Nurse Education Today
Volume 27, Issue 1 , Pages 14-18, January 2007

Student plagiarism and professional practice

  • Deborah Kenny

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationTel.: +44 1772 893 888; fax: +44 1772 892 914.

Department of Midwifery Studies, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, United Kingdom

Accepted 21 February 2006. published online 18 April 2006.

Article Outline

Summary 

With the ever-increasing availability and accessibility of the Internet, students are able to access a multitude of resources in support of their studies. However, this has also led to an increase in their ability to cheat through plagiarising text and claiming it as their own. Increased pressures of balancing work and study have contributed to this rise. Not only confined to the student population, some academics are also guilty of engaging in this practice providing a less than favourable role model for their students. Of increasing concern is the links of this practice to professionalism or indeed in this case unprofessionalism. Both pre- and post-registration nursing students who plagiarise risk bringing the reputation of the profession into disrepute. There are a number of methods that may be used to detect plagiarism but often the penalties are menial and inconsistently applied. Overall it is essential that academic institutions foster a culture of honesty and integrity amongst its academic community. A culture that clearly emphasises that plagiarism in any form is unacceptable.

Keywords: Plagiarism, Academic dishonesty, Cheating, Professionalism

 

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

This paper concerns itself with the apparent increase in plagiarism that is currently sweeping through UK Universities (Larkham and Manns, 2002) and the relationship that this so-called cheating has on both pre- and post-registration nursing courses in terms of professionalism. It is evident that the problem of plagiarism is of international concern however, within the UK this has particular implications for nurses who are bound to adhere to the Nursing and Midwifery Councils Professional Code of Conduct (NMC, 2004) and whose duty it is not only to protect the health of the public but also to maintain the reputation of the profession. There is much written about plagiarism and its various disguises but few papers directly relate this to the implications it has for nurses be they current or future registered practitioners. Whilst the issues raised are both challenging and uncomfortable, Park (2004) suggests that to ignore it is unacceptable as not only does it demonstrate inequity to those students who do not plagiarise, it also does little to support the academic credibility and indeed reputation of the institution. The act of plagiarism runs ‘counter to an ethos of trust and integrity that should lie at the heart of any academic activity’ (Park, 2004 pp. 292).

Back to Article Outline

What is it? 

The verb to plagiarise is defined as to ‘take and use (another’s thoughts or writings) as ones own’ (Allen, 1984). Larkham and Manns (2002) suggest that most academic institutions view plagiarism to be a sub-section of cheating and commonly utilise the phrase ‘seeking to gain unfair advantage’ (pp. 348) as their description of the offence. However, whilst such institutions acknowledge that the theft of the words of others constitutes cheating, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) does not appear to have a direct view on this issue. Indeed, no hits were gained when the web site was searched for the key words of plagiarism, academic misconduct, dishonesty and cheating. Other professional bodies have similar viewpoints and although a recent General Medical Council Education Committee report (2005) details concerns regarding fitness to practice of student doctors who engage in plagiarism, cheating and fraud they recognise that it is often left to the medical schools themselves to deal with rather than the professional body itself. The report notes a similar situation for The British Dental Council; General Social Care Council; Health Professions Council and the General Optical Council. However, all of these bodies suggest that new legislation may serve to alleviate this issue particularly at point of registration.

It may be considered that such issues are inappropriate for pre-registration students, not recognised yet as professionals; however it is more than appropriate for those post-registration students where plagiarism could be considered an issue of professional misconduct. As such it appears to be left to the academic institutions themselves to define the concept and employ the appropriate penalties. Unfortunately, with increasing technology the issue of plagiarism has become much more complex and students are utilising much more sophisticated methods of cheating.

Back to Article Outline

What constitutes plagiarism? 

Park (2004) provides a useful ‘Taxonomy of types of plagiarism by students’, in which the common areas of deception are highlighted. Included within this taxonomy is that of collusion often found within group work where a student may utilise the group work and claim it as their own. Students may also submit coursework that has been written by a friend, they may use the same or similar piece of work for different courses or modules’ or indeed copy another student’s work and submit it as their own (with or without the student’s knowledge). However, of increasing concern is the notable rise in students purchasing essays from an Internet paper mill (Levinson, 2005) or engaging in the practice of copying text directly from the source without acknowledging its origin (Park, 2004).

