The Ohio University Experience:

1. The Ohio University Experience: Protocols for adjudicating alleged plagiarism and promoting academic honesty Dennis Irwin, Dean Michael Prudich David Koonce Melissa Broeckelman-Post

2. Plagiarism, Defined • Self-plagiarism is meaningless…it is poor citation • There must be intent to deceive • A discipline-specific common body of knowledge exists that is not normally cited specifically • Citation • Practices in the discipline • Expectations among the research group involved

3. Role of Ignorance (or Opinion?) • Difference in definitions, especially • Common work product among researchers • Common body of knowledge • Difference in due process perceptions • Due process may be underway but embargoed • “Obvious offenses” must still be adjudicated

4. Timeline and Decision Points • July 27, 2004: The first allegations (three) are sent back to the Russ College by the director of University Judiciaries. • Early September 2004: The Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies (ADR) is verbally asked to review the allegations and make recommendations. • October 14, 2004: The ADR formally advises the Dean to refer the cases to the department in question.

5. Timeline and Decision Points continued • October 19, 2004: The Dean directs the Mechanical Engineering Dept. chair to provide, by February 1, 2005, recommendations for: • 1. Actions, if any, to be taken against the former students involved • 2. Procedures to prevent future occurrences. • December 3, 2004: A former student writes to the Ohio Board of Regents stating his allegations concerning plagiarism.

6. Timeline and Decision Points continued • January 26, 2005: Two Mechanical Engineering professors respond to the dept. chair with recommendations for action. • February 3, 2005: The dept. chair notifies a former student that he had been found to have committed plagiarism and outlines possible penalties. The former student is given an opportunity to resubmit the offending thesis.

7. Timeline and Decision Points continued • April, 2005 – September, 2005: Articles appear in student and community newspapers mentioning “about 30” allegations…no specifics supplied to Russ College. Editors asked to supply details. • September 6, 2005: The Russ College begins requiring electronic submission and a statement of originality for all theses, begins using Turnitin.com to check theses, and begins briefing new graduate students on plagiarism. • September, 2005 – December, 2005: Articles claiming more allegations continue. Office of Legal Affairs begins negotiating with accuser.

8. Timeline and Decision Points continued • Late November, 2005: Legal Affairs forwards an additional ~6 cases to the Russ College. The College forms the Academic Honesty Oversight Committee (AHOC; at that time, as an ad hoc committee). • Mid-January 2006: An additional number of cases of plagiarism are forwarded to the Russ College by Legal Affairs. The AHOC is made a standing committee.

9. Timeline and Decision Points continued • March 14, 2006: The AHOC submits its report to the Dean. No mention of faculty culpability is contained. State and National media attention attracted. • Late March, 2006: Chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering steps down by mutual consent with the Dean and agrees to cease advising graduate students. • May 30, 2006: Two independent senior faculty and staff members (Meyer-Bloemer) submit their independent report to the Provost. Its content is scathing and recommends significant actions against faculty advisors in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.

10. Timeline and Decision Points continued • Early June, 2006: Additional actions are taken concerning faculty advisors and other actions are initiated. • June 5-6, 2006: Gary Pavela visits Ohio University to consult on the issue and give a public forum on academic integrity. Confusion among the academic community regarding expectations becomes apparent.

11. Timeline and Decision Points continued • July, 2006 – present: • Administrative structure for adjudication approved by Trustees and adjudication initiated • ALL Russ College theses/dissertations digitized • Several legal actions taken by implicated faculty members against Dean, Provost, and Ohio University • Allegations continue…

12. Internal Communication • Up • Board of Regents of Ohio • Appointees with professional staff • Board of Trustees of Ohio University • Appointees with little academic experience • Several layers of management between Trustees and Dean • Down • Early, Often, and Honestly • There WILL be tension with legal advisors • Faculty, staff, students, and accusers

