Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 277–292 | Cite as

Conceptions of Plagiarism and Problems in Academic Writing in a Changing Landscape of External Regulation

  • Erika Löfström
  • Elisa Huotari
  • Pauliina Kupila


The aim of this study was to investigate the consequences of the use of text-matching software on teachers’ and students’ conceptions of plagiarism and problems in academic writing. An electronic questionnaire included scale items, structured questions, and open-ended questions. The respondents were 85 teachers and 506 students in a large Finnish university. Methods of analysis included exploratory factor analysis, t-test, and inductive content analysis. Both teachers and students reported increased awareness of plagiarism and improvements in writing habits, as well as concerns and limitations related to the system. The results suggest that teachers are inclined to think of plagiarism as part of a learning process rather an issue of morality, which may have consequences for how they understand the role of text matching. The introduction of text-matching software has supported teachers’ work, but at the same time teachers emphasized their own responsibility in detecting problems in student writing. The survey provides a limited sample of “Case Finland,” where implementation of text-matching software nationwide has been remarkably rapid; it offers a glimpse into one institution’s implementation of a newly introduced policy for mandatory plagiarism detection.


Academic writing Conceptions of plagiarism Text-matching software Student plagiarism 



The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Academy of Finland [grant number 252813] to the first author.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.


  1. Abasi, A. R., & Graves, B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language?: Plagiarism in writing. London: Pearson education.Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badge, J. L., Cann, A. J., & Scott, J. (2007). To cheat or not to cheat? A trial of the JISC plagiarism detection service with biological sciences students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(4), 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, K. K., Behrendt, L., & Boothby, J. L. (2011). Instructor perceptions of plagiarism: are we finding common ground. Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertram Gallant, T., & Kalichman, M. (2011). Academic ethics. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in the academy. In T. Bertram Gallant (Ed.), Creating the ethical academy. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education (pp. 27–44). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: An intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breen, L., & Maassen, M. (2005). Reducing the incidence of plagiarism in an undergraduate course: The role of education. Issues in Educational Research, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  9. Comas-Forgas, R., & Sureda-Negre, J. (2010). Academic plagiarism: Explanatory factors from students’ perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8(3), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crisp, G. (2007). Staff attitudes to dealing with plagiarism issues: Perspectives from one Australian university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 3(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  11. Dahl, S. (2007). Turnitin: The student perspective on using plagiarism detection software. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(2), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies, L. J. P., & Howard, R. M. (2016). Plagiarism and the Internet. Fears, facts, and pedagogies. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 591–606). Singapore: Springer Reference Work.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, M. (2013). The development of source use by international postgraduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for text-matching software? International Journal of Educational Integrity, 5(2), 58–70.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, C. (2012). Streamlining plagiarism detection: The role of electronic assessment management. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(2), 46–56.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, R. (2006). Evaluating an electronic plagiarism detection service: The importance of trust and the difficulty of proving students don’t cheat. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson, K., Masur, S., Olson, L., Ramirez, J., Robyn, E., & Schmaling, K. (2007). Enhancing the culture of research ethics of university campuses. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2012) Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. Retrieved 12 Feb 2014 from
  19. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review. Helsinki. Accessed 29 June 2015.
  20. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Gu, Q., & Brooks, J. (2008). Beyond the accusation of plagiarism. System, 36(3), 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayes, N., & Introna, L. (2005a). Systems for the production of plagiarists? The implications arising from the use of plagiarism detection systems in UK universities for Asian learners. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005b). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers' engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11, 233–245.Google Scholar
  27. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorship, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howard, R. M., & Davies, L. J. P. (2009). Plagiarism in the Internet age. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 64–67.Google Scholar
  29. Hyytinen, H., Löfström, E., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2016). Beginning students’ problems in academic writing. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2016.1147072.Google Scholar
  30. Jamieson, S. (2016). Is it plagiarism or patchwriting? Toward a nuanced definition. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 503–518). Singapore: Springer Reference Work.Google Scholar
  31. Jordan, S. R. (2013). Conceptual clarification and the task of improving research on academic ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jurowska, J. E., & Thompson, J. P. (2012). “opening doors early to academic integrity” – Aiding the transition to and managing expectations of academic practice at university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(2), 4–20.Google Scholar
  33. Kaposi, D., & Dell, P. (2012). Discourses of plagiarism: Moralist, proceduralist, developmental and inter-textual approaches. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(6), 813–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ledwith, A., & Risquez, A. (2008). Using anti-plagiarism software to promote academic honesty in the context of peer reviewed assignments. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Löfström, E. (2011). “Does plagiarism mean anything? LOL” Students’ conceptions of writing and citing. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 257–275.Google Scholar
  36. Löfström, E., & Kupila, P. (2013). The instructional challenges of student plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(3), 231–242.Google Scholar
  37. Lonka, K. (2003). Helping doctoral student to finish their theses. In L. Björk, G. Bräuer, L. Rienecker, & P. S. Jörgensen (Eds.), Teaching academic writing in European higher education. Studies in writing (pp. 113–131). Dorchrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin, D. F. (2005). Plagiarism and technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism. Journal of Education for Business, 80(3), 149–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2013). Research design explained (8th ed.). California: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  40. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pickard, J. (2006). Staff and student attitudes to plagiarism at university college Northampton. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Power, L. G. (2009). University students' perceptions of plagiarism. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roig, M. (1999). When college students' attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rolfe, V. (2011). Can Turnitin be used to provide instant formative feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 701–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Savage, S. (2004). Staff and student responses to a trial of Turnitin plagiarism detection software. In Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum (pp. 2–7).Google Scholar
  46. Serviss, T. (2016). Creating faculty development programming to prevent plagiarism: Three approaches. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 551–567). Singapore: Springer Reference Work.Google Scholar
  47. Street, B. (2004). Academic literacies and the ‘new orders’: Implications for research and practice in student writing in higher education. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). Pandora's box: Academic perceptions of student plagiarism in writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2014). Legality, quality assurance and learning: Competing discourses of plagiarism management in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(1), 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tuhkanen, T. (Ed.) (2014). Sähköinen plagiaatintunnistus Suomen korkeakouluissa 2013 (In Finnish. Electronic plagiarism detection in Finnish higher education 2013). CSC IT Centre for Science.Google Scholar
  51. Vaismoradi, M., Turunuen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Valentine, K. (2006). Plagiarism as literacy practice: Recognizing and rethinking ethical binaries. College Composition and Communication, 58(1), 89–109.Google Scholar
  53. Vehviläinen, S., Löfström, E., & Nevgi, A. (2017). Dealing with plagiarism in the academic community: Emotional engagement and moral distress. Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-017-0112-6.Google Scholar
  54. Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: Researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weber-Wulff, D. (2016). Plagiarism detection software: Promises, pitfalls, and practices. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 625–638). Singapore: Springer Reference Work.Google Scholar
  56. Wilkinson, J. (2009). Staff and student perceptions of plagiarism and cheating. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 98–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Centre for University Teaching and LearningUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.University ServicesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Educational Technology CentreUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations