213

Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors

Ali R. Abasi a,*, Barbara Graves b,1

a School of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA b Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, LMX Hall, 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier Street, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada

Abstract

In this study we examine how university plagiarism policies interact with international graduate students’ academic writing in English as they develop identities as authors and students. The study is informed by the sociocultural theoretical perspective [Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.] that foregrounds the crucial role of appropriation in learning, and the Bakhtinian dialogism [Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press; Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.] that highlights intertextuality as a fundamental feature of language use. Relying on multiple data sources including text-based interviews, in-depth interviews with students and disciplinary professors, course syllabi, field notes, and institutional documents, we consider the social discourses that surround students as they interact with prior sources in order to understand how they construct their texts. We discuss how university plagiarism policies frame the professor-student relationship and influence student text production. We conclude by critiquing university plagiarism policies that serve to mystify academic writing, negatively affecting those students who are less familiar with the genre of academic writing. ! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Academic literacy; Discourses; International students; Plagiarism

1. Introduction

In this study we are interested in understanding how university policies on textual plagiarism interact with international ESL graduate students’ academic writing as they develop identities as authors and students. Across the English-speaking world, there is concern that plagiarism is on the rise, in large part the result of easy access to academic papers on the internet. In North America more than four hundred colleges and universities have subscribed to an online database called Turnitin.com! to assist professors in detecting plagiarism in their students’ papers (The Canadian Association of University Teachers, 2003). The underlying assumption is that plagiarized source materials are evidence of an intention to defraud. Recently, an influential Canadian newspaper reported on a study by the

* Corresponding author. Tel. !1 301 405 3315. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.R. Abasi), [email protected] (B. Graves).

1 Tel. !1-613-562-5800x2225.

1475-1585/$ - see front matter ! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.010

www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

Council of Ontario Universities urging academic institutions to combat student plagiarism by shaming ‘‘cheaters and plagiarists to the extent that privacy laws allow’’ (Ottawa Citizen, ‘‘Go public on cheaters,’’ 2007, D.1). Students, accused of plagiarizing, must prove their innocence in order to alleviate the presumption that they are guilty.

In Australia, a new research journal was launched in 2005, the International Journal for Educational Integrity, to specifically address issues of academic and educational integrity. Its first issue was devoted to examining ‘‘plagiarism in Australia, particularly in relation to the country’s historically high number of international students . . .’’ (Cohen, 2007, p. A51). While there are no research studies reporting a higher incidence of plagiarism among international students studying in English-language universities, there is concern that these students may be more vulnerable to accusations of fraud as their inappropriate textual borrowing is a more obvious departure from their own style of writing (McGowan, 2005; Pecorari, 2003; Valentine, 2006).

L1 and L2 writing researchers have been trying to understand the reasons that might account for unacceptable source appropriation. Some studies have explored student cognitive processes during summary or source-based writing under controlled task conditions, pointing to the effects of such intervening factors as language proficiency, task/text diffi- culty, and topical familiarity on student plagiarism (Campbell, 1990; Keck, 2006; Roig, 1999; Shi, 2004). Others have focused on students’ attitudes and perceptions through questionnaires, surveys, or interviews, uncovering differences in cross-cultural value systems and a lack of inter-subjectivity between students and instructors vis-à-vis the notion of plagiarism (Ashworth, Bannister, & Thorne, 1997; Deckert, 1993; Kroll, 1988; Li, 2007; Moon, 2002; Overbey & Guiling, 1999; Sutherland-Smith, 2005). Increasingly, researchers who have studied student plagiarism in situ have begun to reveal the complexity of the phenomenon, locating it in a web of sociocultural relations. The results of these inquiries indicate that inappropriate source attributions might have to do with students’ culturally shaped life trajec- tories (Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Cadman, 1997; Sherman, 1992), their outsider status relative to their prospective discourse communities (Angélil-Carter, 2000; Chandrasoma, Thompson, & Pennycook, 2004; Currie, 1993, 1998; Pecorari, 2003; Ritter, 2005; Thompson, 2005; Valentine, 2006), or their racial and social positioning excluding them from the rules and conventions of school literacy practices (Hull & Rose, 1989; Starfield, 2002).

Aiming to contribute to this growing literature, we are interested in understanding how university policies on ‘‘apparent plagiarism’’ (Pecorari, 2003) interact with ESL graduate students’ academic writing and their developing identities as authors and students. In order to understand how the university’s representation of matters of intertex- tuality intersects with students’ textual practices, we examine the social discourses that surround students as they enter into a dialogue with prior sources in order to understand how they construct their own meanings and understand their own text production. At the same time, we consider the perspectives of university professors on students’ writing and the ways in which the institutional policies interact with the professor-student relationships.