13. External Communication • Press Conferences • Obtain highly professional advice…legal and media relations • Press Releases • Preferred mode of external communication • Must be firm about due process • Media • Student media • Local media • State media • National media (Wall Street Journal, NY Times, ABC News) • “Trade” media (Chronicle of Higher Ed, ASEE)

14. Causes • Cultural • Lack of faculty oversight • Major advisor more interested in final results than in a quality work as a whole • Insular examination committees • “Culture of academic dishonesty” • Seed is sloppiness • Fertilizer is students becoming aware of sloppiness • Failure of judiciary processes • Few institutions are prepared to deal with former students • Important that processes be developed immediately

15. Dean’s Roundtable • Role of culture • Role of faculty oversight of graduate students • Statement of responsibility • Communicating it • Role of university administrative mechanisms • Importance of briefing higher administration • Importance of standing by your definition of plagiarism • “When will it go away?”

16. The Adjudication Process

17. Adjudication Process • Importance of having a process re: academic honesty by former students

18. Adjudication Process • Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies (ADR) • Academic Honesty Oversight Committee • Research Integrity Committee • Outside faculty and students • Academic Honesty Hearing Committee

19. Research Integrity Committee (University-wide faculty and students appointed by Dean; acts as grand jury) Research Integrity Committee (University-wide faculty and students appointed by Dean; acts as grand jury) Case Preparation (Two Russ College senior faculty prepare cases for Legal Affairs) Case Preparation (Russ College senior faculty prepare cases for Legal Affairs) Russ College Academic Honesty Oversight Committee (Russ College faculty appointed by Dean; reviews documents) Meyer-Bloemer Review (tech transfer officer and one senior faculty, appointed by Provost; review documents, affirm AHOC’s findings, recommend action) Final adjudication begins Final adjudication begins Document Review/Adjudication Flow INITIAL CASES Research Integrity Committee (University-wide faculty and students appointed by Dean Irwin; acts as grand jury) Final adjudication begins  ADDITIONAL CASES  FINAL ADJUDICATION COMMITTEES Academic Honesty Hearing Committee (Former students) University Judiciaries (Current students) OR  

20. Adjudication Process Process Initiation • Accusation/discovery is made. Accusation must be credible and specific. • The accusation triggers: • A physical examination of the questioned material by the ADR. • An electronic examination using TurnItIn. • Results are presented to the RIC.

21. Research Integrity Committee • Standing committee appointed by Dean of the Russ College • ADR serves as chair • Composition: • Three senior faculty (one non-Russ College) • Three graduate students (all Russ College) • ADR

22. Research Integrity Committee Role and Process • Acts as grand jury • May dismiss cases or refer them to the AHHC for adjudication • Referral by the RIC triggers: • More detailed, but not exhaustive examination, of complete document by ADR with generation and interactive use of a TurnItIn report • Preparation of a casebook and detailed charges • Transmittal of casebook and charges to AHHC

23. Academic Honesty Hearing Committee • Appointed by the Provost • Composition: • Three senior faculty members (two from a “technical” area and one from humanities) • One professor from physics • One professor from electrical engineering (former University Ombudsman and current director of university-level scholars program) • One professor from classics and religion/interdisciplinary arts

24. Academic Honesty Hearing Committee Role and Process • Examines the casebook and charges • Makes one of three initial determinations: • Dismisses the case • Recommends a re-write of the questionable material without a hearing • Recommends a hearing • If outcome 2 or 3 is selected, former student is officially contacted and presented with charges • In outcome 2, the student may accept the AHHC recommendation OR request a full hearing

25. Academic Honesty Hearing Committee Process, continued • AHHC hearing is attended by: • Former student (in person or via phone) • Legal counsel for former student (if desired) • AHHC members • Preparer of casebook materials (usually the ADR) • Representatives of University Legal Affairs • Additional evidence relevant (documentation, testimony) may be presented

26. Academic Honesty Hearing Committee Process, continued • AHHC hearing outcomes: • Dismissal of case • Requirement for re-write of the questionable material • Degree revocation • Former student may appeal AHHC decision to Provost and then President

27. Adjudication Challenges • Locating former student • Location of former student • Elapsed time since writing was authored • FERPA issues/student confidentiality • Possibility of legal representation/action • Paucity of case law in this area

28. Sampling Technique

29. Problem Statement Some Russ College theses and dissertations appear to contain plagiarism Uncited external material detracts from the credibility of the thesis and the Russ College How can the Russ College determine the extent of plagiarism in historical theses without review all documents?

