Abstract
An investigation of plagiarism policies of Australian universities in the latter part of 2009 was undertaken to determine how such institutions construed the notion of plagiarism and how this was reflected in the language and expression of those policies. Various unexpected challenges emerged in using Martin and White's (2005) traditional appraisal framework when analyzing attitudinal stance. The pronounced and widespread use of thingification and abstractions in the policies and the consequent ambiguity in identifying the appraised and/or the appraiser, presented challenges to Martin and White's distinction between Appreciation and Judgment (two subsystems of Attitude) and led to the adoption of Lee's (2007) double coding which seemed more aligned with the normative nature of the plagiarism policies. Overall, the findings suggest some movement away from the default punitive stance of plagiarism policies, to a more "educative" pedagogically based approach focused on the concept of student as apprentice researcher, already recognized as a valued member of the academic community.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 117-141 |
| Number of pages | 25 |
| Journal | Text and Talk |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2014 |
Bibliographical note
Copyright de Gruyter 2014. Article originally published in Text & Talk, vol 34, iss 2, pp. 117-141. The original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0040. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.Keywords
- plagiarism
- plagiarism policies
- Australian universities
- academic integrity
- appraisal analysis
- educative approach