Szabo and Underwood (2004) investigated the attitudes of students within higher education towards Internet plagiarism. They report that more than 30% of students admitted to copying directly from the Internet into their assignments without acknowledgment of the source. The so-called cyber-cheats admitted to this behaviour on a regular basis and of increasing concern is that many students do not feel that such practice is dishonest or think that their tutors will be able to detect this form of cheating behaviour. Such behaviour is not confined simply to the UK. Indeed, Bilveer Singh a Professor at the University of Singapore is quoted as describing the increasing rate of cheating via the Internet as ‘A and A’ or ‘alteration and amendment’ (Hastings, 2003 pp. E16). Australia, America, South Africa and Finland are also reported to be encountering problems with this new wave of academic dishonesty (Hastings, 2003, Park, 2003).

What is important to note here is that for the pre-registration student the attainment of professional status is a developmental process. However, when entering a profession such as nursing it is surely reasonable to suggest that students should have reached the appropriate development of morality to be able to distinguish as to what is right and what is wrong. Mature entrants to pre-registration training and most certainly post-registered nurses should have attained an even deeper understanding of this concept. Inextricably linked with morality is then the ideology of what constitutes professional behaviour. In their draft statement of common purpose for subject benchmarks: healthcare programmes, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAAHE, 2004) describe honesty, integrity and trustworthiness as required qualities at point of qualification; the entrance to professional status. If a student plagiarises then it is not illogical to suggest that he or she has not fulfilled such criteria. Moreover, the plagiarising student who has cheated during training may not have sufficiently gained the required amount of knowledge to practice competently.

Back to Article Outline

Why plagiarise? 

There are a number of reasons that may encourage a student to plagiarise. In particular for nursing students the need to manage the balance of their academic life along with developing their clinical competence in the hospital or community can be problematical (Logue, 2004). Furthermore, in order to maintain a basic standard of living, many students also have to work part-time to supplement their bursary or grant (Larkham and Manns, 2002). There is also a considerable growth in the number of mature students entering the profession – those with children and families who may find it difficult to juggle the complexities of parenthood, academe and working. New issues arise for those post-registration students who seek to advance their career through specialism as most hospital trusts appear not to provide any time out for study for their staff. Furthermore, Tanner (2004) describes how students in the USA plagiarised because of the sheer volume of work and interestingly a lack of understanding of the task required. Whilst it could be possible that students unintentionally plagiarise, ‘the lack of intention does not change the act itself.’ (Logue, 2004 pp. 40).

Again, it is important to recognise here that those who cheat appear to lack the key attributes commensurate with those required by the nursing profession. To those who cheat it is not an infringement of a moral code but an action that merely serves a purpose (Tanner, 2004). In particular the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Code of Professional Conduct (2004) clearly states that registered practitioners need to ‘Maintain professional knowledge and competence’ and ‘be trustworthy’. This is something perhaps to be cultivated in the pre-registration student and expanded in the post-registration student.

Back to Article Outline

The plagiarising role model 

Having had her own work plagiarised in the form of a journal publication, Bellack (2004) can clearly identify with feelings of outrage at a fellow professionals lack of professionalism but also as the victim of theft, her words taken without consent or attribution. Most importantly, however is the impression that this may give to the students of the profession. To Bellack (2004) nurse educators should ‘go to great lengths to instil in and role model for our students high standards of academic integrity and honesty, believing these standards to be important not only in our written work, but also as proxies for professional integrity and honesty’ (pp. 527). Even as a non-academic but registered practitioner every nurse has the ‘duty to facilitate students of nursing, midwifery and specialist community public health nursing and others to develop their competence’ (NMC, 2004 pp. 10). This could be construed as the need to demonstrate exemplary behaviour congruent to that of a healthcare professional.

Yet despite this there is a growing concern of plagiarism amongst fellow professionals. Indeed, in 1997 the editors of medical journals formed The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, 2003) to deal with this very problem. Logue (2004) describes the concept of institutionalised plagiarism where hierarchical structures allow credit to be given to a superior for work written by a subordinate. He also includes ‘honorary authorship’, under this title. Dissertation or thesis supervisors who may be listed as co-authors on their student’s publications, yet having had minimal input into its development may use this practice. Of course in many instances the supervisor will have provided intense and substantial support to their students often spending much time and effort in obtaining grants to support chosen projects. If this is the case then it is entirely feasible that they should co-author with their students. However, such is the pressure upon academics to be published that where this is not the case, it would appear that some are prepared to sacrifice the less tangible concept of ethics, that of morality. Indeed, this practice may send the wrong messages to students who may consider that what is good enough for their supervisors is good enough for them.

