Download pdf - Whistleblowers on Plagiarism and the Moral Grey Area

Whistleblowers on Plagiarism and the Moral Grey Area

Rui Sousa-Silva ∗

Abstract. In recent years, several cases of plagiarism attracted media attentionworldwide, due to the high proVle of the suspected plagiarists. The highest pro-Vle cases involved politicians, such as the German Defence Minister Guttenberg(2011), the Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta (2012), and the German Educa-tion Minister Schavan (2013). The two German ministers had their doctoral titlesrescinded and eventually resigned. In both cases, the instances of plagiarism weredetected and made public by whistleblowers, who publicly demonstrated that thetwo ministers had plagiarised (substantial) parts of their theses. The serious im-pact of these cases led into discussing the possibility that anonymous allegationsof plagiarism would no longer be investigated, and moreover that a statute oflimitation on the investigation of suspected plagiarism cases could be introduced.The possible implications of a decision of this nature, if adopted, raise some ques-tions.This paper presents, on the one hand, some arguments for whistleblowers, while,on the other hand, challenging some presumptions of whistleblowing, in orderto discuss, from a forensic linguistics perspective, the ethical implications behindit. In particular, it discusses whether whistleblowers are driven by self-interest orpersonal motivation, or on the contrary by the common good. The paper concludesthat whistleblowing falls into a ‘moral grey area’ that deserves the attention ofresearchers into plagiarism. It is furthermore argued that any decisions made inthis respect should be thoroughly considered so as not to negatively impact theapplication of plagiarism policy, and the unjust application of sanctions in legaland non-legal contexts.

Keywords: Plagiarism, whistleblowing, ethics, forensic linguistics, moral grey area.

∗Universidade do Porto - [email protected]

2 Whistleblowers on Plagiarism and the Moral Grey Area

Moral Questions of Whistleblowing on PlagiarismPlagiarism is admittedly a moral issue that raises complex moral questions, and as is usu-ally the case with moral questions, has traditionally been addressed dichotomically: goodor bad academic practice; compliance or non-compliance with academic rules and conven-tions; intentional or unintentional; plagiarism or lack of academic writing skills. . . Such adichotomical debate ensues also when discussing whistleblowing. Jenkins (2014), for ex-ample, opinionates about the role of whistleblowers, and how they can be seen as ‘weird’,‘snitches’, ‘friends of the enemy’ and ‘cads’, or conversely as ‘saints’ and ‘brave’ people.It therefore seems undeniable that blowing the whistle is a moral grey area that is worthdiscussing further. This paper engages in this debate, by discussing possible ethical issuesbehind the role of whistleblowers.

Plagiarism, Whistleblowing and Moral PanicsGiven the diversity of plagiarism deVnitions advertised across diUerent modes, media andcontexts, and their respective degree of detail, it is very unlikely that diUerent people, atdiUerent times, in diUerent contexts, and especially from diUerent countries and cultures,have an identical or even similar concept of plagiarism. If anything, the extensive body ofliterature into plagiarism that has been published over the last decades has demonstratedthat there is a lack of a consensual, universal agreement on what plagiarism is, how itis and/or should be deVned, and under which circumstances, in which contexts, and towhich extent instances of plagiarism are to be punished. In academic contexts, it hasbeen argued, although diUerently, by Howard (1995) and Scollon (1994, 1995), and laterhighlighted by Angèlil-Carter (2000) and Bloch (2012), that the study of plagiarism cannotbuild upon the assumption that one deVnition is clearly – and equally – understandableby everyone. Indeed, it is not very diXcult to agree with Anderson (1998) that what is ulti-mately expected from students, i.e. that they produce a unique piece of academic writing,is not unreasonable; all the students need to do, as Carroll and Appleton (2001) explained,is to make a clear distinction between their own ideas, work and words, and those of oth-ers, upon which they build. The underlying assumption, however, is that students are ableto master academic writing conventions – which, as Howard (1995) demonstrated, can bevery complex. Howard therefore argued that it is necessary to make a distinction betweenplagiarism and ‘patchwriting’, i.e. an attempt at learning from others. Pecorari (2008) laterseconded Howard’s claims, by arguing that diUering degrees of penalties are required inthe academy where instances of plagiarism can indicate a lack of academic skills, ratherthan an intention to deceive. To these arguments, Woolls (2003) countered that ‘patchwrit-ing’ may be tolerated at an early stage in the student’s career, but not at a later stage, soas to avoid its integration into the student’s own style of academic writing.

