The Association Between Plagiarism Reporting and Institutional Connections

There is widespread use of plagiarism by students in higher education; exhaustive research has been conducted to explain, mitigate, or regulate students’ behaviors concerning this issue (Eret & Ok, 2014; Glendinning, 2014; Ison, 2014). However, the extent of plagiarism in higher education has reached upwards of 29.3% overall according to research conducted by the International Center for Academic Integrity (2020). Plagiarism is further exacerbated by widespread use of the Internet making access to published documents easier and the selling of papers a widespread issue (Cotton et al., 2023; Kampa, et al., 2025; Singh & Bennington, 2012). More recently, we can add the increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to the mix of tools used for plagiarism which has caused a nightmare for educators trying to distinguish between what is original and what is created AI content (Cotton, et al., 2023). However, Holbeck, et al.  (2015) suggests that plagiarism may be unintentionally encouraged based on how it is identified and reported. In addition, inconsistent detection and reporting of plagiarism may exist between full-time versus part-time faculty which may influence how it is reported, and which students are reported (Hudd, et al., 2009; Stowe, 2017). 

Holbeck et. al. (2015) presents the idea that online part time faculty may not report plagiarism because reporting may be cumbersome or misunderstood. Research was done that tested a plagiarism protocol for online faculty to report plagiarism; Holbeck et al. (2015) found that the protocol may not have been followed due to the lack of training on plagiarism reporting by part time online faculty. One could connect the lack of training to the disconnection or disengagement that part-time faculty might feel in terms of the relationship with the institution. However, we would need to examine the motivation behind reporting of plagiarism to understand why things may or may not be reported by faculty.

There is no single theory that can fully explain faculty engagement and the reporting of plagiarism at a university setting because people are variable in their behaviors; however, the Theory of Planned Behavior presents the concept of how behavior leads to attitudes about the behavior, intention of the behavior, and how these interact to effect and facilitate the behavior occurring (Ajzen, 2002; Singh & Bennington, 2012). This theory addresses the underlying efforts for faculty to report, what they need to report, and how they report the behaviors they see that determine plagiarism has occurred (Bennington & Singh, 2013). Ajzen and Fishbein (1972) explain that we adjust our behavior based upon what we perceive to be the expectations placed upon us.

The connection between the faculty and the institution may impact their motivation to report plagiarism. This may be due to the lack of integration within the university structure, commitment to that institution, understanding of university expectations, or comprehension and agreement on the defining factors that show plagiarism (Rhoades, et al., 2001). Intention and motivation are intrinsically linked when it comes to performance in any work capacity. Furthermore, one must also consider how much the connection to the workplace has on behavior. Umbach (2007) suggests that part-time faculty have a limited and often short-term connection to the university, so they are not as supported by the university. Due to this issue part time faculty might exhibit lower levels of performance including reporting of plagiarism as a function of their positions (Umbach, 2007).

In addition, Umbach (2007) stated that contingent faculty “…have lower academic expectations than their tenured and tenure-track peers (p. 110). Rhoades, et al., (2001) make the argument that a worker will be more committed to an organization and contribute more to that organization if they are connected to the organization in some way. In addition, there is also an increase in the use of part time faculty who may not work on campus and may work at multiple colleges and universities which then creates further disconnection from the academic space (Curtis, 2014; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2017). 

Faculty connection and engagement can be defined in many ways from how a faculty member participates in university life, to how they contribute to a wider body of knowledge in their field of study. The connection to the University is the deciding factor when determining the level of inclusion and involvement in the academic space. In research conducted by Jaschik and Lederman (2015) they defined engagement in three ways, engaged, not engaged and disengaged. Each of these three categories range from someone who is fully invested in the work, loyal to the University and productive, to someone who feels negative about the workspace and is less productive. It is understood that reporting of plagiarism is defined as an important function of being a faculty member of an institution and thus infer that reporting would increase as connection to the organization increases.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(1), 1-9.

Bennington, A. J., & Singh, H. (2013). Faculty expectations of administration: Predictors of intention to report student plagiarism. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(4), 63-76.

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P.A., & Reuben Shipway, J. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

Curtis, J. W. (2014). The employment status of instructional staff members in higher education,Fall 2011. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors.

Eret, E. & Ok, A. (2014). Internet plagiarism in higher education: Tendencies, triggering factors and reasons among teacher candidates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 1002-1016.

Estes, B., & Polnick, B. (2012). Examining motivation theory in higher education: An expectancy theory analysis of tenured faculty productivity. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1). 1-7.

Glendinning, I. (2014). Responses to student plagiarism in higher education across Europe. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(1), 4-20.

Holbeck, R., Greenberger, S., Cooper, L., Steele, J., Maher Palenque, S., Koujoudeas, S. (2015). Reporting plagiarism in the online classroom. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 202-209.

Hudd, S. S., Apgar, C., Bronson, E. F., & Lee, R. G. (2009). Creating a campus culture of integrity: Comparing the perspectives of full- and part- time faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(2) 146-177.

International Center for Academic Integrity. (2020). Facts and Statistics. https://academicintegrity.org/resources/facts-and-statistics

Ison, D. C. (2014). Does the online environment promote plagiarism? A comparative study of dissertations from brick-and-mortar versus online institutions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 272-282.

Jaschik, S. & Lederman, D. (2015). The 2015 Inside Higher Ed Survey of College and University Faculty Workplace Engagement. Inside Higher Education.

Kampa, R. K., Padhan, D. K., Karna, N., & Gouda, J. (2025). Identifying the factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: An evidence-based review of the literature. Accountability in Research, 32(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2311212

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Characteristics of postsecondary faculty. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csc.asp

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825-836.

Singh, H. & Bennington, A. J. (2012). Faculty on the frontline: predicting faculty intentions to address college student plagiarism. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(2), 115-128.

Stowe, S. (2017). Will they or not? Online faculty intentions to report student plagiarism. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 21(1), 1-17.

Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91-123.