Pakistani Culture

                                 Family traddition in Pakistan...............

In pakistan family is headed by a old male member, to whome with full respect. The oldest man in the family are the duidline for all the family. All the family member support this old man and follow that old man. This old man is the greatest and humbler for all family members.All family members respect this old man due to his   good wordings and advises.

       Fashion

Banble and earrings..........

Jewellery traddition is very old and women are very fond of jewellery.Every women wants jewellery and bangles in his arms. Jewellery and bangles is the beauty of womens.To wear bangles is a very old trend but the new trendy bangles are more varsatile and lovable then ever before. There are different tyes of bangles some are of the metals and glass & some are made of of gold and silver.Womens are more motivated about jewellery. Bangles and earrings are also the beauty of womens and womens are use these thing in very common way.....

Womens are more attracted to see bangles and earring in any shope and shopekeepers are callings the womens for increasing them sale.......

     

On eid festivals there is a huge crowd of womens and girls.in markets. Girls bought new kinds of bangles and earrings for eid.

There a many type of earring girls are bought for eid and they also purschase these things for gifts.Earrings also found in different styles and colours and have great attraction for young girls.

Pakistani Fashion...........

Under pakistani fashion there comes alot of things which represents the culture.It has also taken foam of eastern culture that is becoming famous worldwide due to its uniquess in style,exclusiveness in design and matchless in its nature......Lets take the jewellery first and take it for your love ones............

As Pakistan's jewellwery is considered to be a good  ornament in the world as other one.As jewellery is used to enhance the beauty of the girls so we can see a wide variety of jewellery in gold,silver,copper and metal  and in many other styles in pakistan.jewellery that is designed in pakistan has agreat demand in all the world.Thats why in our marriage celebrations jewellery and the dress code are the mostly attracting considered......

Aeautyconsious so whenever they greet other they seemed to be involved in the gosips about jewellery and the dress of other ladies.So most of the people try to purchase jewellery and the shoes according to their dresses.Usually light weight jewellery is liked by women but for bridals we can see a varierty of heavy ornaments for making them so nice......

These jewellery gives them good way in the stylish world.Gold jewellery is mostly used by pakistani.Jewellery such as necklases, chains, earings, rings, pendents, bangles and anklets gives a unique & stylish range all over the world.In marriages jwellery with langha are most liked that enhanches girls beauty.Now there are alots of jewellery shops in almost all major cities i.e lahore,karachi,rawalpindi,islamabad from where we can purchase it at affordable prices.,,,,,,,,,

                                              

                                                      Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness:

Abstract

The dramatic increase in the number of overseas students studying in the UK and other western
countries has required academics to re-evaluate many aspects of their own, and their institutions’
practice. This paper considers differing cultural values among overseas students towards
plagiarism, and the implications this may have for postgraduate education in a western context.
Based on focus group interviews, questionnaires and informal discussions, we report the views
of plagiarism among students on two postgraduate management programmes, both of which had
a high constituency of overseas students. We show that plagiarist practices are often the outcome
of many, complex and culturally situated influences. We suggest that educators need to
appreciate these differing cultural assumptions if they are to act in an ethical manner when
responding to issues of plagiarism among international students.
Keywords: Plagiarism, alienation, fairness, learning, patchwriting
[Note: This paper is in final revisions for the journal Ethics and Behaviour]

Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness

The issue of academic integrity within higher education has received considerable
attention in the literature over recent years (Carroll & Appleton, 2001; Deckert, 1993; Dryden,
1999; Harris, 2001; Howard, 1995, 1993; Kolich, 1983; Lathrop, 2000; Martin, 1994 Myers,
1998; Pennycook, 1996; Scollon, 1995; Sherman, 1992). Academic integrity refers to honesty
and transparency in the ways in which knowledge is acquired and transmitted (The Centre for
Academic Integrity, Duke University, 2004). Honesty is premised upon high levels of trust
between staff and students, and ensuring that all students are treated fairly. Further, academic
integrity requires that all writers acknowledge the work of others, and that action is taken if there
is any wrongdoing (Drinan, 1999). Examples of where academic integrity is compromised
include copying from others during exams, taking crib sheets into exams, unpermitted
collaboration in coursework, submitting the same piece of coursework more than once, and
including other people’s words in a coursework assessment without marking them as being such.
The latter examples of academic dishonesty in coursework are termed ‘plagiarism,’ and are the
focus of this paper. According to the Oxford English Dictionary ‘to plagiarise’ is “to take and
use another person’s ideas, writing, or inventions as their own.” Importantly however, we will
suggest that plagiarism should not always be considered to be synonymous with cheating (Hunt,
2003).
Much of the literature on academic integrity, coupled with the considerable anecdotal
evidence amongst colleagues in our own and other universities, suggests that plagiarism is on the
increase. There have been many articles that seek to identify the extent of plagiarism and
understand why students become plagiarists. In relation to the extent, O’Connor (2003) describes
one recent Australian study that spanned twenty subjects and six universities.1 This saw 1925
essays being submitted to Turnitin, an electronic detection service and found that 14% of essays
“contained unacceptable levels of unattributed materials.” The report also highlighted that only a
small amount is ever detected electronically, as Turnitin does not cover most books, journals,
and paper mills (O’Connor, 2003). 2