In non-academic contexts, the debate on plagiarism has been equally lively. Plagiarismhas often been connoted with metaphors of criminal or illicit acts, over time, includingmisappropriation (Jameson, 1993), violation, kidnapping (Johnson, 1997), theft (Angèlil-Carter, 2000), crime and wordnapping (Scanlan, 2004), and illegal appropriation (Turell,2008). And Pereira (2003) and Leitão (2011) highlight that plagiarism is both a violationof moral and property rights. Besides, as a result of the adoption of international treaties,such as the Berne and Paris Conventions, legislation on copyright in general (and includ-ing plagiarism), has been adopted worldwide. But the immoral nature behind plagiarismhas often been given salience over its illegal character. Garner (2009) claims that pla-giarism is immoral, but not illegal, even if this deVnition seems to be in conWict with

Plagiarism Conference 2014

Rui Sousa-Silva 3

his deVnition of fraud, which equates with knowingly misrepresenting the truth. Earlier,Lindey (1952), cited by Jameson (1993), had made identical claims, and even nowadays, asSousa-Silva (2012) reports, there is a tendency to attach plagiarism to the academy, therebyconstructing it as being dependent on the discipline and text genre, while at the same timedismissing other cases of non-academic plagiarism.

Many of the issues underlying judgments of plagiarism are, therefore, inherentlymoral, and the debate over the legal and moral questions involved in the assessment ofplagiarism cases is ongoing. The moral issues lie, not so much with the detection proce-dure – since it is now generally agreed that plagiarism detection software can be used toidentify instances of plagiarism –, but rather with the proportionality and the fairness ofthe punishment. As any lecturer, tutor, or disciplinary board member can ask themselveswhether their judgment of the instances of plagiarism is fair, just, and proportionate, anassessment that takes into account the particular circumstances underlying it is propor-tionally crucial to the seriousness of the academic and even legal implications. This isespecially the case where determining the plagiarist’s intention is crucial, with a view toapplying appropriate measures of repair.

If a parallel is established with whistleblowing, it seems equally credible to admitthat it is crucial do determine the intentions behind blowing the whistle. Recently, sev-eral cases of plagiarism attracted media attention worldwide, due to the high proVle ofthe suspected plagiarists. Some of these high proVle cases involved journalists, such asJohann Hari of The Independent. However, the highest proVle cases involved politicians,such as the German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (2011), the RomanianPrime Minister Victor Ponta (2012), and the German Education Minister Annette Schavan(2013). The two German ministers had their doctoral titles rescinded and eventually re-signed. The increasing attention raised by these high proVle cases does not necessarilymean that the number of cases is increasing, or that a statistically signiVcant number oftheses submitted in the past have plagiarised; it does, however, contribute to a perceivedincrease in fraudulent activities, thus giving rise to a ‘moral panic’ (Cohen, 1972), and con-sequently towards increasing control, and legitimising a culture of control. This perceivedincrease, which Estrada describes as ‘an ideological shift’ (2001: 647), associated with theease with which technological developments now allow plagiarism to be reported imme-diately, equates with a higher propensity of the general public to report wrongdoings. Inthis respect, those societies that attach more importance to the principles of retribution,responsibility, and accountability tend to favour more repressive measures, and contributeto a ‘new correctionalism’ (Muncie, 2008: 108).

A moral debate, thus, ensues over plagiarism in non-academic contexts, or academicplagiarism with non-academic implications, especially when arising from the action ofwhistleblowers. Although the circumstances inherent to scientiVc, academic or profes-sional settings diUer, the cases of the two German ministers are a good example of themoral questions that may arise. In both these cases, the instances of plagiarism weredetected and made public by anonymous whistleblowers, who produced documented ev-idence that two ministers had plagiarised (substantial) parts of their theses. The seriousimpact of these cases later raised concerns in the German federal government, and asa response the German Research Foundation (DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)marginally revised its academic code of practice – a revision that was revised again later.The media reported that DFG had announced that anonymous allegations of plagiarism



would no longer be investigated, and moreover that the investigation of suspected pla-giarism cases would be limited to one year (Mechan-Schmidt, 2013). DFG later admittedthat a statute of limitation had been discussed, but denied that decisions had been made inthis respect. The possible implications of adopting a decision of this type, however, raisesome deep moral questions and tensions. Firstly, for reasons of privacy and self-protection,whistleblowers can be – and usually are – unwilling to disclose their identity when mak-ing revelations. This includes denouncing plagiarism cases, especially if these involve highproVle people, regardless of whether the whistleblower’s identity is guaranteed to remainconVdential. Secondly, any limitations imposed on the duration of the investigative pro-ceedings may prevent the detection of some fraudulent cases. It seems unreasonable toexpect that plagiarism can be detected in an unsuspected thesis by a previously set ‘expirydate’.

The reasons for including a statute of limitation can, however, be very compelling.On the one hand, technological advances nowadays make it much easier and faster toscan documents for plagiarism. On the other hand, if given an open timeframe to revealinstances of plagiarism that s/he may have discovered, the whistleblower can save theevidence for years or even decades, until the (suspect) plagiarist has built his/her careerand reputation – only for the pleasure of destroying the plagiarist’s life.

Ethics and Moral PhilosophyThis tension between the individual interests and the common good, between egoism andaltruism, is the problem that moral philosophy attempts to solve. Moral judgments havetraditionally addressed the dichotomy of right and wrong, good and evil, good and badcharacter, as well as individual and universal.

