Matters of misconduct at universities previously reflected types of misbehaviour also prevalent in society in general. Methods of dealing with such misdemeanours included the role of the proctor as university disciplinarian. The comparatively sudden onset of plagiarism as a major issue, has lead to universities struggling with recognising and defining the concept and with developing appropriate procedures. Previous disciplinary measures including the role of the proctor have been revealed as inadequate for dealing with this problem. Many academics are uncertain as to whether plagiarism is the result of inadvertent behaviour on the part of students or deliberate dishonesty.

In the case study reported here a distinction was drawn between inappropriate copying in assignments which was to be treated first as an matter for education and warning, and matters of dishonest academic practice, which required to be handled as potentially serious breaches from the first notification. The development of policies and procedures was based on the former being handled by academics in their academic divisions while the latter, like other serious misdemeanours, was to remain with the proctor. The separation required the development of a new database for inappropriate copying offences alongside the existing proctor’s database. This paper suggests that replacement of the concept of plagiarism with distinct concepts of inappropriate copying and dishonest academic practice may prove a way forward in dealing with the problem.

Keywords: proctor, plagiarism, dishonest academic practice