30. Developing the Sampling Methodology • Testing the pervasiveness of plagiarism in theses proved more complex than anticipated • Typical method for testing proportions is with a binomial distribution • Or, for large samples, a normal approximation to the binomial

31. Developing the Sampling Methodology continued Sample size proved to be the problem

32. Developing the Sampling Methodology continued • Acceptance sampling: • Checks if a proportion exceeds a limit • Screens a large population with a small sample • Developed in WWII by the military as a standard (MIL-STD 105E) • Adopted by most standards organizations

33. Acceptance Sampling Protocol • Determine the “Acceptable Quality Level” (AQL) • Set the inspection level • Determine the lot (population) size • Find the sample size code • Determine if sampling should be single, double or multiple • Choose the appropriate MIL STD105E table • Sample size • Acceptable number of defects • Extract the sample and analyze

34. Determining the “Acceptable Quality Level” (AQL) • “…the proportion of the population you will accept with defects” • Based on discussions with Dr. Don McCabe (Rutgers University) • His survey of engineering graduate students • Set at 10% (very conservative)

35. Determining the Sample Size • Population size: 1,474 • AQL: Set at 10% • Inspection level standard (level II) yields unacceptably high sample size of 125 • Special levels for systems with high inspection costs, like destructive sampling; we chose the S-4 level • Inspection type was chosen as normal level

36. Sample Size Code

37. Sample Size and Limit

38. Choose Appropriate MIL STD105E Table • Sample size: 32 • Choose 32 documents (not currently under investigation) at random • Internet-available random number stream was used • Acceptable number of defects: 7 • If plagiarism was found in 7+ theses, we would reject the 10% hypothesis

39. Extract the Sample and Analyze All theses and dissertations were scanned into PDF and loaded into Turnitin = 32 selected theses not currently under investigation Scanned and reports were reviewed by the RIC

40. RIC Results At most, 3 of the 32 sample documents might contain plagiarism No evidence exists to challenge the assertion that r ≤ 10% Those documents were prepared as cases and heard by the AHHC

41. Building the Culture

42. Starting Points • Initial class research project • Academic Honesty Advisor, Russ College of Engineering and Technology • Ohio University Academic Integrity Committee

43. Underlying Assumptions • Real, sustainable cultural change must come from within through a bottom-up approach • Some of the best ideas emerge and shared understanding develops through open dialogue • A lot of “plagiarism” is unintentional and results from not having a shared understanding of expectations • Academic dishonesty is a symptom of other concerns, not an isolated problem

44. Contributors to Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty

45. Honor Councils • Faculty and Student Academic Honor Councils • Charters • Statements of Student and Faculty Responsibility • Honor code • Other initiatives

46. Faculty Education and Culture • Ohio University Day of Discourse • Faculty workshops: • Complicating the Conversation • Defining the Problem and Setting Standards • Faculty Brown Bag series • Meetings with individuals and departments • Guest lectures (Gary Pavela, Tim Dodd)

47. Student Education and Culture • University mailings and orientation • ET 502: Technical Writing Seminar • Town hall discussion • Student workshop: Defining the Problem and Setting Standards • Pizza and feedback on Statement of Responsibility • Graduate courses on teaching

48. Other Tools • Academic misconduct statements required in syllabi • Student Code of Conduct • Electronic Submission of Dissertations and Theses • TurnitIn used in the Russ College • Russ College academic integrity Web site

49. Research • University-wide surveys each year • Focus groups, interviews, and written qualitative responses • Russ College student survey in Fall 2006 • Dissertation plans

50. www.ohio.edu/engineering/integrity