Individualism has been subject to lively debates at least since Kant. As Bernstein (2002)argues, Kant equated being evil with reversing the moral order, by making a distinctionbetween acting in accordance with moral duty (being good) and acting out of personalinclination (being evil). On the one side, the individual – the psychological egoist – ispsychologically motivated to perform self-regarding actions. Self-regarding acts, Bond(1996) claims, contrary to what could be expected and to what is often claimed, are notinherently wrong or bad, and neither are they a sign of selVshness on the part of theagent. Unlike the selVsh individual, who always acts out of ethical egoism for their ‘owngreatest advantage’ (Bond, 1996: 9), the psychological egoist, albeit having an ulterior,hidden motive for his/her actions, often acts for their own satisfaction, by doing goodto others. In this case, unselVsh acts can have ulterior motives that are self-regarding.Conversely, an agent can act to satisfy his/her own desire, but this desire of his/her ownmay not be self-regarding. In fact, an individual can get satisfaction in his/her act; but ifthe motivation of that act is not his/her own satisfaction, but instead the satisfaction ofsomeone else or someone else’s needs (e.g. the end of someone else’s suUering), then thatindividual’s act is not necessarily self-regarding. Since the psychological egoist is neitherconcerned with the moral good, nor with the common good, his/her acts, although possiblyright and good for the individual, might not be so for the common good. The same can besaid of subjective relativism, which builds upon personal belief or conviction. Theories ofsubjective relativism view morality strictly as a personal matter (Bond, 1996: 60), i.e. theactions of the individual are determined by the strength of the personal convictions. Inthis regard, an act need only be morally right or good to the agent to be considered moral.

Theories of cultural relativism, on the contrary, argue that ‘morality is strictly a local


Rui Sousa-Silva 5

matter’ (Bond, 1996: 43), rather than built upon universal principles, thus varying fromculture to culture. In this case, acting morally means following the accepted norms ofconduct of a certain culture, which are based on custom, practice and tradition. Culturalrelativism, which appears to provide plausible reasons for the fact that certain moral judg-ments are addressed diUerently in diUerent cultures, could explain e.g. the often claimedassumption that plagiarism is punished strictly in the West, but explained in the East bythe fact that it is viewed as a tribute to the original authors. However, in Bond’s terms thatis not a matter of morality; ‘[m]orality, if there is such a thing, can only be a universal(. . . ) matter’ (Bond, 1996: 58).

Universalist approaches build upon the argument that there is an objective and uni-versal morality, which is motivated by genuine moral values, and these furthermore aregrounded in practical reason, that ‘provide[s] genuine reasons for action’ (Bond, 1996:116). Practical reason builds upon values that can be achieved via the agent’s action, andupon the agent’s choice, and these moral values are related to the common good, the goodof the community as a whole. This view builds upon the assumption that common good isindispensable to the good of each individual member of the community, and consequentlymoral values are values that apply to everybody. Bond thus concludes by arguing for auniversalist approach to morality that applies to all humanity, which builds upon ‘a uni-versal and objective morality grounded in practical reason’ (Bond, 1996: 228), and whichno longer conceives of moral goodness in terms of the ‘egoism – altruism’ dichotomy. Hestates that diUerent, apparently conWicting moral views can be combined to achieve eudai-monia, i.e. ‘thriving, Wourishing, well-being, happiness’ (Bond, 1996: 228), not only of thecommunity, but also of the individual. In fact, he claims, the former is indispensable to thelatter, as personal happiness cannot be achieved without communal happiness. As it es-tablishes a direct relationship between moral goodness and the common good, the theoryof communalism, Bond (1996) argues, is able to reconcile the individualism of each personand their inherently social nature.

Investigating the Morality of WhistleblowingThis paper aims to initiate a discussion of the role of morality in relation to whistleblow-ing on plagiarism. Previous research into plagiarism (e.g. Howard (1995) and Pecorari(2008)) has showed the need to distinguish intentional and unintentional plagiarism, andmore recently Sousa-Silva (2013) discussed the moral and legal boundaries involved ininstances of plagiarism. However, little attention has been devoted to discussing the le-gal and moral issues involved in whistleblowing. A considerably large body of researchinto whistleblowing has been conducted in recent years in the area of management studiesand organisational culture (Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005; Boyer, 2013; Linstead,2013; Loyens, 2013; Zhang et al., 2013; MacGregor et al., 2014; Seifert et al., 2014), but littleresearch has been conducted on ethical aspects and motives for whistleblowing in science,in general, and in the area of (academic) plagiarism, in particular. However, the weightof reliance on anonymous hints has been challenged in the past. In his letter to Nature,Corbellini (2013: 449) argues that, by potentially ‘[stimulating] witch-hunting and pillory-ing’, whistleblowing poses several risks to scientiVc research integrity, even when the hintsare valid. He identiVes two risks in particular: the ‘moralistic drift’ inWuencing integritycommittees and the confusion of ‘errors with misdeeds’, while ‘underestimating context’.To these, Corbellini (2013) associates the risk that the whistleblown researchers may takerevenge on their colleagues, and concludes that this does not contribute to improving the



‘moral standards’ of science.