In relation to the literature that has considered why students plagiarise, Carroll (2002) has
suggested that as most students are unsure what plagiarism is, they do not plagiarise with the
1 Conducted by Caval in 2002 on behalf of the Victoria Vice Chancellors Committee.
2 Paper mills provide completed essays for a charge or in exchange for another essay.
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 3
intention to deceive. Furthermore, Angelil-Carter (2000) claim that there is also a lack of clarity
across a university about what constitutes plagiarism and a discrepancy in the way plagiarism is
detected and enforced (Biggs, 1994; Ryan, 2000; Scollon, 1995). Others have highlighted that
due to the growing staff-student ratio, staff have less time to talk through issues regarding
writing practices which has contributed in the rise in the number of cases of plagiarism
(Angelova & Riazantseva, 1999; O’Donoghue, 1996). Carroll (2002) also claims that the move
from examination to coursework and project-based assessment has resulted in not just over
assessment, but students under constant pressure to attain high marks (Carroll, 2000). Others
suggest that poor time management by students, as well as staff setting the same submission
dates for a number of different pieces of coursework are major contributing factors (Errey, 2002;
Lim and See, 1992; Bamford et al., 2002). Finally, and perhaps as a consequence of many of the
above, when students are dissatisfied with the course, their interest and work rate decreases,
which may contribute to plagiarism.

Though much of this literature has shed considerable light on why students plagiarise, it
is rooted in western contexts, and thus does not specifically address the theme of this paper:
examining the differing cultural attitudes and understandings of plagiarism amongst overseas
postgraduate students undertaking management-related programmes. This is perhaps surprising
when most western countries, especially those whose national language is English, have
witnessed a prolific increase in the number of overseas students. In relation to the UK, there has
been a dramatic rise in overseas students’ studying at British Universities.3

To explain why students from different cultures plagiarise when studying abroad, several
authors have said that for many students from the East, the approach to learning in the West is
contrary to their experiences in their own country. For example, in China and other Asian
countries, learning and assessment typically focus on the content of a textbook. A consequence
of this is that when they enter western higher education, it is especially difficult for students to be
critical about an author and to state their own opinions. As Pennycook (1996) shows, for Chinese
students, using another author’s words is a form of respect and it is hard for these students to
change this cultural practice. Other commentators have highlighted how when English is a
student’s second language, the increased time it takes for them to write places them under
3 The number of full-time overseas students has risen from 202,000 in 1990 to 313,000 in 2000 (Churches
Commission for International Students).

Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 4

pressure. Fear of failure generally, especially when students are funded by their family (often
extended), their government, or a particular company, also places considerable pressure on the
student to do well (O’Donoghue, 1996; also see Bond, 1986). Furthermore, some commentators
have found that overseas students may feel that they cannot improve upon what is already
written and prefer to use the original text rather than their own (Angelova & Riazantseva, 1999;
Biggs, 1994; Fox, 1994). Furthermore, some overseas students are said to plagiarise, both
intentionally and unintentionally, due to their lack of experience in essay writing, as many
eastern countries still rely exclusively on examinations (Ashworth et al, 1997; Carroll &
Appleton, 2001).

Our research will extend this literature by examining the different cultural understandings
that students from different nationalities, studying two UK management-related postgraduate
programmes, have of plagiarism. Based on this, we will consider the implications this raises for
postgraduate management education. The following section will outline the methodology that
underpinned this study. Section three will review the students’ past practices, and judgements
pertaining to academic integrity. Following this we will discuss some of the key analytical
themes arising from our empirical work. The final section will present some brief conclusions.
Before we continue a word or two about terminology might be appropriate. In the UK the term
‘assessment’ is used for all parts of work that contribute to the final grade awarded to the student
for a course. Assessment normally consists of ‘coursework’ and ‘examinations’. The term
‘coursework’ is used for work that is normally done ‘at home’, such as essays (or term papers),
reports, literature reviews, and so forth; the term ‘examinations’ normally refers to examination
papers completed under supervised examination conditions. Plagiarism is obviously an issue in
coursework rather than examinations.
Methodology

Our research was conducted primarily with a cohort of MSc students studying two
different postgraduate programmes at Lancaster University Management School, one a specialist
masters program pertaining the interrelationship between technology and organisations, and the
other a general management programme. Though this research was conducted after they had
been in the UK for about 5 months, our questions focussed exclusively on the students’ past
practices and judgements on various manifestations of academic malpractice as encountered at
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 5
their universities in their home countries. The first programme, an MSc in Information
Technology, Management and Organisational Change (ITMOC), comprised of 46 students with
a diverse range of nationalities, including students from India, Pakistan, China, Indonesia,
Thailand, Greece, France, Ukraine, Germany, Brazil, Iceland, Columbia, and of course the
United Kingdom. The general management programme, the MSc Management, comprised
approximately 80 students with the same diversity of backgrounds.

As Table (1) indicates, we conducted focus-group interviews and distributed
questionnaires to the MSc ITMOC students, while with the MSc Management students we
primarily distributed questionnaires. Supplementing this has been considerable informal
discussion with ITMOC students by both authors, as we explain below.

