Abstract
A review of the literature relating to plagiarism suggests that there is substantial variability in approach between institutions. Some institutions tend to view all occurrences of plagiarism as academic misconduct, whilst others take a more graded view – articulated through policy and procedures that aim to quantify 'levels' of severity. Measured approaches such as these tend to rely on guides to help assess the level of severity, typically encompassing the experience of the student, the amount of material plagiarised, and the likelihood of an intention to deceive. Such judgements lead to a graded response to the student which can result in a wide range of outcomes, from educational guidance and support to expulsion from the institution.
 
 However, the intent to deceive can be extremely difficult to establish. This paper will draw on a desktop study of institutional policies and procedures in Australia and other countries to sample and summarise the myriad approaches to the definition and determination of (specifically) intent in plagiarism. Based on the findings of this review, we suggest that the treatment of intent is, at best, rather inconsistent. A series of 'probability factors' are proposed to guide further research in this area.
Highlights
There are many reasons why students submit work that is subsequently considered to be plagiarised
This paper investigates and reports on the differences between institutions in terms of the role played by the concept of ‘intent’, and establishes a draft set of ‘probability factors’ that may be useful in the determination of intent
In each institution the university website was searched for policies, procedures and guidance relating to plagiarism and academic misconduct. (Schools or departments within the university were considered to be beyond the scope of this initial investigation: it is recognised that this approach may exclude data present in those institutions with highly devolved structures.)
Summary
There are many reasons why students submit work that is subsequently considered to be plagiarised. A spread of factors including those relating to student familiarity with academic practice, time management, financial pressures, cultural norms, motivation, opportunity and risk of detection are identified in the literature (see, for example, Park, 2003; Bennett, 2005). Some of these factors are associated with what might be termed ‘inadvertent’ plagiarism; others relate to intentional and deceptive practice. This paper investigates and reports on the differences between institutions in terms of the role played by the concept of ‘intent’, and establishes a draft set of ‘probability factors’ that may be useful in the determination of intent. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are many underpinning variables that influence an individual’s intention to plagiarise (some of which may be highly mitigating in terms of deciding the appropriate response), a discussion of these lie outside the scope of this paper
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