This paper engages in a theoretical discussion of the moral questions involved inwhistleblowing, in order to identify some of its potential ethical implications. In par-ticular, it discusses whether blowing the whistle on plagiarism is a virtue motivated byan attempt to ensure common interest, or on the contrary whether it is a vice motivatedby personal interest. In other words, it discusses whether whistleblowers are driven bypractical rationality, such as self-interest or personal desire (e.g. to punish someone at aspeciVc point in their career), or on the contrary whether they act out of a moral stanceto reveal their awareness of a fraudulent act, and therefore contribute to a fair and justsociety. Additionally, this discussion questions whether there may be cross-cultural dif-ferences in how plagiarism is viewed, and whether these cross-cultural diUerences reWectdiUerent moral views.

Data and Analysis ProcedureIn order to investigate these research questions, this article starts by assessing the generalmoral views towards academic plagiarism and the attitudes to it. An analysis is conductedof the perceptions of students and lecturers/tutors in relation to plagiarism. This analysisaims, not to assess the perceptions that students and lecturers/students have of whistle-blowing, but especially to investigate whether there are cross-cultural diUerences in howplagiarism is viewed in relation to morality. Additionally, although scientiVc integrity andstudent plagiarism diUer in several important respects (including in their own setting),both share the same basic moral values. Hence, a detailed description of the diUerencesbetween the scientiVc and academic settings is not provided. Subsequently, these moralviews are interpreted and extrapolated, as a means to suggest some possibilities of under-standing of the role of morality in relation to whistleblowing on plagiarism.

To assess these perceptions, a survey was conducted as part of a wider project (Sousa-Silva, 2013) using attitude scales, involving two groups of participants (lecturers/tutors andstudents) from two diUerent countries (UK and Portugal), and from all disciplines. The re-spondents were provided with a set of vignettes, i.e. story-like, Vctional, ‘short narratives’(Dõrnyei, 2007: 255), describing real life, typical or representative events or experiencesrelated to plagiarism cases. The respondents were asked to grade each scenario using asummated rating (Likert) scale (Robson, 2002), from ‘1’ to ‘7’ – ‘1’ being ‘Strongly dis-agree’ with the claims of plagiarism and ‘7’ being ‘Strongly agree’ with those claims; ‘4’ isthe neutral point in this scale, i.e. ‘Neither disagree, nor agree’. The survey was advertisedby email, and was conducted online with 673 respondents, distributed as follows:

Pilot Survey Final SurveyUK Universities Minho Aston PortoLecturer Student Lecturer Student Lecturer Student Lecturer Student

5 11 15 14 20 192 52 364

Table 1. Number of participants in the survey.

A pilot study was conducted with a small sample of participants in the two countries,in order to allow for the selection of the most discriminating vignettes out of the 36 originalones. Discriminative power (DP) analysis (Robson, 2002) was the method chosen to selectthese vignettes, because it allows all the respondents whose scores tend to fall towardsthe middle of the scale (hence being more neutral) to be discarded, retaining only the


Rui Sousa-Silva 7

responses of the highest and the lowest scorers (which are not necessarily the highestand lowest scores for every single vignette) to calculate their discriminative power. Theaverages were calculated for lecturer/tutor scores on the one hand, and for student scoreson the other, in the UK and in Portugal.

The 12 vignettes with the most discriminative power (i.e. the top scoring scenarios)combined the top scorers of each of the two lecturer/tutor and student lists. The lowestscoring shortlisted vignette, and consequently in the Vnal study, had an index of discrim-inative power (DP) of 3.33. All other vignettes in the Vnal survey scored higher, up to DP= 5.50. The Vnal survey was then conducted in one British university (Aston University)and in a Portuguese university (University of Porto). Participants were allowed to inputtheir comments, e.g. reasons for their choice, in a free text, ‘comments box’. These com-ments provided a clearer understanding of the choices made by the respondents using theattitude scale.

The results of the Vnal study were then analysed. This analysis included the responsesof all the participants of the two roles: students (n = 556) and lecturers/tutors (n = 72), fromthe two diUerent institutions: Aston (n = 212) and Porto (n = 416). It was followed by a 2by 2 between-groups Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), using SPSS, on the sevenmean rating scores (‘Strongly disagree’, ‘Partly disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Neither agree nordisagree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Partly agree’, ‘Strongly agree’) in order to test the null hypothesis (H0)that all the population/population with diUerent roles (lecturers/tutors and students), fromthe two institutions have identical or diUering perceptions of plagiarism. A statisticalanalysis of the overall sum of scores was conducted to assess the perceptions of eachgroup overall, over the complete set of vignettes, for each of the variables ‘institute’ and‘role’, as well as for the ‘interaction’, and whether the statistical diUerences observed weresigniVcant.

Cross-cultural Perceptions of Plagiarism and MoralityA qualitative analysis of the comments made by the respondents was conducted in orderto Vnd plausible explanations for the participants’ scores in those particular cases, andbetter understand those perceptions. The groups of participants were compared in orderto determine whether they as a group have identical or distinct perceptions of plagiarism.The perceptions of the four groups are presented in Figure 1, which includes the results ofthe overall sum of scores of the 12 vignettes discussed, and which is labeled as dependentvariable ‘total’. Table 3 presents the overall results of the sum of scores of each individualvignette, considering the two main eUects (‘institute’ and ‘role’), as well as the interaction(‘institute * role’). The cases where a statistical signiVcance has been found are highlightedin bold typeface, with asterisks indicating their signiVcance, as shown in Table 2 below.

