Publication: Piracy, playing the system, or poor policies? Perspectives on plagiarism in Thailand
1
Issued Date
2021-05-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14751585
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85102248930
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol.51, (2021)
Suggested Citation
Neil Evan Jon Anthony Bowen, Alexander Nanni Piracy, playing the system, or poor policies? Perspectives on plagiarism in Thailand. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol.51, (2021). doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100992 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/75846
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Piracy, playing the system, or poor policies? Perspectives on plagiarism in Thailand
Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Plagiarism is a complex issue, torn between theory and practice, expectation and reality, and developmental and ethical concerns. However, in terms of student/teacher perceptions and practices, most plagiarism research has focused on English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) settings, with little to no research into English medium instruction (EMI) in non-Western locales. Therefore, using a combination of Likert scale items, agree/disagree statements, and open-ended questions, we sampled 395 Thai undergraduates and 46 lecturers on their attitudes, beliefs, understandings, and exposure to plagiarism in EMI programs. We also examined the institutional policies of their universities for definitions and punishments related to plagiarism. Results showed that both groups framed plagiarism as ethically wrong and broadly understood what constituted plagiarism. However, there was a clear disconnect between institutional policies on plagiarism and actual practices. We argue there is more at stake than just misunderstandings, a lack of knowledge, and/or ability on the part of students. As intermediary gatekeepers, teachers play a crucial role in contextualising rigid, broad policies so as to encompass both academic integrity and academic literacy. We conclude by making a number of recommendations with regard to teaching practices, student volition, and institutional mandates.