Law Professor and Former Deputy Head of Joint Board of Appeal Raises Concerns over Self-Plagiarism Cases in Norwegian Institutions

Law professor and former deputy head of Joint Board of AppealJoint Board of AppealFeller’s complaints board is the national body that deals with complaints about cheating cases. Bjørn Henning Østenstad believes the tribunal is making mistakes in the cases of self-plagiarism.

– My view is that the law provides strong arguments for the institutions having to distinguish between reuse and plagiarism by others, says Østenstad.

On Saturday, VG wrote about a student at Høgskolen i Innlandet (HINN) who has been banned for two semesters – i.e. a whole year – for so-called self-plagiarism.

Østenstad resigned as deputy chairman of the Joint Appeal Board in spring 2022, after only one term. In several cases of self-plagiarism he took dissent.dissent.To disagree with the majority

As a general rule, the Joint Board of Appeal practices the same reaction in cases of reuse as in the case of plagiarism: Two semesters of exclusion from all education.

Voted down in appeals board

And you post in Khrono wrote the law professor that his departure was a direct consequence of his disagreement with the tribunal in self-plagiarism cases.

Østenstad will not comment on why he declined when the Ministry of Education asked him to continue.

– I am confident in my professional views, but take note that I was voted down, says Østenstad, who has administrative lawadministrative lawThe laws that determine how the authorities should behave when making decisions that affect citizens. as a special field.

– As a law professor, I have felt a special responsibility to speak out.

Østenstad believes that significantly more is needed for reuse to be considered cheating, and that it must be treated more leniently than plagiarism.

The question is how large the extent of reuse is, and whether the answer is independent enough, says the professor at the University of Bergen.

Head of the Joint Complaints Board, Marianne Klausen, says that they assess the overall picture of evidence in all cases of cheating.

– Missing references can, among other things, give a wrong picture of what the student actually achieves within the time made available, she says.

Klausen says that it is important that the students familiarize themselves with the rules before the exam.

Recycle, don’t cheat

Østenstad receives support from the Dean of Education at the Faculty of Law in Bergen Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen.

Fredriksen tells VG that self-plagiarism is not a term they use.

– As far as I know, we have never prosecuted a case about the reuse of our own text as a cheating case, he says.

Fredriksen cannot rule out the possibility of cases where the extent of reuse is so large that it would be considered cheating.

– It must be if a student tries to get a grade again for a text that has already been graded, without processing the text, he says.

The faculty has its own regulations on how previous answers must be processed if they are to be reused. Then the student must explain the choices he has made in a concluding remark.

Fredriksen points out that there are educational advantages in building on one’s own work, because the student can take with him the good in the answer, and work on what is not so good.

He emphasizes that an assignment with too much reuse of one’s own text, without any good explanation for this, will be rejected. But it will not be considered about cheating.

– What do you think about this being considered cheating at other institutions?

– The term cheating in the law is unclear, and it is a long way up to the institutions to fill the term with content through local guidelines. I believe that the concept of cheating is stretched far in the cases that have been discussed in the public, where the consequences for the students appear to be very large.

He is calling for a clean-up from the ministry.

– Must benefit the students

Østenstad believes that students and researchers are treated unfairly. The researchers have significantly greater leeway in the case of reuse than in the case of plagiarism.

– This must also benefit the students.

Head of the Joint Complaints Board, Marianne Klausen, spoke on a general basis in the self-plagiarism case VG mentioned on Saturday.

– The way the law is designed, there is no doubt that self-plagiarism falls under the concept of cheating, she said.

Klausen believes that it is up to the ministry to assess any changes to the regulations.

Østenstad believes there is no need for that.

– The law does not actually prohibit using common sense. The problem is not the law, but a lack of will and/or ability to use the leeway the law provides, says the professor.

He believes the institutions should clean things up by clarifying in their own regulations that reuse should not, as a general rule, be considered cheating.

– If the reuse is too great, the answer must be rejected, but you cannot be penalized with exclusion.

Klausen says that the Joint Complaints Board registers disagreement about the institutions’ assessment of rules on reuse.

– There are also different views on how serious it is that the students do not follow the rules the institution has drawn up.