Table 1

Number of Responses to Questionnaires & Interviews
MSc Programme Method Number in Programme Number of responses /
focus group interviews
ITMOC Questionnaires 46 46
Focus Groups 22
Management Questionnaires 80 57
Focus Groups 1
Our questionnaire was based on a well known survey developed by Donald McCabe,
Professor of Organization & Management at Rutgers University and former president of The
Center for Academic Integrity. We included an extra section and modified some of the
terminology to make it more comprehensible for those not from the USA. For both programmes,
as Table (1) highlights, we had an extremely high response rate to the questionnaire. This was
primarily due to the authors’ handing the questionnaires out during a scheduled core lecture
session. We also explained the importance of their completing the questionnaire honestly. One of
the authors made himself available for questions, while the other stood by the exit to collect
them, making it difficult to leave the room without handing in a questionnaire. For the ITMOC
students, we also left a copy in their pigeonholes for those students who were not at the lecture,
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 6
and provided a box in their programme base-room for them to deposit it. The questionnaires
were anonymous (unless there was only one person from a particular country).
The questionnaire data was entered into a spreadsheet. We then analysed the resulting
tables and graphs, identifying differences and inconsistencies between the national groupings.
However, though the sample was not large enough for it to form the basis of any predictive
claims, it did provide us with indicative insights into the variations of academic malpractice
within and between the different groups that we then pursued in detail in the focus group
discussions.

Table 2

Numbers of students from the different national groupings in each postgraduate programme
Asian Chinese Greek UK
MSc IT, Management & Organisational Change 5 9 17 10
MSc Management 12 35 10 15
The focus group discussions were highly successful in relation to the ITMOC
programme, partly because there was quite a small core of teaching staff associated with the
programme. Further we make use of small tutorial groups, so we tend to know the students well.
This communal ethos assisted in encouraging a significant number of students to attend the focus
groups. The focus group interviews lasted approximately forty five and sixty minutes each and
were organised on the basis of national / regional origin. They were tape-recorded and then the
notes were transcribed afterwards. This resulted in five groupings, a UK Group, a Chinese group,
an Asian (other) group, a Greek group, and a group from the rest of the world (Table 2 indicates
the distribution per nationality group for each of the programmes). As with the questionnaires,
our focus group discussion also sought to understand the students’ experiences prior to coming to
Lancaster, though the conversation inevitably became referential to their experiences of
plagiarism since arriving in the UK. The interview transcripts were then coded and analysed
through Nudist, Sage’s qualitative data analysis software. With regards to the MSc Management
programme, we organised the focus groups on similar lines. However, unfortunately, only one
student, from China, attended any of the focus groups, and thus for this programme our data has
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 7
to rely on that obtained from the questionnaires. Unlike the ITMOC programme, neither of the
authors has any contact with this postgraduate programme in either a teaching or an
administrative capacity, which we believe could have been partly responsible for the negligible
turnout for this optional session.
The questionnaires and the focus groups were supplemented by considerable discussion
with students during a study skills module the authors convened and taught together, as well as at
the Programme Director’s weekly meeting. Though discussions in such circumstances were not
recorded systematically, it did help us understand the differing cultural attitudes to plagiarism in
the programme prior to, during, and after the data collection. As the study was primarily
qualitative we did not attempt to do detailed statistical analysis of the quantitative data. The
quantitative data served merely as a starting point for the qualitative work rather than as an
attempt to demonstrate any particular hypothesis.
Student Attitudes to Issues of Academic Integrity
This section will introduce the issues that emerged in the focus groups and
questionnaires. Again, due to the small sample, the results of the questionnaire were indicative
rather than predictive, and formed the basis for the qualitative questions that we asked during the
focus group interviews. The first section focuses specifically on the issues that arose with regard
to plagiarism and the students’ experiences of coursework assessment in their previous
university. Section two considers the experiences of malpractice during examinations at the
students’ previous university. As most international students had limited or no experience of
coursework assessment in their own country, looking at their views and experiences of cheating
during examinations, provides a valuable insight into the values surrounding academic
malpractice in their country of origin. The final section examines the pressures that some
students encountered to gain good marks.
Academic Integrity in Coursework
How much copying is plagiarism? All the British students considered copying a limited
amount of text without referencing the sources to be tolerable. They suggested that it was
generally acceptable to at least plagiarise what they termed “very general and background
information” such as company information or general facts and figures without referencing them.
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 8
Further, UK students suggested that if some text was written more eloquently than they felt they
were able to do themselves, and they understood it, then it was acceptable for them to copy it. In
this sense it was about English proficiency, rather than content, even though they themselves had
English as their first language.

Table 3

The extent and judgement of copying text word for word without citing the source
Asian Chinese Greek UK
Copied a paragraph or more word for word once or
more
20% 40% 21% 19%
Never copied a paragraph or more word for word 80% 60% 79% 81%
Judge such copying as not cheating or trivial
cheating
40% 30% 7% 25%
Judge such copying as somewhat or very serious 60% 70% 93% 75%
Copied a few sentences word for word once or more 75% 56% 57% 56%
Never copied a few sentences word for word 25% 44% 43% 44%
Judge such copying as not cheating or trivial
cheating
100% 60% 64% 63%
Judge such copying as somewhat or very serious 0% 40% 36% 38%
When asked what they considered substantial plagiarism in the context of a 3000-word
essay, the British students’ responses ranged from it is being more than two sentences, a whole
paragraph, while one student said he would not try to quantify it, but more generally could be
considered substantial “at the point when the text they were copying began controlling what they
were writing.” However, several of the other British students responded vehemently to this by
stating that if students were consciously copying extensive amounts of material, this was
substantial plagiarism. Table 3 highlights the mixed response UK students provided in relation to
whether they had copied, or considered copying, material word-for-word from any source and
turning it in as their own to be serious or not. It indicates that 19% of UK students admitted to
doing this once or more, while 25% of UK students saw this as not being cheating or at least
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 9
being trivial. When asked if copying material was done by combining one or two sentences
(patching) from the work of different authors the student said this was a typical approach they
adopted when plagiarising coursework.