Symbol p value

* p < .05** p < .01*** p < .001

Table 2. Meaning of asterisks in the tables.

The analysis of the sum of scores of the cases presented in Figure 1 indicates that asigniVcant diUerence was found, both in the main eUect ‘role’ (F1,624 = 12.95, p < .001,



Figure 1. Overall results proVle plot.

Source df F p Partial η2

Institute 1 11.73 .001** 0.018Role 1 12.95 < .001*** 0.020Interaction 1 .53 .466 0.001

Table 3. Analysis of the main eUects and interaction of DV ‘Total’.

partial η2 = 0.020), and at the level of the main eUect ‘institute’ (F1,624 = 11.73, p = .001,partial η2 = 0.018). Overall, these results suggest that, considering the four groups of par-ticipants surveyed (lecturers/tutors and students from both universities), UK participantsin general scored consistently higher than those participants from Portugal. Participantsfrom Portugal in general tended to score lower than their British colleagues, indicating thatthey hesitated more than Aston respondents in agreeing with the charges of plagiarism.This is corroborated by the summary of the results of the tests of between-subjects eUects,presented in table 3, where statistically signiVcant diUerences are indicated in bold. Inter-estingly, Portuguese lecturers/tutors scored only very slightly higher than British students;the t-test shows that the diUerence between Aston students and Porto lecturers/tutors hasan associated value of t(242) = –.159, p = .874, thus indicating that the diUerence betweenthe perceptions of Portuguese lecturers/tutors and British students is not statistically sig-niVcant.

These survey results data demonstrate that the diUerence between the two institu-tions is statistically signiVcant (F1,624 = 11.73, p = .001, partial η2 = 0.018), indicating that,by scoring higher, British participants tend to agree more than those participants fromPortugal with the accusations of plagiarism. The analysis of the main eUect ‘role’ alsodemonstrates a statistically signiVcant diUerence between lecturers/tutors and students(F1,624 = 12.95, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.020). The latter score consistently lower than theformer, indicating that students have a less well-deVned, or more permissive view of pla-giarism than lecturers/tutors when faced with the cases of plagiarism described in thevignettes. Conversely, lecturers/tutors show a tendency to be less reluctant to punish, by


Rui Sousa-Silva 9

agreeing with the charges of plagiarism described and with the corresponding sanctionsmore consistently than the students. The individual analysis of the cases where statis-tically signiVcant diUerences were reported indicates that lecturers/tutors and studentsagree with the charges of plagiarism described, but the intensity of agreement varies. Inthese scenarios, lecturers/tutors score consistently higher in all cases. Students score con-sistently lower, and in one case their level of agreement is just above the middle of thescale.

The tests of between-subject eUects when considering the total of the sum of scoresreveals that the ‘interaction’ between the two main eUects ‘institute’ and ‘role’ is not sta-tistically signiVcant (F1,624 = 0.53, p = .466, partial η2 = 0.001), and therefore is not worthinvestigating further.

Overall, the analysis of the two main eUects ‘institute’ and ‘role’ shows that Britishparticipants score consistently higher than Portuguese participants, and lecturers/tutorsscore consistently higher than students. Aston participants tend to agree with the accusa-tions of plagiarism more than Porto participants, and students are less willing to penalisethe suspect plagiarists than lecturers/tutors. Moreover, the qualitative analysis of the par-ticipants’ comments shows that these are consistent with the quantitative Vndings.

Moral Values of Blowing the Whistle on Plagiarism

Cross-cultural DiUerences and Similarities

Several explanations can be oUered for the diUering perceptions of each of the groups ineach institution in the two countries. One possible explanation for the fact that UK re-spondents overall seem less reluctant to punish than Portuguese participants is that UKhigher education institutions have been marketed internationality for much longer thanPortuguese institutions. As the high numbers of overseas students demonstrate, UK uni-versities attract people from all over the World, in no small part due to the quality of theireducation. They therefore need to maintain their credibility, which includes strict controlsover academic dishonesty. At the same time, UK institutions have systematically handledcases of plagiarism for decades, whereas Portuguese institutions only rarely make refer-ence, in their materials, to academic integrity in general, and to plagiarism in particular.UK institutions have carefully drafted policies and procedures to handle those cases, andit is the lecturer/tutor’s responsibility to identify and blow the whistle on the instances ofplagiarism, and subsequently pass the cases on to a ‘Disciplinary Board’ that will makea decision on behalf of the University. In Portuguese institutions, on the contrary, thelecturer/tutor is responsible for identifying the instances of plagiarism, interpreting andassessing their degree of severity, and deciding on the punitive measures to be adopted,often without the explicit support of the institution. Undoubtedly, this approach puts morepressure on lecturers/tutors, when compared to the ordinary procedure in the UK, neces-sarily inWuencing their conVdence and degree of certainty in passing Vnal judgments, andconsequently implying a second thought before making Vnal decisions.

