Microsoft Word - WJER-V4N4-p551.doc

World Journal of Educational Research

ISSN 2375-9771 (Print) ISSN 2333-5998 (Online)

Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer

551

Exploring Students’ Perception and Experience of Ghostwriting

and Contract Cheating in Nigeria Higher Education Institutions

Orim Stella-Maris

& Anirejuoritse Awala-Ale

Faculty of Engineering, Environment & Computing, School of Computing, Electronics and

Mathematics, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom

Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom

Orim Stella-Maris, E-mail: aa7863@coventry.ac.uk

Received: September 18, 2017 Accepted: September 30, 2017 Online Published: November 2, 2017

doi:10.22158/wjer.v4n4p551 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/wjer.v4n4p551

Abstract

Ghostwriting and contract cheating constitute serious facets of academic misconduct in Nigerian

Higher Education Institutions (NHEI) of learning. Management of these practices have remained

elusive as they are impervious to traditional anti-plagiarism techniques. However, despite the

prevalence of these practices, gaps in knowledge remain regarding how they are perceived by NHEI

students. Most of the existent knowledge is based on untested theories and beliefs but it is imperative

that, for an educational system to be successful, there is a need to have an in-depth understanding of

their students. The research involves the use of surveys and interview of participants with experiential

knowledge, and the purpose of this paper is to provide an insight to student perceptions on ghostwriting

and contract cheating in NHEI. The consequence of the findings of this study is the information it

provides the NHEI as they attempt to understand, evaluate and manage the occurrence of these

practices. This paper concluded that the initial perception of contract cheating and ghostwriting by the

Nigerian student is that it is an ethical practice with significant ramifications. However, this view is

distorted due to two factors which have caused participating Nigerian students to believe it is a

practice that is worth partaking in.

Keywords

contract cheating, ghost-writing, motivation, perception/insight, qualitative research, student

experience

1. Introduction

There has been a consensus amongst academics that plagiarism has become entrenched in higher

education institutions globally. Not only has it become a norm, it is rarely challenged for fear of

admitting its existence in the Higher Education Institutions (HEI) (Devlin, 2003; Mammen & Meyiwa,

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Scholink Journals

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

552

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

2013, p. 99). Thus, it has become a bane to the progress of the academic environment. This consensus

is reflected in the increased amount of existent literatures, which aim at understanding and developing

methods to curb plagiarism (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001; Park, 2004; Devlin, 2006; McGowan & Bretag,

2013).

In recent years, coinciding with the advances in telecommunications technologies, there has been a

shift in academic focus. In lieu of the traditional aspects of plagiarism such as cut and paste which is

largely detected by electronic text matching software (such as Google or Turnitin.com), there is a focus

on the steadily increasing and more elusive forms of non-traditional types of plagiarism such as

contract cheating and ghostwriting (McGowan, 2005, p. 287; Weber-Wulff, 2014; Curtis & Clare,

2017). Both concepts are similar in that they both constitute outsourcing a work to a third-party

(ghostwriter or a contractor) who is paid while the original produced work is attributed to the client

only (Lancaster & Clarke, 2007, p. 1; Clark & Lancaster, 2006; Exposito et al., 2015, p. 9; Singh &

Remenyi, 2016, p. 2).

However, the slight difference between the two concepts lies in the level of involvement of the client

and the mechanism in which the academic work is outsourced. First of all, with respect to ghostwriting,

the client and ghostwriter may collaborate to produce a complete work. This is in contrast to contract

cheating whereby the work contracted out is completed solely by the contractor. Secondly, the

mechanism of outsourcing in contract cheating usually involves the student placing a work online

which is bid upon by several contractors wherein the student picks the most appealing bid. In contrast,

in ghostwriting, the work is not bid upon, rather, the ghostwriter can approach the student or vice-versa

(Sivasubramaniam et al., 2016, p. 2).