2. The study

2.1. Theoretical framework

This work is informed by theoretical perspectives located within a sociocultural-historical framework that focus on both the situated and distributed nature of learning mediated by the cultural artifacts and practices of a community (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998; Wertsch, 1994). Based on this conception of learning, appropriation of language as the most pervasive semiotic means in human social activities plays a central role in learning. Accordingly, we view academic writing as a situated activity mediated by institutional discourses and practices (Foucault, 1981; Gee, 1996; Lemke, 1995). Of particular relevance to this paper is the Bakhtinian dialogic theory of language that brings to the fore the heavily borrowed character of language use as well as the intertextual nature of such use in the sense that all utterances respond to, and anticipate, other utterances (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986; Volosinov, 1973).

We further view academic writing as social practice (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Brodkey, 1987; Gee, 1996), which allows us to conceive of academic writing as a complex of literacy practices patterned by discipline-specific ways of reading and writing as well as the particular attitudes and beliefs that members of a given disciplinary community hold toward literate practice. This understanding of academic writing further reveals how writers simultaneously construct, and are constructed, by their texts (Fairclough, 1992; Kress, 1989). All writing is discursive, affording writers with particular ways of using the language as well as particular subject positions to take up. Therefore, as writers construct their texts, they simultaneously construct certain social identities through their texts (Clark & Ivani!c, 1997; Ivani!c,

222 A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

1998). We thus understand students’ written texts as intertextual responses to pedagogical and institutional practices that simultaneously are articulated from, and (re)articulate, social discourses.

By foregrounding the central role of appropriation in human learning, the sociocultural framework adopted here questions the dominant authorial ideology (and by implication, the notion of textual plagiarism) that rests upon the individual ownership of language and ideas, and challenges the belief that authorship is individual and original. It also directs our attention to the dilemma for student writers: On the one hand, they need to appropriate from others in order to learn to write; on the other, they must put the words and ideas they borrow into their own words to avoid accusations of academic fraud. The challenge becomes more pronounced for international students writing in another language, who might not yet have access to ‘‘words of their own’’ in that language.

2.2. Method

In order to understand how university plagiarism policies intersect with international graduate students’ academic writing, we used the tools of ethnography to study the writing activities of four international graduate students during two consecutive semesters in 2005 in their first year of graduate school at a large Canadian university.

The participants. The graduate students, three women and one man, came from different parts of the world including South America, Asia, and Europe. Amorita had completed a journalism degree in Chile and had worked as a journalist for a few years before coming to Canada to do a Masters; Salma was completing a degree she began in Spain, and her studies in Canada would be considered part of that degree; Hako had completed a BA in International Communications in Japan and had worked as member of an NGO in Japan before beginning her graduate studies; Lee had completed his undergraduate degree in Beijing and had worked for four years for a Chinese television station before beginning his Masters in Canada. All of the graduate students had successfully completed a TOFEL test required for admission to the graduate program. Their scores ranged from 588 to 603.

Three graduate courses were selected as sites, one in the Department of Communication and two in the Faculty of Education. The three professors from these courses were also participants in the research, along with an additional twelve professors from both academic programs.

Data sources. Data sources for the study included in-depth interviews with the four international graduate students to learn about their previous experiences, their attitudes about academic writing, and their views on their current writing assignments. Additional interviews that focused specifically on the academic texts the students produced in each course were conducted. These text-based interviews (Bazerman & Prior, 2004) allowed us to more fully understand students’ reasons for adopting certain textual practices including their decision-making with respect to textual appropriation and source attribution.

In-depth interviews were conducted with the three course professors in order to understand their literacy practices, expectations for their students, and beliefs about the genre of academic writing. Interviews were also conducted with the additional faculty members associated with the same fields of study to get a broader picture of disciplinary literacy practices.

In each of the three courses, the professors allowed us to audit the course. One of the authors audited all three courses over the two academic semesters. This participation included attending each class session and reading all the assigned materials for each course. This was an important aspect of the research design as it provided us with a detailed understanding of the context as well as the experiences of the students in each class. The researcher auditing the courses also worked in a tutorial role with the international students as they prepared their writing assignments. From these interactions we were able to collect textual artifacts such as course syllabi, writing style guides, university brochures on plagiarism, professors’ written feedback, and email exchanges between faculty and students via list- serves. Extensive field notes were also developed during/from the class sessions.

Our process of data analysis was interpretive and holistic as we worked to understand what the faculty and students considered to be important writing assignments; how they understood referencing, source attribution, and plagiarism; and how the university policies on plagiarism intersected with their work as students and professors. We integrated multiple research inscriptions including verbatim transcripts of all of the interviews, the students’ papers, institutional textual artifacts, and the field and analytical notes, and we read these multiple data sources repeatedly and inter- textually against each other in order to arrive at a documented narrative (Eisner, 1998; Richardson, 2000). In this paper we draw on representative verbatim responses from the professors and the international students in order to allow their voices and positions on these issues to emerge.

223A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

3. Emergent understandings

In what follows we discuss the professional literacy practices into which the faculty wished to socialize their students. We next consider what the students were actually thinking about source use and referencing, highlighting a disjuncture between professors’ and students’ subjectivities as to what academic writing is about. We also consider the role of insti- tutional plagiarism policies in contributing to the disjuncture. Finally, we discuss the punitive framing of matters of intertextualitybytheuniversitythattrivializesthecomplexissueofreferencingandmystifiesthegenreofacademicwriting.