In relation to non-UK students, surprisingly most students explained that they had little
experience of coursework in their undergraduate education and thus were not able to comment
extensively on the issue of plagiarism in coursework. Typically, the only form of coursework
non UK students had completed was group project papers or business reports. In China and
Greece, it was estimated that they write only one essay during their undergraduate education, and
perhaps a couple of reports. Due to this lack of experience in undertaking coursework, students
naturally started to refer to their experiences since arriving in the UK. One Greek student
suggested that copying a few words as long as they were not copying a concept or an idea was
acceptable. Another Greek student claimed that it was important only when it became a
significant amount—after some discussion significant was considered to be a paragraph or more.
Further, they claimed that referencing was not as rigorous in their own countries as it is in the
UK, partly because most courses often required students to consult only one textbook.
Due to the non UK students’ limited exposure to coursework, it is more revealing to look
at how serious they judge cheating in coursework rather than how they judge their previous
writing and assessment practices. As Table 3 indicates, all the different student groups judged
copying a few sentences word-for-word without referencing it as only being a trivial form of
cheating, at best. In relation to previous practices, 56% of UK students admitted to having done
this once or more, while 63% of UK students judged this as being trivial or not cheating at all.
This supports the view that a small amount of plagiarism is considered by UK students to be
acceptable. In relation to the judgement of non-UK students, 100% of Asian students viewed this
as only being trivial cheating. For the other national groups approximately two thirds of the
students saw copying a few sentences of material without referencing them as not cheating or a
trivial form of cheating. This indicates that across all cultures, not only is copying several
sentences likely to be endemic in coursework (or term paper) submissions, but also that
regardless of background, students do not tend to judge it as an unacceptable practice.
Unintentional plagiarism in coursework. Several UK students mentioned how plagiarism
may be unintentional. They attributed this to the way they make notes while doing research for
their essays, explaining that in the process of researching and drafting an essay, they collect
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 10
many electronic and non-electronic references, keep several windows open simultaneously, and
copy and paste among them. They recognised that this could be dangerous (as it may result in
their losing track of the different sources), or be extremely tempting to pass off other’s work as
their own. One UK student suggested that not fully referencing the resulting patchwork could
come about due to his or her own poor time management, saying that “most of the cases arise
when students are short of time.” In this sense UK students viewed some form of plagiarism as
being unintentional. Further, based on their experiences of coursework since arriving in
Lancaster, many non-UK students echoed these points.