2. Literature Review

2.1 The Emergence and Consolidation of Contract Cheating and Ghostwriting in Higher Education

Institutions

While plagiarism may have originated in 17th century England, ghostwriting and contract cheating are

relatively recent developments appearing in the 1990s as noted by Lines (2016). Having identified the

development of these non-traditional forms of plagiarism and having ascertained them to be the “most

important plagiarism related problem of the modern age”, Clarke and Lancaster (2006) contributed to

knowledge with respect to contract cheating by examining what the practice entails and how it occurs.

Their study involved the investigation of the website—Rent A Coder which serves dual functions as

both a website where computer users seeks answers to computer related problems and as a website

where students can outsource their assignments. From their findings, the authors concluded that the

practice of contract cheating was increasingly becoming rampant and thus, there is the possibility of a

common practice on similar sites like Rent A Coder. In line with this finding, a google search for

“Essay writing websites” will readily produce options such as essaytyper.com, grademiners.com,

bid4papers.com/write-my-essay.html.

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

553

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

While Clarke and Lancaster (2006) highlight the prevalence of the practice in the sciences, Mammen

and Meyiwa (2013) observes that just like traditional aspects of plagiarism (cut and paste), the practice

of contract cheating and ghostwriting is prevalent in all field from Information Systems, Arts,

Humanities to Creative Writing. McCrostie (2009) gives an insight into the varied forms the

ghostwriters take. The author delineates the different levels of ghostwriting or different degrees in

which a work can be ghost written. In some cases, a famous writer replaces the actual writer of the

paper, that is, the actual writer is not acknowledged and is the ghostwriter. In some other cases, the

famous author receives more recognition than the actual writers whose name are printed in small caps.

By examining the emerging forms of plagiarism, Walker and Townley (2012) opine that while contract

cheating remains elusive and problematic, it could steer the educational instructors from their purpose.

Rather, focus should remain on supporting the “honest students and good academic practice” (2012, p.

27). The authors conclude that such support would not only enhance the honest student’s development

but it will encourage honesty in students.

2.2 The Motivation behind the Practice of Contract Cheating and Ghostwriting

Conducting what they describe as the first empirical economic investigation regarding the decision to

cheat by university students and what influences their willingness to participate in the essay market as

well as their valuation of the paper, Rigby et al. (2015) come to very telling conclusions. By

investigating reasons and influences on student demands using hypothetical scenarios, they found that

certain factors will influence a student’s propensity to take risks and such factors includes: the

enrollment of a student in a non-native language country, the believe that the student will attain lower

grades, the probability of detection and the potential penalty for contracting. More importantly, the

authors note that a perceived need to keep up with other cheaters also influences students to engage in

the essay market.

These findings offer a dimension on what motivates students to engage in contract cheating which is

seemingly deeper than the findings of Lancaster and Clarke (2007) who revealed that the willingness of

a student to engage in contract cheating is due to their moral bankruptcy (2007, p. 1). This variation in

the findings is not unrelated to the diversity in location, year of research and sample. Furthermore, a

different notion in the discourse on why students decide to engage in plagiarism in the form of contract

cheating or ghostwriting was cited in the paper by Devlin and Gray (2007). Engaging in a qualitative

study aided by the use of group interviews, the authors aimed at uncovering the primary reasons for this

behaviour. Their study is premised on the notion that present attempts to deter and detect situations of

plagiarism is based on assumptions only and is thus limited. They concluded that a wide and disparate

range of possible contributing reasons for engagement in contract cheating or ghostwriting includes:

institutional admission criteria; poor student understanding of plagiarism; poor academic skills; a range

of teaching and learning factors; personality factors (laziness) and external pressures.

