The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment
Abstract
The little published work on cheating and plagiarism amongst students in higher education has, almost without exception, used questionnaire techniques which take for granted a shared understanding of the issues involved. The work reports the use of a qualitative methodology which attempts to discover the student perception of cheating and plagiarism without presupposing that students start from the same premises as academics. Prominent among the findings are the following: (a) there is a strong moral basis to students' views, which focus on such values as friendship, interpersonal trust and good learning. This means that some punishable behaviour can be regarded as justifiable and some officially approved behaviour can be felt to be dubious; (b) the notion of plagiarism is regarded as extremely unclear—some students have a fear that they might well plagiarise unwittingly in writing what they genuinely take to be their own ideas; and (c) factors such as alienation from the university due to lack of contact with staff, the impact of large classes, and the greater emphasis on group learning are perceived by students themselves as facilitating and sometimes excusing cheating. Understanding the student perspective on cheating and plagiarism can significantly assist academics in their efforts to communicate appropriate norms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing
Flinders, D. J. (1997) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/s0149-7189(97)89858-8 · Cited by 7,238
Phenomenology and Psychological Research
Giorgi, A., & Aanstoos, C. M. (1991) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,204
Academic Dishonesty: Prevalence, Determinants, Techniques, and Punishments
Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15328023top1901_3 · Cited by 506
Individual differences in student cheating.
Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-0663.88.2.229 · Cited by 477
Undergraduate cheating: Who does what and why?
Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Newstead, S. E. (1995) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079512331381673 · Cited by 367
From Everyday To Psychological Description: Analyzing the Moments of a Qualitative Data Analysis
Wertz, F. J. (1983) · Journal of Phenomenological Psychology · doi:10.1163/156916283x00108 · Cited by 156
Presuppose Nothing! the Suspension of Assumptions in Phenomenological Psychological Methodology
Ashworth, P. D. (1996) · Journal of Phenomenological Psychology · doi:10.1163/156916296x00014 · Cited by 118
Self-citation
Cited by
In Other (People's) Words: Plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons
PARK, C. (2003) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930301677 · Cited by 892
Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500099102 · Cited by 782
Measuring plagiarism: researching what students do, not what they say they do
Walker, J. (2010) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070902912994 · Cited by 236
Academic Plagiarism: Explanatory Factors from Students’ Perspective
Comas-Forgas, R., & Sureda-Negre, J. (2010) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-010-9121-0 · Cited by 175
Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students' understanding of plagiarism
Gullifer, J. M., & Tyson, G. A. (2014) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.777412 · Cited by 175
Metadata
- Authors
- Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P., & Researc, S. O. T. Q.
- Venue
- Studies in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 187-203
- ISSN
- 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-174X
- OpenAlex
- W1991976654
- Cited by
- 517
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 11.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03075079712331381034
- The paper
- Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P., & Researc, S. O. T. Q. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381034
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.