Learning and plagiarism. One surprising view that emerged in both the UK and Greek
focus groups was that plagiarism is perceived as being inextricably interlinked with a students’
development. For example a UK student commented that when students plagiarise (well), it often
still requires an understanding of the topic, and thus exhibits a degree of learning, saying that, “If
you take all the sentences / paragraphs from other authors – then you have to do the work to put
it together – you have learned and need a certain understanding of the topic, it is not just blatant
copying.” At a subsequent focus group, several Greek students supported this, claiming that
being able to generate an argument in a coursework assessment, even if some of it was
plagiarised from different sources (patching), demonstrated a good level of learning.
English Proficiency and plagiarism. Based on their insights gained since arriving in
Lancaster, several Greek students said that when English was not one’s first language, “taking a
bit here and there helps with getting meaning across. Paraphrasing if you are not a native speaker
is difficult.” Others suggested that there are only so many ways that issues could be written, as
one Greek student commented, “All the ways for saying something have already been said, and
thus we have to use the same words. But this is about words and not concepts.” The later point
reinforces the earlier issue about how one could demonstrate a degree of learning even if some of
the words were copied.
Collaboration and coursework. In relation to the essay-writing practice of students (Table
4), between 50 – 75 % of the non-UK students judged receiving unpermitted help from fellow
students to be trivial, while only 38% of UK students viewed this as trivial.
Table 4 highlights how 6% of UK students admitted to providing a coursework paper for
another student. Interestingly, the UK students judged writing a paper for another student as
being more trivial than their practice suggested. However, this was still much lower (13%) than
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 11
any of the other national groups. Further, Table 4 shows that 80% of Asian students consider
writing a paper for another student to be trivial or not cheating, while 60% admitted to having
written or provided a paper for another student. For the Chinese and Greek groups, 40% and 36%
respectively admitted to having written a paper for another student, while 40% and 29%
respectively viewed this to be only minor cheating.
Table 4
Extent and judgement of student collaboration in coursework
Asian Chinese Greek UK
Received substantial, unpermitted help on an
assignment once or more
25% 40% 50% 31%
Never received substantial, unpermitted help on an
assignment
75% 60% 50% 69%
Judge such unpermitted help as not being cheating or
only trivial cheating
75% 50% 50% 38%
Judge such unpermitted help as being somewhat or
very serious cheating
25% 50% 50% 63%
Have written or provided a paper for another student
once or more
60% 40% 36% 6%
Have never written or provided a paper for another
student
40% 60% 64% 94%
Judge such collaboration as not being cheating or only
trivial cheating
80% 40% 29% 13%
Judge such collaboration as being somewhat or very
serious cheating
20% 60% 71% 88%
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 12
Academic Integrity in Examinations
This section considers the issues raised by students with regard to academic integrity
during exams. Due to the limited experience of coursework that non-UK students have in their
own countries, examining the extent of examination based malpractice committed by students in
their previous university, and their judgement as to its seriousness, can provide a further useful
insight into how academic integrity is viewed by different national groups.
Exams as Memory Tests. In all the countries represented other than the UK, most students
viewed exams as being purely memory tests. For example an Indian student mentioned that in his
undergraduate examinations, more marks were awarded when students simply reproduced
lecture notes or the course textbook verbatim rather than if they paraphrased them. Indeed, he
said that the exam questions “will ask us to repeat definitions word-for-word from the textbook.”
He added that they are not required to reference quotes or definitions in exams as it is assumed
that it derives directly from the lecture notes or the textbook. Similarly, the Chinese students
explained that there was one book for each course and exams were designed to allow students to
demonstrate how well they have memorised the book. Further, Chinese students complained that
the book they were required to memorise was often out of date. This alienation from the
examination system in China was evident in how 30% of students admitted to using unpermitted
crib sheets (unpermitted notes) during exams.
The Greek students were particularly animated with regards to the futility of the
examination processes. They explained that often during their undergraduate education, they
were required to memorise many pages of text word-for-word, or memorise a multitude of
different mathematical formulae. They all agreed that this was ridiculous, as one Greek student
explained: “the point is that it is about knowing how to use them not memorise them.” Indeed, he
claimed that due to the emphasis on memorising material, all Greek students were forced into a
position in which they “had to cheat.” This lack of faith in examinations was evident in how 43%
of Greek students admitted to using unpermitted crib notes during an exam, while none of the
UK and Asian students admitted to using them.
Reciprocity and exams. The issue of unpermitted collaboration during examinations was
seen by all national groupings, other than the UK, to have taken place in their previous
institutions, and also to be judged by many as not being serious. The survey indicated that 80%
of Asian students and 20% of Chinese students admitted to this form of copying, and
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 13
significantly, 80% of Asian students and 30% of Chinese students judged this to be trivial or not
cheating. Greek students mentioned that they would frequently provide unpermitted help to each
other during exams, as was graphically explained by one Greek student: “I have submitted exam
papers for others, swapped exam papers while writing it. It is perfectly logical as we do not care
if the people are learning anything or not, they don’t care they just want to pass.” Table 5 also
highlights that 36% of Greek students admitted they had copied during an exam, even though
79% of them thought it was somewhat or very serious.
Table 5
Extent of reciprocity and the judgement of reciprocity in relation to exam malpractice
Asian Chinese Greek UK
Copied from another student during a test with his or
her knowledge once or more
80% 20% 36% 0%
Never copied from another student during a test with
his or her knowledge
20% 80% 64% 100%
Judge such copying as being not cheating or not trivial
cheating
80% 30% 21% 6%
Judge such copying as being somewhat or very serious
cheating
20% 70% 79% 94%
Helped someone else cheat on a test/exam once or
more
80% 40% 79% 0%
Never helped someone else cheat on a test/exam 20% 60% 21% 100%
Judge such help as being not or only trivial cheating 60% 50% 50% 6%
Judge such help as being somewhat or very serious
cheating
40% 50% 50% 94%
Table 5 casts a different light on the issue of assisting others to cheat during an exam. It
shows how 80% of the Asian group admitted to helping someone else cheat once or more, which
though high, is consistent with their responses concerning copying from another student during a
test. However importantly, twice as many Chinese and Greek students admitted to helping
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 14
