct
• all law students joining the course (even if they have previously studied at the institution) must be made aware of (a) the institutional rules and procedures and (b) the law schools guidance on referencing and citation
• course teams within the law school should discuss the purpose, range and timing of the different assessment mechanisms within the course, including how much time and when in the calendar year different assessment is to be undertaken
• discussions in relation to coursework should include detailed consideration of the task each student is set, resources available to complete the task in the time available and whether there is to be any monitoring of the process

There are many resources that can be drawn on to minimise the opportunities for plagiarism, but it is important that a consistent approach is developed by the law team. Ideally, an assessment matrix should be devised so that staff can track the development of student knowledge and skill development and keep assessment tasks challenging. Assess less, develop more should be the aim!

References

• Biggs J (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university Oxford: Society for Research into Higher Education and OUP
• Carroll J (2002) A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development
• Carroll J & Appleton J (2001) Plagiarism: a good practice guide [PDF file] Bristol: JISC
• Hinett K & Bone A (2003) ‘Diversifying assessment, developing judgement’ in R Burridge [et al] (eds) Effective learning and teaching in law London: Routledge
• Quality Assurance Agency (2000a) Benchmark statement for law Gloucester: QAA
• Quality Assurance Agency (2000b) Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Section 6: Assessment of students Gloucester: QAA
• Race P (2000) How to win as a final year student Oxford: OUP
• Ryan J (2000) A guide to teaching international students Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development 54-6
• Scollon R (1995) ‘Plagiarism and ideology: identity in intercultural discourse’ Language in Society 24, 1-28
• Shapira G (1993) ‘Did she or did she not?’ in P Schwartz and G Webb (eds) Case studies on teaching in higher education London: Kogan Page
• Stefani L & Carroll J (2001) A briefing on plagiarism (RTF file; Assessment Series 10) York: LTSN Generic Centre
• Walker J (1998) ‘Student plagiarism in universities: what are we doing about it?’ Higher Education Research and Development 17, 89-106
• Wilson K (1997) Wording it up: plagiarism and the interdiscourse of international students (paper given to the annual conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia, Adelaide, 8-11 July 1997, quoted in Biggs J op cit p129)

Further reading

• Bone A (2006) Plagiarism can be prevented: a starter pack (paper presented at the 2006 ALTA Conference, download as a PDF file)
• Bone A (1999) Ensuring successful assessment Coventry: National Centre for Legal Education
• Bone A and Hinett K (2003) Assessment for learning: guide for law teachers Coventry: UK Centre for Legal Education
• Norton LS, Tilley AJ, Newstead SE & Franklyn-Stokes A (2001) ‘The pressures of assessment and their effect on student behaviours’ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 26(3), 269-284
• Show and tell: tackling the causes of collusion and plagiarism [Not currently available] (report on plagiarism workshops, University of Birmingham, 17 September 2002)
• University of Alberta Library (2002) Guide to plagiarism and cyber-plagiarism Alberta: University of Alberta
• Walker J (1998) ‘Student plagiarism in universities: what are we doing about it?’ Higher Education Research and Development 17, 89-106

Many American universities have put on their websites guidance for students with examples of what to avoid (see for example the University of California’s webpage on avoiding plagiarism – PDF file). Cyber-plagiarism is tackled specifically by the University of Alberta, which also gives examples of paraphrasing.

Websites

• Plagiarism Advice (formerly the JISC Internet Plagiarism Advisory Service)
• Plagiarism.org

Last Modified: 4 June 2010