A focus on the monetary value aspect of contract cheating and ghostwriting as a medium for

comprehending the motivation behind these practices was adopted by Hu and Wu (2013) and Osipian

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

554

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

(2012). In performing an empirical analysis, Hu and Wu (2013) focused on questions relating to the

quantity and monetary value of ghostwriters in China in order to create what they hope would be a

foundation for policy making regarding ghostwriting in the future. The findings of these authors reveal

that despite the fact that the amount of ghostwritten work in 2011 (8,000) represents a minute amount

of the total number of written works, the ghostwriting industry still generated huge amounts in that year

(4.46 million US dollars).

Similarly, Osipian (2012) addressed the issue of the monetary value of ghostwriting in Russia as an

inroad to understanding the problems of corruption in doctoral education and the broader higher

educational system. The author discovered that although the annual revenue of the ghostwriting

industry may be significant, it pales in comparison to the corruption complex in the country. The author

concludes that the cost of the dissertations to society market extends far beyond its monetary

expression. He argued that “Fake doctorates undermine the credibility of real, earned doctorates, and

erode the gold standard of quality in research and scholarship” (Osipian, 2012, p. 82).

Employing the use of interviews in addition to these generic studies, Zheng and Cheng (2015) sought

to capture the view of international students with respect to ghostwriting. Participants of these

interviews included ghostwriters and students who had employed these services. They concluded that

students’ obsession with achieving a good grade was the prevailing factor behind the practice of

ghostwriting and if this was replaced with an obsession to learn only, they would improve themselves.

A desire to learn, they argue is honed especially in a liberal arts education.

2.3 The Consequences of Ghostwriting and Contract Cheating

Barbour (2010) addresses the consequences of ghostwriting in the field of science. Specifically, she

considers how these authorship violations in medical publications have the potential of threatening the

credibility of medical knowledge and medical journals as well as confidence in the findings. She argues

that the slippery notion of authorship which has “somehow slipped recently from something to be

earned through a specific, meaningful contribution to a superficial designation that can be traded”

should be addressed by the parties which include the journals, pharmaceutical companies. It should be

“returned to something that can be a source of pride, and which is deserved and earned—and declared”

(2010, p. 2).

2.4 Evaluating Contract Cheating and Ghostwriting in Nigeria Higher Education Institutions

Just like so many institutions across the globe struggle with the concepts, Nigerian higher institutions

are not left out. A search on the availability of academic literature focusing on plagiarism in the context

of Nigeria reveals the existence of an average amount of papers in recent years. These papers on

plagiarism with respect to Nigeria have examined the: Nature of Plagiarism; Reasons for Students’

Plagiarism; Strategies for Evaluating and Detecting Plagiarism in Students’ Works; Recommendations

for curbing the behavior in NHEI (Agu et al., 2009; Adebayo, 2011; Onuoha & Ikonne, 2013; Ubaka et

al., 2013; Faloore, 2014; Orim et al., 2014). A review of the most recent papers on plagiarism in

Nigeria will show there is hardly any mention of the issue of contract cheating and ghostwriting (see

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

555

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Faloore, 2016; Idiegbeyan-ose et al., 2016).

The authors of this paper acknowledge that plagiarism includes the seemingly complex and virtually

undetectable practice of contract cheating and ghostwriting (Orim, 2014) and they focus their research

on the elusive aspect of ghostwriting and contract cheating.

Even though the problem of contract cheating is universal, there is a need for empirical research of the

issue in the context of Nigeria. Despite the ubiquity of the practice, certain aspects are not universal. As

motivations behind the practice, the implications would not be the same in Nigeria in comparison to the

United Kingdom or Australia. As Orim et al. (2012) noted on the issue of plagiarism in Nigeria HEIs,

“some of the lecturers and administrators of Nigerian universities think there is no case of plagiarism

on their campuses”, this could also apply to the issue of contract cheating in Nigeria.

Owing to the increasing popularity of these non-traditional forms of plagiarism, there has naturally

been a prevalence of academic papers aimed at understanding the student’s perception, attitude as well

as their motivation regarding these acts (Macatangay, Zheng, & Cheng, 2015). Despite the accuracy

and coherence of these papers, they cannot be applied to varying academic contexts. For instance, it is

simplistic to posit that in Nigeria Higher Education Institutions (NHEI), the increase in ghostwriting

and contract cheating is hinged on the following factors: widespread use of ICT, student laziness,

pressure from external sources (e.g., parents), etc.