someone else cheat once, even though 50% of them judged it to be a serious form of cheating. As
well as this collaboration being attributed to exams’ merely requiring regurgitation, non-UK
students also attributed it to cultural norms of reciprocity, as a Greek student explained: “in
general if you help, you will get help when you need it.” Indeed, the main concern and fear
among Greek and Asian students was not getting caught, but that those who copied did not get as
high a mark as the person they copied from. For example, one Thai student mentioned, “there is
nothing wrong with helping friends, as long as they do not get as high a mark.” A Greek student
also admitted to making one or two deliberate mistakes to ensure the student copying did not get
a higher mark. Both the questionnaire and focus-group data indicated that UK students viewed
collaboration of any form during exams as taboo.
Trust and exams. One of the most shocking insights that emerged from the empirical
research arose in the Greek focus group. One Greek student suggested that a further condition
that forced them to cheat derived from their lack of trust in Greek academics to treat all students
equally, saying “sometimes I cheat because you know other people do so, other people do so
with the professor’s knowledge, sometimes the professor gives the exam paper to students before
the exam. Students have certain connections with professors. Everybody knows that this
happens.” All twelve Greek students who attended the focus groups agreed with this. Another
Greek student continued this theme and provided further insight, saying, “When you see that
people are taking degrees without doing anything – the youths of political parties have a say in
the promotion of professors. They tell professors who they should pass. It leaves people thinking
why should I bother to study and memorise things that I do not need afterwards when these
things are going on around you. Why should I try not to cheat when even the professors are
cheating behind my back? The competition was unfair from the start, in my institution there were
600 and about 50 of them took a degree without even opening a book.” When this was asked of
other national groups they said this did not occur, other than in the case of perhaps a professor’s
favourite student, or a family connection. In general they trusted the equity of their professors’
marking.
Motivations for Cheating. Marks and their fear of failure were seen by all respondents,
but specifically the Asian and Chinese students to be the main pressure behind cheating. In Asia,
China and Greece, high marks were seen as important in terms of finding a good job, but
especially for them to undertake an overseas postgraduate programme may lead to cheating. One
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 15
Greek student explained that they are allowed to repeat a year and resit an exam as many times
as they wish, leading to many Greek students writing on an exam paper “don’t mark it if it does
not get 8 or higher,” indicating the importance for some in gaining a high mark. Those who
would not cheat felt it unfair that they had to work even harder to get higher legitimate marks
than those students who cheated. In their view not cheating came at a substantial cost for them.
Discussion of Results
Many overseas students have a significantly different understanding of higher education
from UK students. This section will examine some key themes pertaining to cultural differences
among overseas students as a basis for developing a more sensitive and morally responsive
understanding of plagiarism. The issues raised are likely to be of significance for other western
higher education contexts.
Memorisation and the Borrowing of Words
Our study and the literature highlighted that many overseas students, arriving at UK
universities, are more familiar with a ‘textbook based’ teaching approach than one that requires
them to consult a number of sources. In Asian, Chinese, and Greek universities, lectures often
cover systematically the material in the textbook and the exam requires students to demonstrate
that they can recall all relevant material from one textbook and their lecture notes—often
verbatim. There is often minimal or no interpretation, or commentary, expected from the student.
Through his research in China, Pennycook (1996) has argued that this form of learning should
not be frowned upon, but should be viewed as different, and deeply embedded in cultural and
linguistic practices, most notably with regard to paraphrasing. He suggests that the Chinese view
of language is quite different from ours: “In this [view of language] primacy is accorded to
language and not to the ‘real’ world, notions such as metaphor, which suggests that some word
‘stands for’ something else, become quite different because reality is in the language and not in
the world” (p.221). Thus altering the exact expression of something through paraphrasing for
example is, in this view of language, the same as altering the reality of the world itself. Though
our data did not represent this point as eloquently as Pennycook, several Chinese students
mentioned that memorising texts has been the focus of their learning experience throughout all
levels of education. Indeed, though we cannot apply this culturally embedded analysis to the
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 16
students from across the world, students from the rest of Asia and Greece reinforced this
emphasis on memorisation, and the assumed authority of the author of the ‘prescribed’ text. The
underlying explanation for this is that they consider the teacher to be the authority and therefore
the only one properly authorised to have an interpretation. We suggest that an appreciation of the
importance of memorisation and the use of exact expressions for some overseas students is
crucial if western academics are to be effective in facilitating their adjustment to higher
education in western countries.
Postgraduates in the UK are expected be able to read material from many sources, distil
and reference the important arguments, and to be able to formulate and justify their own position,
in relation to the literature. Consequently, many foreign students will often find themselves in a
context where they have a huge deficit of skills, which is likely to deepen as the expectations and
workload increase through the duration of the course. Further, many students lack the confidence
to express and defend their own views. Thus, they would tend to fall back on the supposed
authority of the text, and ‘string together’ arguments from a diversity of texts on the reading list
without critical evaluation of the issue, or reference to appropriate sources. Though this is an
intentional act, it is often fuelled by the mismatch of skills required in different educational
contexts. It is vital to address these culturally laden points, by for example, showing overseas
students how to evaluate material and formulate arguments prior to their first assessment.
Language, Writing Practices and Academic Malpractice
The transition from an institution that has a textbook-based teaching model and
assessments based on a ‘recall’ type examination to one in which assessments typically take the
form of a critical review of a topic must be quite daunting. If one adds to this the issue of
language, not just ordinary linguistic competence, but the ability to master disciplinary academic
language, then one can see that such a task would tend to overwhelm the foreign student. Add to
this other things such as family and financial pressures along with a history of success in a
different teaching approach, then it is easy to imagine the sort of pressure that many students
feel.
In order to deal with this anxiety they often turn to a number of writing practices that may
be more or less acceptable to us (Howard, 1993). One typical form draws on their experiences of