3.1. The professors’ expectations: students performing as authors

As we listened to lectures, examined course outlines and essay requirements, reviewed the professors’ interviews about what they valued in a successful academic paper, and linked these statements together, a dominating discourse drew our attention. From the perspective of the professors, there was a clear expectation and responsibility to assist graduate students in becoming full participants in the academy and proficient in the academic literacy practices.

You should approach this assignment as though you [were] preparing an article for submission to a peer- reviewed academic journal. (Duncan, Course outline, p. 15)

To support students in that endeavour the literacy practices that were valued emphasized extensive reading in the field, and ongoing, engaged discussion and reflection on those readings, both in and out of class.

You know one of the things we’re trying to train you to do is research and an essential part of that . . . is having at least a good sense of what’s happening out there. What are people saying? What are the arguments? What are the theoretical foundations? What are the concepts? What are tangible issues? and . . . sort of conveying to the reader of the paper, just as with the journal article, that you have surveyed the domain in sufficient detail in terms of publishing to make this paper publishable. (Daniel, Professor, interview)

As they described their learning objectives, the professors seemed to express a sociocultural-historical under- standing of knowledge production as emerging from interactions with others and mediated by a range of semiotic resources. In addition, there was repeated emphasis on the dialogic nature of these activities, revealing an assumption that knowledges emerge from the students’ collective participation and engagement with the readings and issues.

Well, the responses part [required in students’ papers] is the notion of dialogue, conversation, multiple voices, and in the sense that in any discipline they are many conversations of course going on. And then as you travel around, you will notice that there are conversations about epistemology, and there are conversations about practice and within each of those there are different modules of conversation and so on. So the response part is about being a listener or reader of those utterances . . . The creative part is about making new arguments, adding something new to the conversation. (Daniel, Professor, interview)

One professor highlighted this disposition to create an environment for discussion and collaboration in an email sent out to the whole class:

I do want to remind everyone that a key function of the discussions is for you to present/raise issues from the readings that you believe merit further attention (i.e. something which you find to be unclear, an alternative interpretation you may have, how two or more of the readings may be juxtaposed, an argument that you believe could be developed on the basis of the readings). (Duncan, Professor, course listserve)

Many of the statements and activities of the professors suggested a dialogic process of knowledge production whereby learning occurs in the joint interactions among participants. In addition, specific references were made to ‘‘picking up vocabulary’’ necessary for speaking about the topic, which suggested a Bakhtinian understanding of utterance as part of the way we learn:

I expect them to read and to listen to each other and to share ideas of what they’re reading and hearing. I’m expecting that through the course of the readings and the conversations that they will be picking up a vocabulary or they will be developing an enriched vocabulary for speaking about the subject at hand. I think that’s inevitable. (Daniel, Professor, interview)

224 A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

To that end, the recency of the assigned readings was seen as an important aspect of the professional literacy practices that the professors wanted the graduate students to take up. In all courses there was an emphasis on engaging with up-to-date peer-reviewed sources rather than textbooks.

For me, grad level, whether it’s MA or PhD, that’s the professional league . . . I have the same expectations and requirements that I have for a peer reviewed paper . . . I want to see quality and recentness of the sources. (Jacques, Professor, interview).

One course pack contained a number of the readings that were drafts of articles in press, while another course provided a syllabus containing a full page of references and websites of internationally recognized journals in the field. In the first class, the course professor encouraged all students to acquaint themselves with these resources as soon as possible. Not only did this signal to students that as developing professionals they were expected to keep abreast of the latest knowledge claims in their fields, but the professors also provided some of the means for them to do so. All of the readings, resources and conversations served as a means of scaffolding the students’ access to their professional community.

One aspect of the professors’ literacy practices that we wanted to learn about concerned the writing tasks that they valued. From our interview data as well as from the course outlines, it was clear that for most of the professors the heart of academic writing was the development of an argued claim to knowledge. This is in keeping with other studies of academic writing tasks that have reported that the research essay is the most prevalent writing assignment for university students across a wide range of disciplines (Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Cooper & Bikowski, 2007; Horowitz, 1986). In our data from many of the course documents and class lectures, the term argument repeatedly collocated with the role of author and the adoption of a critical stance, suggesting a strong link between academic authorship and the development of arguments. In a set of reading guidelines given to the students, one course professor had highlighted the human agent behind the published source by foregrounding the author of the text. Professors advised their students to avoid those rhetorical practices that might lead a writer away from taking a position on an issue:

The emphasis in your essay should be on critical analysis. Excessive description, the mere chronicling of events, rhetorical posturing and grandstanding should all be avoided. (Communication, course outline, p. 15)

The development of a critical perspective was emphasized as the faculty frequently highlighted the importance of creating new meanings on the basis of, and against, the old meanings they would encounter in published sources. In conjunction with this, professors stressed the need to ‘hear’ the student’s own voice in the text.

As one path to the development of a personal argument, the students were encouraged to relate what they understood from the readings and class discussions to their own lived experiences. At the same time, in the process they were seen to be acquiring new vocabulary and concepts that would allow them to ‘‘speak’’ the discipline.