Nones Cronin (2003) highlights the pressures that nursing academics face in the need to publish. Pressure to publish as quickly as possible but with little time, submitting the same article to a number of journals to increase the likelihood of acceptance or indeed simple carelessness are listed as being contributing factors to academics taking the risk of plagiarism. Whatever the reasons, there is no valid excuse for plagiary as to engage in such practice questions the professionalism of the professionals. Indeed, as role models for their students, nursing academics may be viewed as ‘gatekeepers for the profession’, (Larkham and Manns, 2002 pp. 348). Mason (2002) expands this notion referring to the continuing struggle of the nursing profession to achieve recognised professional status. She asks ‘if our literature is dishonest, what will that say about our profession?’ (pp. 7).

In particular, nurse educators are reminded that they too are also bound by the Professional Code of Conduct (NMC, 2004). They, like all registered practitioners have a duty to protect the public and should ‘behave in a way that upholds the reputation of the professions’, (NMC, 2004 pp. 10). Setting a good example is thus paramount. This does not only need to be applied to academic writing for publication but also in the presentation of lectures, seminars and course handouts where sources of information should be clearly referenced for all to see.

Back to Article Outline

Plagiarism and the professional 

Saunders (1993) stresses that one of the most important factors for students training to become social workers is the ‘scrupulous adherence’ to the ethical code of conduct.

‘One of the hallmarks of ethical behaviour is honesty. When social work students engage in dishonest behaviour within the classroom or in practicums they dishonour the academic integrity of the program, the social work profession, and possibly put their clients in jeopardy’.

(Saunders, 1993 pp. 224)

Such a statement can equally be applied to the nursing profession where benchmarks and standards for nurse training are identified and monitored in the United Kingdom by the QAAHE and the NMC. The QAAHE lists its general standards to be integrity, professionalism, accountability and openness by which all higher education courses will be assessed. This means these concepts should be embedded into the curriculum and students actively discouraged from engaging in what could be considered unprofessional behaviour from the very beginning of their training. However, it is unfortunate that the specific subject benchmark for nursing appears to make these attributes implicit rather than explicit.

Logue (2004) notes that out of a class of 64 third year diploma and 10 nursing degree students 50% admitted to both intentionally and unintentionally paraphrasing text in their assignments without acknowledging the source. Should then ‘a student who has plagiarised be awarded grades or given a professional qualification achieved partly or wholly from the work of others?’ (Logue, 2004 pp. 41). The issues are complex and if the institutional penalties are small the students may be willing to take the risk. Whether they are dealt with or not, the issue is more than that of academic misconduct, it is an issue of professionalism in which the concept of integrity and honesty are inextricably bound.

Many registered nurses are now seeking to enhance their knowledge or skills through higher education and it could be suggested that Agenda for Change (DOH, 1999) has placed even more pressure upon registered nurses to access Institutions of Higher Education to obtain diplomas or degrees. As a result of this nurses may feel compelled to cheat as a means to an end. However, if caught they risk investigation both at an institutional and possible at professional level. The Code of Professional Conduct (NMC, 2004) clearly states the need for trustworthiness and emphasises the requirement of upholding the reputation of the profession. Plagiarising in any form could thus be considered as a contravention of the code in that the nurse could be seen as acting dishonestly, guilty of theft. Yet it would seem that this form of misdemeanour is unlikely to be referred to the professional body and is more likely to be dealt with by the academic institution itself. Indeed, whilst Price (2003) alludes to the possibility of plagiarism cases being reported to the NMC there does appear to be a lack of evidence as to this occurrence.

Nurses are also required to maintain their professional knowledge and competence and must not undertake practice that they are not competent in NMC (2004). Thus, if a nurse enters an institution to undertake training within an area of speciality that requires enhanced skills and plagiarises assessment work then it could be argued that the nurse is in breach of the code. The nurse may very well be able to perform the skill clinically but could lack the knowledge to support the practice. Moreover, if considered competent then the nurse would then be expected to facilitate other students in developing the skill whilst lacking the knowledge to sufficiently do so. This raises a number of professional issues particularly in terms of accountability.

