PLAGIARISM The OIAs experience Ruth Deech

1
PLAGIARISMThe OIAs experienceRuth Deech
Michael Reddy
2
The OIA Scheme

• Some statistics

3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
Complaints about plagiarism disciplinary
offences

• Over 100 cases since April 2004
• About one third involve plagiarism

6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
The plagiarism case

• Student was withdrawn from course after being
  accused of plagiarism
• He alleged it was scientific collaboration and he
  had misunderstood the permitted amount
• He alleged the penalty was too harsh

14
Plagiarism decision

• Students had been specifically warned against
  plagiarism but he had not read the Handbook
• Student had not raised queries with his professor
• There was no evidence of collaboration
• The penalty was within the universitys
  guidelines
• Complaint not justified

15
OIA Plagiarism

• Impact of plagiarism and determination are issues
  of academic judgment
• Has the university applied its regulations and
  followed its procedures?
• Is the decision by the university reasonable in
  all the circumstances?

16
What is academic judgement?

• A decision about scholarship that only a
  suitably experienced academic can make
• So decisions about whether plagiarism has
  occurred and the assessment of plagiarised work
  are matters of academic judgement
• But the OIA will look at questions about
  fairness and procedural irregularity

17
Academic offences

• OIA will look at complaints about the
  universitys academic offences procedures
• Have they been followed properly, no material
  breaches?
• The more severe the punishment, the more closely
  the procedures will be checked
• Have they been applied fairly, not arbitrarily?
• Do procedures comply with natural justice, human
  rights and general consideration of equity?

18
The forgery case

• Student is achieving well in the third year of
  his medical course
• The university discovers that he entered with a
  forged degree certificate showing better results
  than in truth he had achieved
• Following procedures, he is expelled immediately
• He claims mitigating circumstances, that the
  forgery was by his mother

19
Forgery decision

• The procedures were properly followed
• The offence was serious enough to merit instant
  expulsion
• Another student with better marks might have
  taken the place honesty is paramount for doctors
• The mitigating circumstances were rightly judged
  by the university to make no difference

20
Fairness and penalties

• Provision for mitigating circumstances
• Inconsistent application of penalties
• Reasons must be given by the university
• There must be provision for an appeal

21
Mitigating circumstances

• OIA unlikely to interfere if they have been
  properly considered
• Special care needs to be taken over disability,
  mental health, misrepresentation by university
  official, failure to explain plagiarism to
  students, foreign students cultural issues
• Bereavement, health, stress, financial problems,
  computer failure very common!

22
Mitigating circumstances

• Are any mitigating circumstances acceptable in
  deciding (a) whether the student has committed
  the offence (b) the penalty?
• Poor health?
• Mental health?
• Death of a relative?
• Computer mishaps?
• Financial difficulties?
• Time pressures?
• Cultural issues?

23
Procedural issues

• Natural justice no bias, charge to be known,
  both sides to be heard
• Bias is not prejudice, it is objective
• No financial conflicts
• No interested parties with previous involvement
• Parity of representation
• Panels legal advice available to both sides

24
Principles of fairness

• University must give adequate notice of
  allegation
• Adequate hearing of both sides
• Appeal body must be and appear to be unbiased
• Procedures should not be unreasonably delayed
• Reasons for the decision necessary

25
Was the universitys decision fair?

• Did the disciplinary panel consider the
  appropriate evidence?
• What burden of proof is applicable?
• Did the university observe natural justice?
• Were the grounds of appeal reasonable?
• Did the university properly consider mitigating
  circumstances?
• Was the penalty proportionate to the offence?
• Was the penalty consistent with other cases?

26
Relevance of other factors?

• Extent of plagiarism?
• Student lulled to sleep by inaction of
  university
• Poor academic practices, such as failure to
  explain what plagiarism is and/or the
  consequences
• First year or final year?
• First offence?
• Deliberate, reckless, negligent or innocent?
• Consequences of punishment?

27
OIA remedies

• Reconsider the complaint
• Hold a new hearing
• Change the penalty
• Offer an apology
• Expunge charge from the record
• Allow resubmission
• Pay compensation
• Reform university procedures

28
Learning from complaints about disciplinary
matters

• Monitor should have a reliable system of
  tracking complaints, including time taken for
  each stage and equal opportunities info. (QAA)
• Review and evaluate effectiveness of
  procedures, adequacy of guidance support,
  training of staff, deal with common causes (QAA)
• Report regularly to governing body about
  complaints
• (QAA)
• Seek feedback from students (BS ISO)
• Publish information about complaints
  (OIA)

29
New issues

• Are we looking after our overseas students?
• Language difficulties and cultural background
• Relevance of mitigating circumstances and their
  proof
• Previous similar cases