However, from the literature review, there are still gaps in knowledge regarding the Nigerian student’s

perception and motivation of ghostwriting and contract cheating. The importance of such a research

area cannot be debated, it is only through a thorough understanding of NHEI student’s perception of

these practices that functional countermeasures can be formulated and adopted. To this end, this paper

has adopted the following research questions which shall guide this study:

1) What is the Nigerian student’s perception towards contract cheating and ghostwriting?

2) What motivates or influences this view?

3. Theories Underpinning This Study

This study employs multiple theoretical perspectives for the purpose of critically evaluating, clarifying

and conveying the research findings and analysis of these findings. The theories that were employed

include: the theory of techniques of neutralization, rational choice theory, ethics of care and Vygotsky’s

theory of social development.

The theory of techniques of neutralization developed by David Matza and Gresham Sykes (1957) posits

that there are 5 techniques through which individuals rationalize their wrongdoing. The techniques

include: Denial of responsibility, Denial of injury, blaming the victim, Condemn the condemners

and Appealing to a higher loyalty. This sociological theory was developed as a challenge to existing

deterministic, positivistic subcultural theories of crime that denies the rationality of the offender

(McLaughlin & Muncie, 2006). Matza and Sykes were of the opinion that offenders were fully aware

of their moral obligation and did not act irrationally. Offenders do not inhabit a subculture in contrast to

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

556

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

the existing social order.

In other words, they are choice-makers who understand the division between “deviant” and

“respectable” behaviour and thread on this line (Curasi, 2013, p. 168). According to the theory,

offenders feel guilt, they understand their wrongdoing, they do not always pursue deviant activities and

do not see themselves as criminals. They develop a set of rationalization or techniques to neutralize and

suspend commitment to these values temporarily (McLaughlin & Muncie, 2006). In using these

techniques, they provide themselves with freedom to engage in these acts as it allows them to cope,

comprehending the potential consequences without damaging their self-image and self-esteem (Curasi,

2013, p. 168).

The application of this theory in this study is justified by the fact that neutralization theory is strongly

associated with academic dishonesty (Ligi & Trasberg, 2014, p. 3). Indeed, several students

unknowingly employed techniques of neutralization during the interview session. Copes (2003) argued

that this is not surprising as socially attached offenders tend to use neutralization than less attached

ones. Thus, this theory is a way of interpreting the reasons the students provide for their actions. The

application of this theory will aid in our understanding of how students in NHEI can drift from

illegitimate to legitimate actions while retaining their moral code and belief in their non-criminality,

thus answering core questions such as “why did they do it?” and “how can they continue?”

(McLaughlin & Muncie, 2006).

The rational choice theory is hinged on the assumption that all human actions are subject to rational

decisions. Individuals will always make decisions that will provide them with great benefits. The

theory posits that “…one takes those actions, criminal or lawful, which maximize payoff and minimize

costs” (Akers, 1990, p. 654). The adoption of the rational choice theoretical perspective provides a

better understanding of the motivating factors behind a student’s desire to cheat because it highlights

the significance of the interaction between situational and individual factors on decisions to cheat

(Ogilvie & Stewart, 2010, p. 130). Understanding this has implications for the prevention and

management of contract cheating and ghostwriting by NHEI.

The theory of the ethic of care is a normative ethical theory which explores how humans as inherently

and responsive beings make decisions. Ethics of care emphasizes the importance of factors such as

human interdependence and relationships. According to Gilligan (2011), “Its logic is inductive,

contextual, psychological, rather than deductive or mathematical”. Thus, the question “what is just?”

does not influence our moral perspective anymore, rather, the individual is concerned with “how to

respond?” (Held, 2005; Corsetti, 2010). This paper is concerned with student’s perception and

motivation regarding contract cheating and ghostwriting and this theoretical perspective will be

adopted because it helps explain the shifts in the student’s moral perspective.