the past, namely repeating the words of others, though not in exactly the same form. Instead of
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 17
merely submitting to the authority of one author, they engage in subsuming the words of multiple
authors. This is referred to as patchwriting. Howard (1993) defines patchwriting as “copying
from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in
one-for-one synonym-substitutes” (p. 213). She argues that writers often turn to patchwriting
when they are unsure of their understanding of the material or lack confidence in the use of a
particular language (such as academic language and phraseology).
This is true not only for non-native speakers, it is also true for native-speaking academics
when paraphrasing a difficult-to-understand text—even material within their own discipline.
Roig (2001), in a fascinating study, provided college professors in psychology (all members of
the American Psychological Society) with two different texts to paraphrase: the first was a
difficult text from a peer-reviewed psychology journal article and the second was an easy-to-read
text from an introduction-level psychology textbook. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the professors
appropriated text—strings of five words in length or more—from the original text, whereas only
three percent (3%) appropriated text from the piece that was easier to read. If psychology
professors—and most probably native speaking students—feel the need to ‘stay close’ to the text
when confronted with difficult material, we can see why, students who understand the
importance of ‘speaking’ like the teachers and the people they read, do the same to be accepted
into the community. Likewise, non-native academics also feel they need to ‘borrow words,’ as a
Chinese chemist says (Myers, 1998): “Many scientists are not good at English. In order to
publish their articles in foreign journals they have to translate their journals [work] from Chinese
to English. So they usually borrow some words from foreign articles. I don't know if this is a
kind of plagiarism.”
Is this type of writing plagiarism—a deliberate intention to deceive on the part of the
professors or the non-native speaking student? Howard, following Hull and Rose (1989) says
that this form of writing is a legitimate attempt to “interact with the text, relate it to your own
experiences, derive your own meaning from it” (p. 150). This is something most writers do in
unfamiliar contexts or with difficult-to-understand texts. It is indeed how we all learn: by
mimicking or copying others whom we consider exemplary in an academic discipline or in terms
of their linguistic competence. However, in the case of many authors, instead of merely
reproducing one exemplary figure as they have done successfully in their own country, they
patch together the work of several authors.
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 18
One could also say that in a ‘cut and paste’ style of writing a ‘beautiful patchwork’ may
indeed be valued (Howard, 1993). It seems correct to assume that such patchwriting implies a
serious attempt to make sense of, and engage with, the material, as was claimed by several Greek
and UK students. One UK student commented: “If you take all the sentences / paragraphs from
other authors – then you have to do the work to put it together – you have learned and need a
certain understanding of the topic, it is not just blatant copying.” Should patchwriting not be
considered as a legitimate pedagogical step towards becoming a competent ‘speaker’ of
academic English in the academic community? Or should we simply conclude, as Roig (2001)
suggests, that “a small but significant proportion of writing by college professors may be
classified as plagiarism” (p. 320). This seems an inappropriate conclusion, both in the case of the
professors as it is in the case of these students. Nevertheless, this issue of language proficiency
was often claimed to be one of the fundamental reasons students may ‘plagiarise’, as one Greek
student said: “taking a bit here and there helps with getting meaning across. Paraphrasing if you
are not a native speaker is difficult.” As Pennycook (1996) comments on this tension: “while
[students are] constantly being told to be original and critical, and to write things in their ‘own
words,’ [they] are nevertheless only too aware that they are at the same time required to acquire a
fixed canon of knowledge and a fixed canon of terminology to go with it” (p. 213). Indeed one
could ask what other means are available for progress to competency, and use the language of
the subject, but a sort of patchwriting? Thus, perhaps a more pertinent question may be at what
point in a student’s apprenticeship should patchwriting be considered unacceptable. Patchwriting
may be a crucial starting point in a student’s development. Unfortunately our punitive approach
to plagiarism does not always have the subtlety to make these very important distinctions, often
leading to devastating consequences for already vulnerable students.
Equality, Alienation and Academic Malpractice
Our case study also highlighted how many students feel alienated from their country’s
education system. This was attributed to the emphasis on memorisation, out of date material, and
the lack of trust in the equality of the assessment process. The extent of alienation also helps us
to see why there can be such a paradoxical situation that although many international students
believe cheating is wrong they still engage in it in quite an extensive way. In the extreme case,
this alienation from the academic system could imply a situation in which the assessment is so
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 19
‘preconfigured’—due to politics, untrustworthy academics, and so forth—that the outcome
becomes completely meaningless and any cheating behaviour becomes potentially morally
justifiable. One can see such a moral justification in the comment of a Greek student: “When you
see that people are taking degrees without doing anything – the youths of political parties have a
say in the promotion of professors. They tell professors who they should pass. It leaves people
thinking why should I bother to study and memorise things that I do not need afterwards when
these things are going on around you.”
Equally, those who do not engage in these practices even though they are aware of the
inequality, still note they have to work hard to compensate for their cheating. Interestingly, this
shared sense of alienation from the academic system in many contexts resulted in a strong degree
of collegiality among students. For example, collaboration in tests and exams was said to be
common in all of the non-UK countries represented. It seems that as the sense of alienation
increases the students feel increasingly justified to cheat—often collaboratively. This was
perhaps most graphically depicted in the Greek context, where 90% of students said that they had
cheated and helped others to cheat. Thus, if the issue of plagiarism is to be addressed (and
academic malpractice) we need to attend to the systemic conditions of alienation. Though we
hope to discount lack of trust in professors in western institutions, overseas students find
themselves in an educational system that expects of them things they are not prepared for, and in
a language they are not competent in. Addressing the resulting feeling of powerless is as much
the responsibility of academics, as it is the students’.
Towards Increased Fairness in Assessment Practice
In this paper we have tried to show that the issue of plagiarism is not always simply a
matter of cheating or not cheating. We believe we have shown that the practices that might be
termed plagiarism are often the outcome of many diverse and complex influences, especially for
