ПЛАГИАТ КАК МНОЖЕСТВЕННЫЙ ОБЪЕКТ: ПРАКТИКИ ПРОВЕРКИ СТУДЕНЧЕСКИХ РАБОТ В МОСКОВСКИХ ВУЗАХ
PLAGIARISM AS A MULTIPLE OBJECT: PRACTICES OF STUDENT PAPERS ASSESSMENT IN MOSCOW UNIVERSITIES

Summary/Abstract: Existing studies often assume the existence of a unified concept of plagiarism, characteristics of which can be identified, formalized in a normative act, and then effectively disseminated among teachers and students. However, in reality “plagiarism” breaks down into many varieties, and definitions of authorship and “integrity” of writing are largely determined contextually. That is why before discussing strategies for prevention of plagiarism, it is worth analyzing how this phenomenon is constructed in the Russian educational landscape. In this study we problematize the concept of plagiarism and, drawing on actor-network theory, propose to consider plagiarism as a multiple object that emerges in practices. The article is not primarily concerned with what plagiarism is, but rather with how different versions of plagiarism are realized and linked together. The empirical data for the study comes from interviews with 15 instructors from Moscow universities, in which they discussed their understanding of plagiarism, the criteria for the originality of students’ work and algorithms for it, as well as normative documents regulating academic integrity practices in Moscow universities. In the course of our analysis, we identify five versions of plagiarism emerging during the review process that are not equivalent to each other. We demonstrate that plagiarism is created by a network of actors that may include students, instructors, administrators, plagiarism-detecting systems, and so on. Our descriptions of each of the junctures at which different versions of plagiarism emerge demonstrate its contingency and variability. By looking at “plagiarism” as heterogeneous sociomaterial assemblages, educational research scholars could challenge notions of authorship, originality, and borrowing within the framework of research on educational practices. In the final part of the article, we conclude that “plagiarism” itself can be a subject of discussion rather than a threatening backdrop to writing practices at universities.

• Details
• Contents