Finally, Vygotsky’s social development theory states that social interaction leads to development. For

consciousness and development to be developed in an individual, socialization must occur. Three major

themes are core to this theory, they include: social interaction, the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO)

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

557

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Social interaction plays a key role in the cognitive

development of the learner, MKO refers to an individual with who has better understanding and

knowledge than the learner and finally ZPD refers to distance chasm between what a learner can do

independently and what the learner needs assistance with. Vygotsky believed that learning occurred in

this zone and it is the duty of the teacher to identify this zone (Vygotsky, 1997; Tukur, 2008). Although

the focus of this study is the student’s perception and experience with ghostwriting and contract

cheating, the role of the educator (lecturer) is also focused on. Thus, this theoretical perspective

provides an insight as to the role of the lecturer and the lecturer’s relationship with the student in the

academic environment.

4. Methodology

This paper employed a mixed-method approach to acquire information regarding student’s perception

and experience with ghostwriting and contract cheating. The first method used was semi-structured

interview which was focused on Nigeria students who had experienced the concepts while studying in a

NHEI. The second method involved the use of a survey.

5. The Interview Approach

Participants in this study included twenty-six students from different NHEI who prior to their interview

had attended a NHEI or were still studying in a NHEI. The basis for recruitment was that of diversity of

NHEI attended, consent and willingness of the participant to answer the questions. The interview

sessions with the participants were semi-structured. Before each interview occurred, there was a

statement by the researcher aimed at outlining the purposes and nature of the research. Furthermore,

each participant was assured of anonymity and the only personal information required of the students

was the name of the institution of study and present level of study.

This extracted information could be regarded as pure as it was rendered without any imposed

conceptual framework and thus it represents their thoughts on the issue through their personal

experience. The participants were not offered any incentives in order to participate in the process.

Responses were recorded in shorthand or in some cases like the call interviews, they were recorded at

the consent of the interviewee. However, immediately after the interview, the researchers transcribed

the responses.

6. Self-Reporting Survey

Following the use of interviews, an anonymous survey was also employed, it was placed on an online

campus platform where students could have access and respond to the survey. The availability of the

survey was advertised around several Nigerian campus primarily by word of mouth, social network and

emails. The surveys which was completed by 113 students and alumni from 37 NHEI required the

respondents to answer questions regarding their previous experience with ghostwriting and contract

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

558

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

cheating and their experience with respect to the implications of contract cheating and ghostwriting.

The survey questions focused on; student experience with ghostwriting, the satisfactory nature of the

services, experience of university management (detection and penalty).

7. Findings and Analysis of the Data

Of the 37 interviewed students that gave initial consent, 12 declined to respond to any of the questions

posed. When informed of the purpose of the interview and despite being assured of anonymity, they felt

uncomfortable disclosing any information.

8. Findings and Analysis of Data Collected from the Interview Sessions

8.1 Students Understanding of Ghostwriting and Contract Cheating

According to the interviewed students, ghostwriting and contract cheating are similar concepts which

denotes situation whereby a student pays a third party to produce an original academic paper which will

only be attributed to the client (student).

P1: “…giving out your work to someone to do it for you. You pay, you contract out your work”

P2: “sharing your academic paper with other students or giving it out for outside parties to write for

you”

P25: “Ghostwriting is like someone helping you to write but contract cheating could be that you paid

someone to help you to write”

The above definitions provided by the respondents proved rudimentary, with hardly any attempt to

differentiate the terms. Although there is a mixture of collusion depicted in their view, their definitions

showed a basic understanding of what the two terms mean.