The weight of responsibility also reWects on the students. Students in the UK arecompelled to know what plagiarism is, and how to avoid it, from an early stage (Coulthardand Johnson, 2007). On the one hand, upon institutional request, they are required toacknowledge and accept codes of practice discussing plagiarism and academic integrity;on the other, they will know from personal experience or by ‘word-of-mouth’ of caseswhere colleagues have been severely punished for improper reusing other people’s work.



Conversely, Portuguese students do not tend to be oUered a systematic approach, and arerarely familiar with the topic. At most, they hear about it in the news, due to high proVlecases that are publicly discussed in the media, or from (some of) their lecturers/tutors,who are usually the most conscious of the need to train ethical individuals. As they arefaced with diUerent standards of original academic writing, UK participants are potentiallymore conscious of the problem when compared to Portuguese participants, even moredemanding with themselves and their colleagues, and consequently more unwilling totolerate their peers’ academic dishonesty and unfair advantage.

Pragmatic Rules and Moral PrinciplesMost of the cases described in the vignettes show a tension between the academic wrong,i.e. the violation of the pragmatic rule of referencing in academic writing, and the moralwrong, i.e. the violation of the universal principles of authorship, truthfulness and fairnesstowards others. The analysis of the vignettes reveals that, for Portuguese participants, aninstance of plagiarism presupposes that the plagiarist reused materials without acknowl-edgment intentionally, or at least knowingly, whereas for British participants the violationof the pragmatic rule suXces for sustaining the accusations.

The survey results demonstrate that UK participants perceive that the cases of un-acknowledged borrowing, in general, should be investigated further. Depending on thedegree of severity, a Disciplinary Board then determines the seriousness of the oUence,considering aspects of volume, circumstances, and even intention. Although the degree ofintention is not the primary focus of the oUence, the existence of an intention leads to amore unanimous assessment of plagiarism as a serious oUence among the diUerent partic-ipants. Unsurprisingly, lecturers/tutors and students tend to agree more in cases where the(bad) intentions are clear. Intention is the element that Porto participants seem to favour tothe detriment of other circumstances, such as the volume of borrowing. As a consequence,they are more keen on assessing the plagiarists dichotomically as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’.In addition, in cases where the discussion revolves around malpractice vs lack of academicwriting skills, the participants do not tend to dismiss the former in favour of the latter.

Surprisingly, despite the observed diUerences being sometimes statistically signiVcant,in most cases all participants are consistently in agreement, sharing identical views andcomments. The diUerence is on the degree of severity that they attach to each instance,as Portuguese participants tend to be less punitive than their British colleagues, althoughtheir perceptions are not, in general, diametrically opposed. A possible reason for thosediUerences is the tension holding between the violation of the rule, as compared to theviolation of the principle. Although they do not disregard the intention behind the actionsaltogether, British participants tend to demand that the rules be followed. It is thereforeenough of an academic malpractice to ignore or violate academic writing rules, even if thisdoes not bring along a very harsh punishment. Portuguese participants, on the contrary,tend to adopt a more lenient attitude, and base their judgments on the intention underlyingthe acts. Therefore, they believe that academic writing problems should be Wagged as such,and consequently intentional acts should be punished, while unintentional acts should not.

Whistleblowers on Plagiarism: Virtues and VicesThe cross-cultural diUerences of the moral views observed in these Vndings oUer a groundfor discussing the moral dilemmas related to whistleblowing. Whistleblowing in general,and whistleblowing on plagiarism in particular, is a moral issue that raises moral tension


Rui Sousa-Silva 11

and ambivalence, and involves diXcult moral questions, the answers to which are far fromstraightforward. It is nowadays a more or less universalist principle that taking someoneelse’s words, works or ideas and passing them oU as one’s own is morally (if not legally)wrong. Plagiarism is illicit; it is an act of deception that runs against the universal principleof common good, so plagiarists’s acts are morally wrong in the Vrst place. Consequently,we can be persuaded to agree that if one learns that someone else has plagiarised, it istheir obligation to make this known. In this respect, blowing the whistle on plagiarism,even if inherently a self-regarding act, seems a reasonable act of communalist motivation:it is only fair to believe that whistleblowers act for the beneVt of common good. In otherwords, it seems as morally right to blow the whistle on a plagiarist, as much as it seemsmorally right to blow the whistle on tax dodgers. Blowing the whistle demonstrates, inthis case, a good moral character on the part of the whistleblower, a virtue.

Conversely, it seems undeniable that whistleblowers may act out of ethical egoism,strictly in their own self-interest. They can act out of vengeance, e.g. as a punishment ofsomeone for their wrongdoing; or even as an excuse to punish someone that they dislike.Additionally, whistleblowers can act motivated by their own satisfaction, with the ulterior,hidden motive of inWicting pain on someone who has done some moral wrong. And evenmore so if the whistleblower, having discovered the instance of plagiarism at an early stage,does not blow the whistle until later, when the consequences can be more self-regardingto him/her, or when the eUects can be more devastating on the plagiarist, by causing evenmore suUering. It could be argued that the whistleblower’s act, as a means, still bringsalong a moral good, i.e. the plagiarist’s identiVcation and the subsequent correspondingpenalties. But even if that might be the case, the end of the whistleblower’s act in itself isethically egoist. Rather than a virtue, this reveals the whistleblower’s bad moral character,a vice.