Back to Article Outline

Prevention and detection 

Given the implications for professional practice it is pertinent to recommend that institutions urgently review and possibly revise their policies and procedures relevant to plagiarism. Park (2004) describes the actions of his own university to develop an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism. Based on the concepts of ‘transparency, appropriateness, fairness and consistency’ (pp. 294) he desired to move away from issues of detection and punishment but more to embed the need for academic integrity into the very culture of the institution. Solomon and DeNatale (2000) also describe the use of a convocation or assembly to discuss issues of cheating and plagiarism amongst American nursing students and Park (2003) discusses the honor code system utilised within North American universities. Whatever the mode of delivery it should be delivered within a framework of professionalism that gives the clear message that plagiarism is unacceptable.

The availability and accessibility of the Internet can be considered a ‘double-edged sword’ for those students engaging in plagiarism as it can equally be used to detect the practice as well as conduct it (Park, 2003 pp. 482). Indeed, institutions may have already invested in electronic detection services. However, if detected then there must be suitable penalties employed by the universities to deal with perpetrators which should not only be clearly linked to issues of professionalism but where appropriate referral to the NMC.

Perhaps most importantly, nurse educators should avail themselves at all times as role models to their students, exemplars of the profession.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

Plagiarism is clearly a serious issue for students who are undertaking training to enter a profession where integrity, honesty and trustworthiness are paramount to the nurse patient relationship. It is thus essential that nurse educators contribute to building a culture of integrity and professionalism demonstrable throughout the academic community from the commencement of training. Saunders (1993) suggested that if a student cheats during their academic career (and gets away with it) then they are almost certain to continue this behaviour in their working lives. This is an uncomfortable and challenging thought but one that nurse educators must hold at the forefront of their practice.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. In:  Allen RE editors. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1984;
  2. Bellack JP. Why plagiarism matters. Journal of Nursing Education. 2004;43(12):527–528
  3. Committee on Publication Ethics, 2003. Guidelines on good publication practice. <http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines> (accessed 09.01.05).
  4. Department of Health, 1999. Agenda for change – modernising the pay system. Joint framework of principles and agreed statement on the way forward. London.
  5. General Medical Council . Strategic options for undergraduate medical education. General Medical Council Education Committee Consultation; 2005;<http://www.gmc_uk.org/education/med_ed/education_consultation_2005.pdf>(accessed 13.12.05)
  6. Hastings M. Cheater beaters. Newsweek. 2003;142(10):E16
  7. Larkham PJ, Manns S. Plagiarism and its treatment in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2002;26(4):339–349
  8. Levinson, H., 2005. Internet essays prove poor buys. <http://bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/hi/education/4420845.stm> (accessed 16.04.05).
  9. Logue R. Plagiarism: the Internet makes it easy. Nursing Standard. 2004;18(51):40–43
  10. Mason D. Stealing words. American Journal of Nursing. 2002;102(7):7
  11. Nones Cronin S. The problem of plagiarism. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing. 2003;22(6):253–254
  12. Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2004. Code of Professional Conduct. London.
  13. Park C. In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students – literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2003;28(5):471–488
  14. Park C. Rebels without a clause: towards an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2004;28(3):291–306
  15. Price B. Avoiding plagiarism and related cheating. Nursing Standard. 2003;18(4):32a–32b
  16. Quality Assurance Agency Higher Education, 2004. A draft statement of common purpose for subject benchmarks for the health and social care professions: consultation. <http://qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/benchmark/nhsbenchmark/DraftNHS/common_purpose.htm> (accessed 08.01.05).
  17. Saunders EJ. Confronting academic dishonesty. Journal of Social Work Education. 1993;29(2):224–230
  18. Solomon MR, DeNatale ML. Academic dishonesty and professional practice: a convocation. Nurse Educator. 2000;25(6):270–271
  19. Szabo A, Underwood J. Cybercheats: is information and communication technology fuelling academic dishonesty?. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2004;5(2):180–199
  20. Tanner CA. Moral decline or pragmatic decision making? Cheating and plagiarism in perspective. Journal of Nursing Education. 2004;43(7):291–292

PII: S0260-6917(06)00028-1

doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2006.02.004

Nurse Education Today
Volume 27, Issue 1 , Pages 14-18, January 2007

Article Tools