. Tell me about what’s going on for you in relation to the stuff that we’ve been exploring. Please share your own experience, . . . [I want] to get them to ask themselves, ‘‘How does this relate to my own experience? What do I already know? What have I already experienced since this course started which speaks to these topics? When I say experience, I’m not necessarily referring to what they’ve read. It might be a conversation they had in class or out of class . . . I also ask them to do this exploration by using an enriched vocabulary. So I’m saying you can talk about these things now in ways that you couldn’t a few weeks ago. (Daniel, Professor, interview)

From their perspective as educators, professors seemed to regard students’ inappropriate citation more as a learning issue, suggesting that it had to do with students’ socialization into the academic disciplines and their gradually taking up of disciplinary ways of speaking and writing. They articulated a rich and complex understanding of the reasons that might explain students’ problematic textual appropriations.

Professors discussed a range of reasons for students’ inappropriate source usage. One professor, for instance, enumerated context difficulty, language competence, and time pressure as playing a role:

I think for ESL students materials are difficult to read. It’s even challenging for students for whom English is a first language. For students for whom English is a second language, they’re having difficulty dealing with subject matter and with language and with construction of the ideas. So that’s there. There’s just the learning

225A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

involved. And I think because of that pressure or challenge, there may be the propensity . . . out of exhaustion or struggle . . . [to say] this paragraph says it so well. I can’t say any other way, so I’ll just put that in. I think it’s really part and parcel of the learning process. (Catherine, Professor, interview)

Another professor attributed students’ poor citation practices to their unfamiliarity with academic genres in graduate school. Still another invoked students’ unfamiliarity with the scholarly conversations in the field that resulted in their not knowing which ideas might be considered common knowledge and which were not.

Repeatedly in our conversations, they stressed that they saw no evidence of intention to deceive on the part of the students. Overall, the faculty members’ response to their students’ difficulties with referencing was situated and pedagogic. They understood appropriate source attributions to be part of learning. This attitude was borne out in practice since none of the students in the study whose essays contained transgressive textual borrowings was accused of plagiarism.

Commentary. The professors expected the students to write from an authorial stance while demonstrating famil- iarity with the research literature, and at the same time displaying an ‘‘evaluative orientation’’ (Maguire, 1998) that allowed them to assess the arguments put forth in published texts. They viewed the students as professionals-in- training who were expected to treat published sources as authored claims to knowledge and be critically engaged with them rather than to take them as absolute truth (Hass & Flower, 1988; Spivey & King, 1989). The professors viewed students’ textual appropriation and source attribution as one of those ‘‘community’’ practices that resides in a web of complex relations and develops over time.

In the three courses observed in this study, however, there was little explicit discussion of the rhetorical dimension of knowledge production. While, two of the professors provided some information about this dimension of knowledge production, there was actually little discussion of it during the course. Generally, the focus was on subject matter, and though one could observe professional practices embedded in course discussions, requirements, or lectures, these were largely implicit. The writing assignments were mostly one shot. That is, the students would select the topic in consultation with the professor, and while initially there would be some back and forth with the professor about the topic and approach, the students would go off and write the paper, and then submit it on the due date. The comments and feedback that professors provided in such an arrangement came too late to be applied in their own courses. Perhaps they trusted that the students would heed those comments when writing papers for subsequent courses.

3.2. The international students: performing as ethical learners

While the professors expected the students to adopt an authorial stance, the students’ writing exhibited heavy borrowing from sources and consisted mainly of reports of published sources with little evidence of creativity or authorial voice. This appeared to be not only because of their difficulties with English but also because of their unfamiliarity with the ways of thinking, speaking, and writing associated with the specific subject areas.

With chunks of material culled from sources and patched together without being integrated into a clear line of argument, their own voices were almost completely marginalized by the authoritative voices of published authors. The following excerpts from the students’ papers illustrate this:

When the term globalization has itself become even more globalised, the assumptions that communication via advertising had replaced ideological solemnity are being reshaped. Postmodern theorists emphasize how traditional structures of government and politics are out of step with contemporary cultural patterns and identity processes. Maybe, as the French theorist Gilles Lipovetsky points in his last publications we are not currently experiencing postmodern times but hypermodern ones. Times when we are experiencing the reconciliation of the three main axioms that characterize Modernity: Pluralist Democracy, Market, and Techno-scientific efficiency.

(Excerpt from Amorita’s paper, italics original, boldface added)

For this writing assignment, Amorita has taken sentences from three separate sources and used them to create her text. Such a textual weave was not well received, as evidenced by the written feedback from her professor:

226 A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

When writing a paper one should avoid simply weaving together different quotations to tell the story. Quotations should only be used to back-up or reinforce the argument one is trying to develop. (Professor’s feedback on Amorita’s paper)

A variant of this approach appears in the writing of another student:

On the credibility building and ethical problems on the blog, Meyer argued: Ethical standards develop over time through a natural selection process. Rules that work tend to be kept, while those that cause confusion eventually get dropped or repaired. So it is not surprising that a medium as new as blogging would be in a period of moral confusion.