Notwithstanding, because morality, as Bond (1996) argues, has a foundation in prac-tical reason, it seems more plausible to consider whistleblowing in the scope of deonticmorality. Deontic morality, the most paradigmatic example of which is probably law,builds upon a moral code to prescribe what must de done and what must not be done.This dimension of morality is inherently legalistic. It describes that which is obligatory,and which, as a consequence, one is morally required to do; that which is wrong, andwhich therefore one is morally required not to do; and that which is permissible to do,i.e. that which is neither morally obligatory, nor morally wrong. Since it limits what wemay or may not do, deontic morality is an ‘ethics of limitation’ (Bond, 1996: 147). Inthis case, an act shall only be deemed immoral if resulting from doing things contrary towhat is prescribed, for which we lack an unacceptable reason or justiVcation. It is the aimof deontic morality to avoid any sort of wrongdoing or illicit act, or otherwise to avoidfailure to act in accordance with that which is morally required. Blowing the whistle onplagiarism, and doing so by acting justly, therefore seems appropriately approached froma perspective of deontic morality.

However, the moral grey areas persist, and whether they will ever be resolved is un-known. As Shalvi and De Dreu (2014) argue, ‘[v]ery little is known about the biologicalfoundations of immoral behavior’, and individuals can perform immoral acts, not only fortheir own beneVt, but also for the beneVt of others (including the group to which theybelong). An individual can act immorally, e.g. by plagiarising, and consequently deservesome sort of punishment for his/her wrong, i.e. his/her unjust and undeserved act of



plagiarism. For purposes of justice, however, the extent of the punishment cannot be dis-proportionate, otherwise s/he can still be wronged if the reparation of the damage requiredfrom him/her is excessive, s/he is innocent, or the punishment is too harsh.

In the case of blowing the whistle on plagiarism, detecting and making plagiarismcases public seems deserved. However, the extent to which the consequences of whistle-blowing are disproportionately harsh or excessive, e.g. as a result of its social implicationsor its impact on the person’s life, is unknown. It seems tenable that the moral judgmentsunderlying any act of whistleblowing can hardly be made independently of the whistle-blower’s character, his/her reasons, and possible ulterior motives. In this respect, knowingthe whistleblower’s identity could certainly help make these judgments. What remainsto be known is whether the implications of this suppression of anonymity would inWictundeserved punishment and ostracism upon the whistleblower.

In this respect, a debate rooted on forensic linguistics to address the moral implicationsof whistleblowing is not only possible, but also desirable. The ambivalence of the morallygood or morally bad acts of whistleblowers, the ambivalence of the act, the lack of clearlydeVned boundaries between the virtues and the vices, its relation to law, and the respectivedegrees of guilt, responsibility and blame, are all worth being explored in more detail.More than considering the legal implications, a continuing debate that is informed byforensic linguistics can hopefully shed some light on the ethical implications of this moralgrey area.

Conclusions

This paper discussed some moral questions involved in whistleblowing on plagiarism.Building upon previous research into cross-cultural perceptions of plagiarism, cross-cultural diUerences and similarities applied to moral views of plagiarism were illustrated.An empirical analysis showed that, more than diUerent moral perspectives, diUerent cul-tures can vary in their judgments of the degree of severity. These results were then ex-trapolated, in order to identify some of the potential moral implications of whistleblowing.The case of the German ministers who recently resigned as a result of the instances of pla-giarism made public by whistleblowers was mentioned to illustrate some of the intricaciesof whistleblowing on plagiarism. The implications of imposing a statute of limitation onwhistleblowing, as well as demanding a disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity, werediscussed. It was argued that, for reasons of privacy, whistleblowers may be unwillingto disclose their identity when revealing plagiarism cases, especially if these involve highproVle people. Secondly, the statute of limitation imposed may prevent the detection ofsome fraudulent cases. Building upon principles of moral philosophy, it was hypothesisedthat whistleblowers can act out of utter individualism, for their own personal satisfaction,or on the contrary for the common good.

It was argued that whistleblowing can be best approached from the perspective ofdeontic morality. This dimension of morality allows a debate that goes beyond the tra-ditional philosophical dichotomy ‘individualist – communalist’, and into the tensions be-tween that which is morally required and morally obligatory. It was concluded that: (a)whistleblowing on plagiarism falls into a ‘moral grey area’ that deserves the attention ofresearchers into plagiarism; and (b) any decisions made in this respect should be thor-oughly considered so as not to negatively impact the application of plagiarism policy, andthe unjust application of sanctions in legal and non-legal contexts. A debate on ethics that


Rui Sousa-Silva 13

is informed by forensic linguistics can shed some light in this respect.

AcknowledgmentsThis work was partially supported by grant SFRH/BD/47890/2008 FCT-Portugal, co- V-nanced by POPH/FSE, and by CLUP - Centro de Linguística da Universidade do Porto.