With respect to the experience with ghostwriting and contract cheating, all the students unanimously

agreed that this was a phenomenon that occurred in NHEI. However, when asked for their personal

experiences and encounters, eight of the interviewed students declined to provide a response. The

remaining 16 respondents pointed out that they experienced it as “friend helping a friend” while only

one participant acquiesced to being a client. This suggests that there is shame in the practices, perhaps a

stigma that follows those that may be caught or penalized for engaging in this behavior.

8.2 The Motivation behind the Practice of Contract Cheating and Ghostwriting

Six categories of motivating factors were identified in the responses of the 25 students. These were

both external and internal. These were, the work ethic of the NHEI students, the inadequacies of the

NHEI, the NHEI students need for money, external pressures and a desire to help fellow colleagues or

friends. 4 of the respondents cited the work ethic of the student as a motivating factor. This response

demonstrates an understanding within some students that their educational progress is hinged on their

actions and no one other than the student will be held culpable.

Findings which drew attention away from the role of the student focused on external factors such as:

the role of the institution, who they claim fails to prepare them adequately for academic writing;

monetary incentives which is inviting; and external pressures from parents and society which causes

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

559

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

them to adopt university courses they are not familiar with and have no interest in. These three reasons

can be understood in relation to the theory of “techniques of neutralization” (Matza & Sykes, 1957).

In providing these rationalizations in defense of these actions, these respondents made use of three

techniques of neutralization: denial of responsibility, blaming the victim and appeal to higher loyalties.

With respect to denial of responsibility, students claimed that the situation was out of their hands. As

P14 stated:

P14: “I also think people are trying to multi-task. People may have demanding jobs and wanting to go

to school at the same time. Poverty and the need for money causes people to do it”

Regarding “blaming the victim”, the respondents highlight the failure of NHEI to train and properly

prepare students. Thus, while they acknowledge that the actions they partake in are wrong, they seem to

suggest that the university deserves this behavior for its shortcomings.

P4: “First of all, learning environment (Nigeria University) is poor and sometimes there is not enough

materials”

The participants further noted that although regulations specific to these practice may exist, they were

hardly made aware of these regulations. Regarding the responses, a large majority asserted that the

responses were largely inadequate.

P1: “from my experience, there is no institutionalized response or mechanism for detecting or

responding to it. I never met anyone that was ever indicted for ghostwriting, contracting or cheating of

that manner. So, I don’t think they are actually prepared for it”

This notion that the failure of the institution in instilling the values of academic research or preparing

the students for independent research drives them to cheat, is not novel or unique. It has been affirmed

in academic research that the failure of the academic system is a motivating factor that has spurred

ghostwriting and contract cheating companies to target master and doctoral students. Thus, this low

level of effort by the university in teaching the rudiments of academic writing noted by Orim et al.

(2012) is indeed a motivating factor.

Finally, with respect to the technique of an appeal to higher loyalties, the students highlight that while

they violated the rules of the university, it was because they were pressured by society and their family

to study a course which is highly regarded but not of their interest. This notion is similar to what Zheng

and Cheng (2015) found in their research hence they argue that if students follow their desire course of

study, for instance a liberal arts education, there will be no need to cheat. This factor is significant

because it can extricate students from the view that they are lazy and thus engage in the behavior. It can

now be seen that there is a possibility that the laziness portrayed by the students may not be a direct

consequence of their desire not to put in an effort but could be the result of disinterest in their area of

study. This does not assuage students of their culpability nor is it an excuse for wrongful behavior but it

gives an insight into why students may be desperate to move ahead in an academic environment they

are not familiar or may never really acclimatize to.

The final motivating factor is a desire to assist a fellow colleague in the completion of a given

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

560

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

assignment. Considering the response of P1 when asked the reason for engaging in ghostwriting, he

stated that:

“I haven’t contracted any work out but in one way or the other, I have been a ghost writer. Helping

friends in the first place, they couldn’t write properly so they needed help for assignments. It seemed

harmless, so I helped them out. Sometimes I spelled it out or I explicitly write it down then they can

build on it. To just help out people”

This response can be understood in reference to the theory of the ethics of care (Held, 2005).