‘‘Once a blogger makes a post, that post should be treated as if it were carved in stone, and bloggers have a duty never to erase their posts . . . warts and all,’’

When it comes to building trust, blogging’s needs are no different from those of the old journalism. It helps if you know what you are talking about. And so one way for a journalist, blogger or mainstream, to earn and keep a reputation is by demonstrating subject matter competence.

(Lee’s paper, bold face added)

This writer relies on the language and ideas of one source to create his text. One professor characterized this quality as ‘‘a telephone book directory of quotes’’ (Catherine, Professor, interview) while another described it as being merely ‘‘secretaries to published authors, to the experts in the field’’ (Mark, Professor, interview). In both of the sample papers, whether drawing on one or several published sources, the student writers relied completely on the language of the published authors to produce their own texts.

Some of the students revealed cultural, educational, and professional dispositions that oriented them differently to text, knowledge, and authorship. During the text-based interviews with the students, we were able to hear why the students selected certain references as they readily discussed their strategies. In the following, Hako described why she drew so heavily on Papacharissi’s writings.

Within the all articles I have cited she [Papacharissi] has the most similar idea to mine and yeah so I use his journal as the main paper and I just borrow some others a little bit . . . To be really honest, I didn’t have much time to explore other books in the library or on the internet. (Hako, Student, interview)

While time constraints were an important factor in their experience, they also selected their references to accomplish what they understood as normative academic practice.

Because I need to make it academic . . . Every scholar quote others . . . and second of all without any references it’s just a journal not an essay. It’s like writing your idea without any provement. (Hako, Student, interview)

Here Hako has revealed her understanding of the central role of argument in academic writing, ‘‘without references it is just a journal.’’ The students also chose their references in order to be recognized by their professors as diligent, and knowledgeable:

I want to show Duncan I’ve read the articles. I want to show him I know what all of these articles and books have said about the importance of internet in forming the public sphere. (Salma, Student, interview)

We were also interested in how the students understood and applied the rules pertaining to references and citations into their writing.

One of my professors told me how to make citation from journal, a book it’s name is APA. Something like that. It is very strict how to use names, people’s name, journal name, article name . . . You should write the journal which year, which page something like that. (Lee, Student, interview)

There is a sense from such responses that the students considered the process of source attribution mainly as a formal textual feature that could be accomplished by strict adherence to established rules and guidelines for proper citation. In the course of the discussions of their written assignments during the text-based interviews, the students also made repeated references to plagiarism asserting that they worried about being accused of cheating. For example, one student paper contained the following:

227A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

The only drawback of the Internet is related to the gap between the have and the have-nots (Papacharissi, 2002) . it does not even guarantee increased political activity or enlightened political discourse (Papa- charissi, 2002; p. 13) . . . On the other hand, it also fragmentize the universe of users and threaten to overemphasize [our] differences and downplay or even restrict [our] commonalities (Papacharissi, 2002, p. 17). (Salma’s paper, boldface added)

When asked specifically about this pattern of citation, she responded:

I thought that everything was known to [the professor] because I probably said what authors said . . . I know he has read enough about this and he can identify [and say] ‘‘Oh, yeah, this idea is not yours! This idea you’ve taken from another person!’’ (Salma, Student, interview)

Further conversations revealed that the students appeared to have adopted a stance that seemed to dominate their writing, a stance devoted to showing that they would not steal other people’s property.

Oh yes, because in my country Japan . . . borrowing from other is not so strictly . . . but it’s plagiarism so I have to care a lot that I’m not stealing words just borrowing them. I put some other words for other words. (Hako, student, interview)

When I am really sure that these ideas came from this author, I go to the paper so when I remember that someone they could identify . . . because I knew that I had to do that because of the plagiarism. (Salma, student, interview)

Because I have to. Because if I don’t I’m afraid it’s going to be taken as plagiarism. (Amorita, Student, interview)

Given this preoccupation, we were interested in learning more about their familiarity and experience with plagiarism. Each of the students had had prior experience with academic guidelines about plagiarism. Countries such as Japan and Spain have intellectual property and copyright right laws very similar to those of North America. Both Salma and Amorita did their undergraduate studies in Spanish in different countries. Salma saw the practice she experienced in Spain as similar to the Canadian university model. It was similar for Amorita in Chile, but she also pointed out an important difference:

[In my country] they tell, ‘‘Do not copy please.’’ Do not do the copy and paste thing . . . they teach you how to quote and reference and cite. Yes. They teach you that. They teach you the way, but they don’t tell you if you don’t do this, you’re going to be expelled. (Amorita, Student, interview, italics added)

When Lee reflected on writing and referencing in his home country, China, he was able to recognize a practice that had been invisible to him as an undergraduate.