ReferencesAnderson, J. (1998). Plagiarism, Copyright Violation and other Thefts of Intellectual Prop-erty: An Annotated Bibliography with a Lengthy Introduction. JeUerson, North Carolinaand London: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Angèlil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen Language? : Plagiarism in Writing. Real Language Series.Harlow: Longman.

Bernstein, R. J. (2002). Radical Evil: a philosophical interrogation. Cambridge: BlackwellPublishers.

Bloch, J. (2012). Plagiarism, Intellectual Property and the Teaching of L2 Writing. Bristol:Multilingual Matters.

Bond, E. J. (1996). Ethics and Human Well-Being. Massachussets and Oxford: BlackwellPublishers.

Boyer, T. (2013). Les dispositifs d’alerte dans les entreprises : whistleblowing vs. droitd’alerte. Revue Management et Avenir, 62, 91–111.

Carroll, J. and Appleton, J. (2001). Plagiarism: A good practice guide. On-line: http://www.altcexchange.edu.au/plagiarism-good-practice-guide – Date accessed:20/06/2009.

Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Corbellini, G. (2013). Research ethics: Too much reliance on anonymous tip-oUs. Nature,495(7442), 449.

Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (2007). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Languagein Evidence. London and New York: Routledge.

Dõrnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Estrada, F. (2001). Juvenile violence as a social problem: Trends, media attention andsocietal response. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 639–655.

Garner, B. A. (2009). Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West.Howard, R. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. CollegeEnglish, 57(7), 788–806.

Jameson, D. A. (1993). The ethics of plagiarism: How genre aUects writers’ use of sourcematerials. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 56(2), 18.

Jenkins, S. (2014). Yes, they can be mavericks, but we needwhistleblowers like edward snowden. The Guardian Online:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/27/mavericks-whistleblowers-edward-snowden. Accessed 03/04/2014.

Johnson, A. (1997). Textual kidnapping – a case of plagiarism among three student texts?The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 4(2), 210–225.

Leitão, L. M. T. M. (2011). Direito de Autor. Coimbra: Almedina.Lindey, A. (1952). Plagiarism and Originality. New York: Harper & Brothers.Linstead, S. (2013). Organizational bystanding: whistleblowing, watching the work go byor aiding and abetting? M@n@gement, 16(5), 680–696.



Loyens, K. (2013). Towards a custom-made whistleblowing policy. using grid-group cul-tural theory to match policy measures to diUerent styles of peer reporting. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 114(2), 239–249.

MacGregor, J., Robinson, M. and Stuebs, M. (2014). Creating an eUective whistleblowingenvironment. Strategic Finance, 96(3), 35–40.

Mechan-Schmidt, F. (2013). Will germany silence whistleblowers on plagia-rism? Times Higher Education, 29 August 2013. Accessed 3 April 2014,http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/will-germany-silence-whistleblowers-on-plagiarism/2006739.fullarticle.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. and Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: Anexamination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Joumalof Business Ethics, 62, 277–297.

Muncie, J. (2008). The ‘punitive turn’ in juvenile justice: Cultures of control and rightscompliance in Western Europe and the USA. Youth Justice, 8(2), 107–121.

Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic Writing and Plagiarism: A Linguistic Analysis. London:Continuum.

Pereira, A. L. D. (2003). Problemas actuais da gestão do direito de autor: gestão individuale gestão colectiva do direito de autor e dos direitos conexos na sociedade da informação.In Estudos em Homenagem ao Professor Doutor Jorge Ribeiro de Faria – Faculdade deDireito da Universidade do Porto, 17–37. Coimbra Editora.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Scanlan, C. (2004). The poynter online published. Online:http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=52&aid=70742&view=print – Date accessed:16/02/2009.

Scollon, R. (1994). As a matter of fact: The changing ideology of authorship and responsi-bility in discourse. World Englishes, 13(1), 33–46.

Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Languagein Society, 24, 1–28.

Seifert, D. L., Stammerjohan, W. W. and Martin, R. B. (2014). Trust, organizational justice,and whistleblowing: A research note. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26(1), 157–168.

Shalvi, S. and De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Sousa-Silva, R. (2012). Legitimated plagiarism: An investigation of textual borrowingin oXcial documents. In A. A. C. Teixeira, Ed., Interdisciplinary Insights on Fraudand Corruption – 1st OBEGEF Conference Booklet, Porto: Faculdade de Economia daUniversidade do Porto.

Sousa-Silva, R. (2013). Detecting Plagiarism in the Forensic Linguistics Turn. Unpublishedphd thesis, School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham,UK.

Turell, M. T. (2008). Plagiarism. In J. Gibbons and M. T. Turell, Eds., Dimensions of ForensicLinguistics, 265–299. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Woolls, D. (2003). Better tools for the trade and how to use them. International Journal ofSpeech, Language and the Law, 10(1), 102–112.

Zhang, J., Pany, K. and Reckers, P. M. J. (2013). Under which conditions are whistleblowing“best practices” best? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(3), 171–181.