students who find themselves in unfamiliar and difficult terrain. On one hand, the ideological
basis of the notion of plagiarism and the alienation from the assessment task (due to learning
skills, language, perceived unfairness, and so forth) may lead students to feel justified when they
plagiarise. On the other hand, when students sincerely try to cope with the situation by
patchwriting and ‘borrowing of words,’ they may be further alienated by our attempts to impose
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 20
rigid categories of judgement. Such attempts could further alienate, leading to an increased sense
of powerlessness and of being justified in the first place.
One central implication arising from our research pertains to the need for western
academics to not only develop a broader understanding of how overseas students were taught and
assessed, but also to communicate their expectations, and explain how they differ to those in the
students own country, and provide resources for students to meet these expectations. Further, it is
important to ensure that students view their assessments as an opportunity to learn rather than as
being merely an externally imposed logic of judgement.
A further important implication is for staff to recognise for those students who are
unfamiliar with paraphrasing, and writing arguments based on multiple sources, in their second
language, patchwriting should be viewed as an inherent part of the teaching and learning process.
It should be made explicit that patchwriting and borrowing of words, when sources are cited, is a
legitimate step towards independence of thought and create the conditions for students to freely
discuss their writing practices with academic staff as a means for students to move beyond it.
More broadly, institutional frameworks should be developed that are sensitive to the issue of
culture and alienation. It would be unfortunate if our judgements about students within an
institutional framework become an additional and final humiliation of a student already within an
asymmetrical power relationship. This means that we should insist on the things we value in the
west—that is, academic integrity, yet be mindful that in insisting on these we do not compromise
other things we equally value such as fairness.
Clearly due to its limited scope, our research is provisional and merely indicative of the
issues at stake. There is a need for more detailed ethnographic studies that explore the transition
involved in students becoming independent writers. This may include research that charts how
their recognition and understanding of plagiarism is formed and put into practice, how they draw
on the words and ideas of others, and how they utilise technology composing their essay. A
detailed understanding of such issues is necessary if institutions, with diverse student
populations, are to effectively develop preventative plagiarism policies and procedures.
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 21
References
Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language?: Plagiarism in writing. New York: Longman.
Angelova, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). If you don’t tell me, how can I know?: A case study of
four international students learning to write the U.S. way. Written Communication, 16
(4), 491-525.
Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes: University students
perception of cheating and plagiarism, Studies in Higher Education, 22 (2), 187-203.
Bamford, J., Marr, T., Pheiffer, G. & Weber-Newth, I. (2002). Some features of the cultural and
educational experiences and expectations of international postgraduate students in the
UK. BEST (BEST- Business Education Support Team) Conference 2002: Supporting the
Teacher: Challenging the Learner. Edinburgh, 9th April.
Biggs, J. (1994). Asian learners through western eyes: an astigmatic paradox. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Vocational Educational Research, 2 (2), 40-63.
Bond, M. H. (Ed.) (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Carroll, J., & Appleton, J. (2001). Plagiarism: A good practice guide. Learning and Teaching
Briefing Papers Series, Oxford Brookes University, www.brookesac.uk/services/ocsd.
Carroll, J. (2002). Suggestions for teaching international students more effectively. Learning and
Teaching Briefing Papers Series, Oxford Brookes University. Retrieved April 1, 2005
from: www.brookesac.uk/services/ocsd
The Centre for Academic Integrity, Duke University, (2004). Five Principles of Academic
Integrity. Retrieved April 1, 2005 from:
http://www.academicintegrity.org/fundamental.asp.
Churches Commission for International Students (CCIS) Annual Report 2000-2002. Inter-
Church House, 35-41 Lower Marsh, London, SE1 7SA.
Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 2 (2), 131-148.
Drinan, P. (1999). Loyalty, Learning, & Academic Integrity. Liberal Education, 85 (1), 28-34.
Dryden, L. (1999). A distant mirror or through the looking glass? Plagiarism and intellectual
property in Japanese education. In L. Buranen & A. Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 22
plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 75-85.
Errey, L. (2002). Plagiarism: Something fishy? …or just a fish out of water? Learning and
Teaching Briefing Papers Series, Oxford Brookes University. Retrieved April 1, 2005
from: www.brookesac.uk/services/ocsd.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Harris, R. A. (2001). The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and dealing
with plagiarism. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Howard, R. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English,
57 (1), 788-805.
Howard, R. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11 (2), 233-245.
Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: Toward a social- cognitive understanding
of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 6 (2), 139-54.
Hunt, R. (2003). Four Reasons to be Happy about Internet Plagiarism, St. Thomas University,
Canada. Retrieved April 1, 2005 from: http://www.stu.ca/~hunt/4reasons.htm
Kolich, A.M. (1983). Plagiarism: The worm of reason. College English, 45 (2), 141-148.
Lim, V. K. G. & See, S. K. B. (2001). Attitudes Toward, and Intentions to Report, Academic
Cheating Among Students in Singapore. Ethics & Behavior 11 (3): 261-274.
Lathrop, A. (2000). Student cheating and plagiarism in the internet era: A wake-up call.
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Martin, B. (1994). Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis. Journal of Information Ethics, 3 (2), 36-47.
Myers, S. (1998). Questioning author(ity): ESL/EFL, science, and teaching about plagiarism.
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 3 (2). Retrieved April 1, 2005 from:
http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej10/a2.html.
O’Connor, S. (2003). Cheating and electronic plagiarism – scope, consequences and detection.
Report by Caval Collaborative Solutions. Retrieved April 1, 2005 from:
http://www.caval.edu.au/about/staffpub/docs/Cheating and electronic plagiarism - scope,
consequences and detection EDUCASUE May 2003.doc
Cultural Values, Plagiarism and Fairness 23
O’Donoghue, T. (1996). Malaysian Chinese Student’s perceptions of what is necessary for their
academic success in Australia: A case study at one university. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 20 (2), 67-80.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory and plagiarism.
TESOL Quarterly, 30 (2), 210-230.
Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics
& Behavior, 11(3), 307-323.
Ryan, J. (2000). A guide to teaching international students. Oxford Centre for Staff
Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in
Society, 24 (1), 1-28.
Sherman, J. (1992). Your own thoughts in your own words. ELT Journal, 46 (2), 190-198.