When I was at my university not strict on this but you know now just these days when I go back to see some Chinese journals, I found out, yes they are using the same, because you know at that time I was an under- graduate so they were not very strict for this. (Lee, Student, interview)

Hako explained that in Japan while her teachers had discussed the topic of plagiarism, it was not with the same degree of stress on wrongdoing as in Canada. There are many possible explanations for the heightened sense of wrongdoing that the students experienced, but one clear source was evidenced in Amorita’s emotional response to whether she, as a new graduate student in Canada, had received any explicit instructions about the practice from the university as part of her program. ‘‘Yes, like 500 times!’’

Commentary. The international students in this study, while familiar with the conventions of academic writing in their home countries, had limited experience in the type of writing that is privileged in North American English- medium universities. For these students, the tone and authoritative stance of the university plagiarism policies created considerable anxiety that seemed to have distracted them from the more important aspects of academic writing. Apart from perpetuating fear of sanctions, the institutional plagiarism policies appeared to have preoccupied the students with performing the identity of a moral writer. It is important to point out that, while these policies on their own do not constitute a discourse, there are in fact ‘‘traces of discourses’’ (Brodkey, 1987; Fairclough, 1992) operating in them, the most visible of which is a discourse of morality. This is evident in the way these policies describe plagiarism as

228 A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

a form of academic dishonesty (Howard, 1995; Valentine, 2006; Zwagerman, 2008). Such a representation has an automatic disciplining function by dichotomizing students into ethical or unethical writers. The frequent messages that the students had been receiving had overly preoccupied them with performing the identity of moral writer at the expense of ignoring the many messages that the professors conveyed to them about what constituted effective writing.

The students’ papers, in conjunction with their statements, highlighted the gap between the pedagogical goals of their professors, who wanted to get them to write authoritatively with appropriate referencing as one of the hallmarks of this kind of writing, and students’ perspective of avoiding an accusation of fraud. The students’ explanations of source use and attribution suggested that avoiding accusations of plagiarism were more prevalent in their decision-making than articulating a critical disposition towards their readings in order to add their voice to an ongoing academic conversation.

3.3. The institution: performing as mystifying authority

The university, as part of its mandate, has an institutional responsibility to uphold academic standards and ensure academic integrity. From its perspective, an increase in plagiarism presents a clear threat of erosion of those standards. As part of a strategy to stem the tide, many universities provide information about plagiarism during their orientation sessions for incoming undergraduate and graduate students. The university in our study adopted a variety of strategies to publicize information about plagiarism including using the activities during the orientation week to disseminate warnings, directives, and advice on the matter. Many events during the university orientation week included descriptions of plagiarism, its consequences, and strategies to avoid plagiarism. One of the international students in our study described her experience of the orientation activities:

Every day before I started classes there was like this international students’ session, and there was the general one, the graduate studies one, the barbecue one. And in every session they give you this yellow sheet about plagiarism saying, ‘‘It’s a crime; you don’t do this.’’ (Amorita, Student, interview)

The yellow sheet to which she referred above is a widely distributed university brochure that was visible in the hallways and on the bulletins boards in many of the classrooms and is similar in content to those found in universities across the English speaking world (Pecorari, 2001; Yamada, 2003). Couched in punitive language, the brochure defines plagiarism and offers examples of paraphrasing, summarizing, and correct referencing as strategies to avoid plagiarism. While the brochure appears in different shapes and colours, the content remains the same, underlining the institutional perspective on texts, writers, and their relations. This brochure also mandates professors to detect and treat students’ inappropriate source attribution as plagiarism. Amorita’s description of the university orientation session designed specifically for graduate students provides additional details of the atmosphere that was created:

For graduate studies we had a large speech from the director of the FPGS [Faculty of Postdoctoral and Graduate Studies] about plagiarism and all the concern about it. But it makes me think that there is a lot of plagiarism here. I don’t know if it’s real but the lady told us that they had found several cases last year so we’re going through this and we’re going to be hard and you have do this properly because last year she told us there was a lot. (Amorita, Student, interview)

The warning messages that the students received about their use of sources and plagiarism at the institutional level, were at the same time reiterated in their academic courses as the faculty were required to incorporate warnings about plagiarism in their course outlines. Most faculty members complied by copy-pasting a section from university brochure or by incorporating the URL of the electronic version of the brochure in their course outlines. They did so, however, with a large degree of discomfort as they believed that including these admonitions about plagiarism interfered with their pedagogical goals. They described themselves as conflicted as they had to simultaneously deploy two competing discourses: one legalistic and one educational:

I felt like a security guard . . . My aesthetic or affective response for not wanting to include it was because that’s just not the way that I want to enter into a relationship with my students when I’m teaching in a class and am learning with them. (Mary, Professor, interview)

It was felt that the intrusion of the legalistic policy jeopardized their goal to support their graduate students and ultimately receive them as professional colleagues. In this regard, it was felt to negatively impact the student-professor relationship:

229A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

I didn’t want to telegraph to the students that I thought they might engage in fraud. (Jamie, Professor, interview)

In one department, professors were required to have the students sign and submit a Fraud Declaration attesting to the originality of their written submissions and explicitly stating that they did not commit academic fraud. The international students found this emphasis strange, and spoke as if their intertextual practices were under surveillance.

