TY - JOUR
T1 - Institutional policies on plagiarism management
T2 - A comparison of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong
AU - Sun, Xiaoya
AU - Hu, Guangwei
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Long characterized as a primary form of academic misconduct and a major threat to academic integrity, the issue of plagiarism has been extensively researched from multiple perspectives, including students’ and academic staff’s perceptions and attitudes concerning plagiarism, measures for detecting and deterring plagiarism and their effectiveness, and the higher education sector’s response to plagiarism. Yet knowledge remains patchy regarding this last strand of research. With the aim of bridging this research gap, we examine and compare the plagiarism management policies adopted by a selection of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong, two contexts that have been influenced by different academic traditions. Analysis reveals both similarities and divergences in these universities’ communication of plagiarism-related information, mechanism for plagiarism detection, provision of academic guidance and support for avoiding plagiarism, and competing discourses on plagiarism underpinning their mixed approaches to the problem. Implications for institutional policymaking and academic integrity education are discussed.
AB - Long characterized as a primary form of academic misconduct and a major threat to academic integrity, the issue of plagiarism has been extensively researched from multiple perspectives, including students’ and academic staff’s perceptions and attitudes concerning plagiarism, measures for detecting and deterring plagiarism and their effectiveness, and the higher education sector’s response to plagiarism. Yet knowledge remains patchy regarding this last strand of research. With the aim of bridging this research gap, we examine and compare the plagiarism management policies adopted by a selection of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong, two contexts that have been influenced by different academic traditions. Analysis reveals both similarities and divergences in these universities’ communication of plagiarism-related information, mechanism for plagiarism detection, provision of academic guidance and support for avoiding plagiarism, and competing discourses on plagiarism underpinning their mixed approaches to the problem. Implications for institutional policymaking and academic integrity education are discussed.
KW - Academic misconduct
KW - Hong Kong
KW - institutional policy
KW - mainland China
KW - plagiarism management
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138312698&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/08989621.2022.2120390
DO - 10.1080/08989621.2022.2120390
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85138312698
SN - 0898-9621
JO - Accountability in Research
JF - Accountability in Research
ER -