Plagiarism in theses: A nationwide concern from the perspective of university instructors

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of the instructors’ academic rank

Academic Rank	Frequency	Percent
Lecturers	7	2.4
Assistant Professors	246	84.5
Associate Professors& above	38	13.1
Total	291	100

Figure 1. A theoretical framework for underlying reasons for plagiarism

Table 2. The instructors’ beliefs about reasons for students’ plagiarism in theses

Categories	Items		Not at all	Slightly	Moderately	Very	Extremely
Creativity	Lack of attention to individual creativity in research, in particular, its role in compiling a thesis	F	12	26	82	121	50
		%	4.1	8.9	28.2	41.6	17.2
	Supervisors’ disregard for student creativity in writing a thesis	F	14	44	99	101	33
		%	4.8	15.1	34.0	34.7	11.3
	Advisors’ disregard for students’ creativity in writing a thesis	F	32	54	78	86	41
		%	11.0	18.6	26.8	29.6	14.1
Self-efficacy	Students’ low confidence in their abilities to conduct genuine research.	F	8	33	53	125	72
		%	2.7	11.3	18.2	43.0	24.7
	Students’ low confidence in their academic writing abilities.	F	15	25	44	142	65
		%	5.2	8.6	15.1	48.8	22.3
Motivation	Not having enough motivation to do the thesis -	F	-	7	49	94	141
		%	-	2.4	16.8	32.3	48.5
	Lack of relationship between the quality of the thesis and students’ prospective career	F	2	21	45	77	146
		%	.7	7.2	15.5	26.5	50.2
	Ease of admission into postgraduate studies which results in lack of incentive to compete with others	F	2	22	37	107	123
		%	.7	7.6	12.7	36.8	42.3
	Lack of a difference(s) between good and poor performance in thesis writing	F	4	15	79	98	95
		%	1.4	5.2	27.1	33.7	32.6
Education	Lack of adequate training for students about cheating and plagiarism	F	11	37	99	95	49
		%	3.8	12.7	34.0	32.6	16.8
	Lack of adequate training for supervisors and advisors regarding supervising the theses	F	12	76	79	94	30
		%	4.1	26.1	27.1	32.3	10.3
	University instructors’ poor academic background.	F	19	61	83	80	48
		%	6.5	21.0	28.5	27.5	16.5
Insitutional Regularities	Lack of supervisors’ adequate supervision over students’ thesis	F	9	35	80	107	60
		%	3.1	12.0	27.5	36.8	20.6
	Examiners’ lack of attention to plagiarism in theses.	F	6	32	71	124	58
		%	2.1	11.0	24.4	42.6	19.9
	Lack of proper supervision of the departments over the process of compiling a thesis by students	F	4	31	63	113	80
		%	1.4	10.7	21.6	38.8	27.5
	A large number of theses for the supervisors to guide	F	4	32	62	115	78
		%	1.4	11.0	21.3	39.5	26.8
	Non-relevance of supervisors’ and advisors’ field of study with the theses they supervise.	F	14	52	94	81	50
		%	4.8	17.9	32.8	27.8	17.2
	Students’ low familiarity with the selected topics	F	1	59	78	98	55
		%	.3	20.3	26.8	33.7	18.9
	Lack of adequate monitoring of theses by supervisors and advisors.	F	2	42	78	116	53
		%	.7	14.4	26.8	39.9	18.2
Supervision and control of theses	The prevalence of the belief that there will be no problem in the case of fraud	F	10	49	71	115	46
		%	3.4	16.8	24.4	39.5	15.8
	Lack of decisive action against academic dishonesty	F	6	26	44	114	101
		%	2.1	8.9	15.1	39.2	34.7
Socioeconomic status	The high cost of the tuition fee of universities	F	34	84	65	85	23
		%	11.7	28.9	22.3	29.2	7.9
	Family pressure on students to graduate in a shorter time	F	37	112	64	63	15
		%	12.7	38.5	22.0	21.6	5.2
	Workplace pressure on students to graduate in a shorter time	F	30	95	97	49	20
		%	10.3	32.6	33.3	16.8	6.9
Culture	Instructors’ indifference towards professional ethics	F	11	57	93	97	33
		%	3.8	19.6	32.0	33.3	11.3
	Widespread use of other research materials without citing the source	F	1	30	69	141	50
		%	.3	10.3	23.7	48.5	17.2
	Acceptance of plagiarism as a social value in the community	F	2	47	63	104	75
		%	.7	16.2	21.6	35.7	25.8
	Lack of exclusion of dishonest individuals in the academic community	F	6	40	42	116	87
		%	2.1	13.7	14.4	39.9	29.9
	Lack of contradiction between moral value and plagiarism	F	24	46	85	90	46
		%	8.2	15.8	29.2	30.9	15.8
Social Environment	Prevalence of theses writing agencies	F	13	22	76	106	74
		%	4.5	7.6	26.1	36.4	25.4
	Ghostwriters who market themselves	F	12	12	52	114	101
		%	4.1	4.1	17.9	39.2	34.7
	Students who act as ghostwriters	F	10	20	67	97	97
		%	3.4	6.9	23.0	33.3	33.3
Technology	Lack of a countrywide web database for detecting plagiarism of theses on the Web	F	38	44	82	83	44
		%	13.1	15.1	28.2	28.5	15.1
	Students’ lack of adequate skill in seeking information from electronic sources especially those on the Web	F	20	59	99	74	39
		%	6.9	20.3	34.0	25.4	13.4

Table 3. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test for multiple comparisons

Factors	Degree	N	Mean Rank	Chi-Square	Asymp. Sig.
Personal Characteristics	Lecturer*	7	153.7	1.659	.436
	Assistant Professor	246	148.2
	Associate Professor and above	38	129.7
Organizational Factors	Lecturer	7	175.9	.965	.617
	Assistant Professor	246	144.7
	Associate Professor and above	38	148.3
External Factors	Lecturer	7	222.2	6.137	.046
	Assistant Professor	246	145.1
	Associate Professor and above	38	137.7

* The term lecturer, in the present study, refers to those instructors who have M.A degree.