I was so worried actually because the paper I signed was some kind of warning you do not do any plagiarism. So it was always there. (Salma, Student, interview)

Hako found submitting the Fraud Declaration disturbing, and was ‘‘kind of shocked’’ when the professor required it. Lee too explained that he was disturbed when he looked up the meaning of ‘‘affidavit’’ after he went through the Fraud Declaration at home later on. Amorita explained that following the orientation sessions, whenever she wrote for her courses, she was especially careful and anxious about documenting her borrowings in order to avoid an accusation of plagiarism. Thus, it may be the case that these warnings were effective in bringing students’ attention to the importance of documenting one’s sources in academic writing: At the same time, however, they bear some respon- sibility for leading the students to be excessively preoccupied with referencing sources simply to guard against charges of plagiarism, as seen from the over-citation in a number of their written assignments.

4. Concluding discussion

In this study we were interested in how institutional plagiarism policies interacted with ESL students’ academic writing and how those policies framed the professor-student relationships. In our view the institutional plagiarism policies that the students experienced in their course assignments and the broader institutional context reduced the complex phenomenon of plagiarism that is ‘‘centrally concerned with questions of language, identity, education, and knowledge’’ (Chandrasoma et al., 2004, p. 174) to the mechanics of documentation, while directing students’ attentions to performing the identity of a moral writer (Valentine, 2006; Zwagerman, 2008). While trivializing ‘‘the complex meanings of [academic] authorship attribution’’ (Fisk, 2006, p. 52), the institutional documents withheld important information from the international students in this study, who were in the early stages of their relationship with North American academic writing. The institutional documents were misleading to the students in that they prompted the students to think that academic attribution was more about avoiding plagiarism than responding creatively to the ideas of others. Focused on plagiarism avoidance, the documents provided little information on the rhetorical uses of prior texts in the collaborative act of knowledge construction. While stripping the context from the act of writing, the documents provided little information on the epistemological assumptions or the rhetorical purposes of successful writing in academia. They conveyed virtually no information about the core assumptions that underpin professional literacy practices, namely, that knowledge is contingent, and that all published sources, regardless of their authors, are to be approached as provisional claims to truth that are always subject to rational scrutiny (Dillon, 1991; Toulmin, 1958). That professional academic writers bring a complex set of assumptions to the act of writing can be highlighted by the fact that writers use citations to achieve multiple pragmatic functions, of which crediting other authors is but one (Harwood, 2008). These omissions about academic writing were therefore not only misleading to the students, but they also diminished the professors’ efforts to socialize the students into privileged literacy practices.

These silences about implicit genre rules and conventions are in fact examples of what Lillis (1999) has described as the ‘‘institutional practice of mystery’’ that mystify academic writing and thereby work ‘‘against those least familiar with the conventions surrounding academic writing’’ (p. 127). The result is that they negatively impact the academic success of ESL students who may have less experience with the argumentative literacy tradition so dominant in North American academia (Farr, 1993; Olson, 1977). As we reflected on the ways in which university plagiarism policies intersected with student writing and educational practice, we asked ourselves what might mitigate these effects. In our view, the fact that most professors resisted taking up the institutional plagiarism policies when reacting to students’ inappropriate textual borrowing certainly limited the damage. Nonetheless, the professors were simultaneously undermined and even complicit when they reinforced the institutional view by passively incorporating it in their course outlines. To counter the exclusionary function of university policies that gets enacted through their silences on what underpins academic writing, the faculty could fill in some of the blanks by discussing the rhetorical and

230 A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

epistemological assumptions that go with the use of sources. However, some of these assumptions are so tacitly adhered to that many content area professors might not be able to articulate to their students. This is where explicit discussion of the fundamentals of academic writing in EAP classes becomes crucial for international students.

In this study, the repeated exhortations to the students to connect the readings to their own lives did not include providing them with writing alternatives that would enable them to tell their stories. The only valid rhetorical product, reasoned arguments with a critical stance, in effect muted their voices and pushed the students toward reproducing the words of published authors. Of the fifteen professors interviewed in this study, only two spoke of the importance of using alternative writing tasks and developing rhetorical modes different from the argumentative mode to create a space for writing that could be more reflective and expressive.

While the introduction of multiple forms of writing into the university classroom could serve as an important catalyst toward creating a pedagogy that would align it with a more dialogic view of developing the authorial voice so valued by the professors in this study, we are not suggesting that professors teach these multiple forms as instances of specific genres (Freedman, 1993). Rather, we are suggesting that disciplinary professors enlarge their educational responsibilities to include participating with their students in a transformative pedagogy that is at once dialogic and dynamic. Such an undertaking would understand learning ‘‘as a recursive, elaborative process of opening up new spaces of possibility by exploring current spaces’’ and teaching as ‘‘participating in the transformation of what is’’ (Davis, 2004, p. 184). We think this approach could create a more generative relationship and ultimately contribute importantly to the development of accomplished academic writers.

References

Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102e117.

Angélil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language?: Plagiarism in writing. New York: Longman. 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), 187e203. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analysis of texts and textual practices. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum. Brodkey, L. (1987). Academic writing as social practice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32e42. Cadman, K. (1997). Thesis writing for international students: a question of identity? English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 3e14. Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language

writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211e230). Cambridge University Press. Canadian Association of University Teachers. (2003). McGill student penalized for not using Internet plagiarism service. http://www.caut.ca/en/

bulletin/issues/2003_nov/news/turnitin.asp. Accessed 20.01.07. Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: faculty perceptions, pedagogical

issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 22e49. Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of

Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 171e193. Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1997). The politics of writing. London: Routledge. Cohen, D. (2007). Australian journal will explore plagiarism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(18), A51. Cooper, A., & Bikowski, D. (2007). Writing at the graduate level: what tasks do professors actually require? Journal of English for Academic

Purposes, 6, 206e221. Currie, P. (1993). Entering a disciplinary community: conceptual activities required to write for one introductory university course. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 2(2), 101e117. Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1e18. Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(2), 131e148. Dillon, G. (1991). Contending rhetorics: Writing in academic disciplines. Bloomington, ID: Indiana University Press. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical language awareness. New York: Longman. Farr, M. (1993). Essayist literacy and other verbal performances. Written Communication, 3, 275e296. Fisk, C. L. (2006). Credit where credit it’s due: the law and norms of attribution. The Georgetown Law Journal, 95(49), 49e117. Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A poststructralist reader (pp. 48e78). Boston: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

231A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 222e251.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London Falmer Press. Go public on cheaters, report says; universities must ‘get a handle’ on the extent of plagiarism, cheating, study finds. (2007, December 8). The

Ottawa Citizen. D. 1. Harwood, N. (2008). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001. Hass, C., & Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39,

167e183. Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445e462. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788e806. Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written

Communication, 6, 139e154. Ivani!c, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: Benjamin. Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: a comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15,

261e278. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kroll, B. (1988). How college freshmen view plagiarism. Written Communication, 5(2), 203e221. Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis. Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: an intraview of a NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL

Quarterly, 41(1), 55e79. Lillis, T. (1999). Whose ‘‘common sense’’? Essayist literacy and the institutional practice of mystery. In C. Jones, J. Turner, & B. Street (Eds.),

Students writing in the university: Cultural and epistemological issues (pp. 127e147). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Maguire, M. H. (1998). A bilingual child’s discourse choices and voices: lessons in listening, noticing, and understanding. In E. Franklin (Ed.),

Reading and writing in more than one language (pp. 115e146). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. McGowan, U. (2005). Does educational integrity mean teaching students NOT to ‘use their own words’? International Journal of Educational

Integrity, 1(1). http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/viewFile/16/6. Accessed 25.01.08. Moon, Y. (2002). Korean university students’ awareness of plagiarism in summary writing. Language Research, 38(4), 1349e1365. Olson, D. R. (1977). From utterance to text: the bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257e281. Overbey, G. A. U., & Guiling, S. F. (1999). Student perception of plagiarism and the evaluation of assignments. Journal on Excellence in College

Teaching, 10(3), 3e22. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: the internet as the public sphere. New Media and Society, 4(1), 9e27. Pecorari, D. (2001). Plagiarism and international students: how the English speaking university responds. In D. D. Belcher, & A. R. Hirvela (Eds.),

Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 229e245). Michigan, MI: University of Michigan Press. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,

12(4), 317e345. Richardson, L. (2000). New writing practices in qualitative research. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 5e20. Ritter, K. (2005). The economics of authorship: online paper mills, student writers, and first-year composition. College Composition and

Communication, 56(4), 601e631. Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973e982. Sherman, J. (1992). Your own thoughts in your own words. ELT Journal, 46(2), 190e198. Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171e200. Spivey, N., & King, J. (1989). Readers and writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7e26. Starfield, S. (2002). ‘I’m a second-language English speaker’: negotiating writer identity and authority in sociology one. Journal of Language,

Identity, and Education, 1(2), 121e140. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). Pandora’s box: academic perceptions of student plagiarism in writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,

4(1), 83e95. Thompson, C. H. (2005). ‘Authority is everything’: a study of the politics of textual ownership and knowledge in the formation of student writer

identities. http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI/issue/view/3. Accessed 19.08.07. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. Valentine, K. (2006). Plagiarism as literacy practice: recognizing and rethinking ethical binaries. College Composition and Communication, 58(1),

89e109. Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. (L. Matejka & I.R. Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202e208. Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism?: Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31,

247e258. Zwagerman, S. (2008). The scarlet P: plagiarism, panopticism, and the rhetoric of academic integrity. College Composition and Communication,

59(4), 676e710.

232 A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233

Further readings

Australian scholars, beset with plagiarism, inaugurate new journal on academic integrity. (2006). The Chronicle of Higher Education p. 18.

Ali R. Abasi is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at the School of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, University of Maryland, USA. His primary research interest is writing in academic and workplace settings.

Barbara Graves is an Associate Professor of Education at the University of Ottawa, Canada. Her main research interest is theories of mind.

233A.R. Abasi, B. Graves / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008) 221e233