8.3 Implication of Contract Cheating and Ghostwriting

The students interviewed each demonstrated a level of awareness regarding the possible implications of

these practices to students, the institution and the society. Responses regarding the implications for the

students were largely centered on effect it would have on a student’s total academic development.

P11: It is limitation on their knowledge; they don’t get the required knowledge

P17: “The student will lose in the long run”

Thus, they suggested that this limitation can act as a hindrance to future academic success. The

respondents further noted that possibly, the student’s actions could be eventually discovered and they

could be institutionally reprimanded (revoked certificate). This highlighted the fear of public shaming

as an implication of this practice to the students.

With respect to the implications on the institution, there was a largely generalized response and it is

well surmised by the second participant P2.

P2: “For the university, if there is a mass number of students that engage in this practice, I guess the

rankings of the university could be affected as well, or the credibility rather of the university could be

affected as well”

The participants could not expand beyond this narrative and they all concentrated on the potential low

ranking. The participants are not far off in their assertions as scholars such as Singh and Remenyi (2016)

also consider the potential backlash to the institution as continued plagiarism in the form of

ghostwriting and contract cheating calls into question the integrity of the faculty and the students. This

is extremely detrimental to the institution as the institution values their image and have taken great

steps to ensure that it is preserved (Devlin, 2003).

The responses on the effects of these practices on society also produced a similarity of views. It was

ascertained that it would be harmful to society as it will be filled with individuals that are inefficient

members of the labour force with the propensity to cheat. Indeed, a study conducted by Curtis and

Clare (2017) noted that among the number of individuals they found to have engaged in ghostwriting,

62.5% of those students did so more than once. However, the respondents noted that this cheating

culture will not be limited to the academic environment alone but will become a large part of every

facet of the individual’s life, thus leading to continued corruption in the Nigerian society.

P2: “For society, if a lot of people go on cheating, it won’t be for education alone, they will find a way

to incorporate it in every aspect of their lives”

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

561

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

P25: “Nigeria’s future is at stake and the students end up being a liability to society. Corruption also

becomes rampant”

8.4 Perceptions on Possible Solutions to Contract Cheating and Ghostwriting in Nigeria

It was highlighted by a large majority that NHEI have an active role to play if ghostwriting and contract

cheating is to be curbed.

P5: “The University should focus on solving the issue; the ball is in their court. It’s their fault”

This respondents with this view noted that the university failed in formulating definitive

countermeasures, much less administering these measures. As agents of the university, participants also

highlighted the role of lectures that are negligent of the ability of each student and thus are unable to

help them. This can be understood in reference to Vygotsky’s theory of social development (Vygotsky,

1978). He believed that it was the duty of a teacher to ascertain through observation each students zone

of proximal development, that is, what they are capable of independently and what are they will falter,

thus needing assistance from either their peers or the teacher (Turuk, 2008; Berger, 2009). The

possibility of achieving this in a typical NHEI is low because of the discouraging lecturer: student ratio

(Oribabor, 2008, p. 228).

Following the mention of the role of the institution and its agents in assuming an active role, the second

common prescribed solution was the eradication of pressures from the student. This refers to the

workload given to the student and also external pressures from parents in choosing a course of study.

This mention of pressure once again highlights the underlying belief by the students that they are the

victims. Only one participant noted that the student has a role as part of the solution. Consider the

response of the third participant P3.

P3: “By being more strict with the students, by taking into acknowledgement their previous

performances and comparing it to how it is now, by also having them verbally explain their work in

some cases”

This suggests the implementation of policies like viva for submissions.

9. Findings and Analysis of Data Collected from the Online Survey

Analysed data from the survey (Figure 1) revealed that a great majority of students that have studied in

NHEI have had an experience regarding ghostwriting and contract cheating.

Table 1. In Relation to Your Experience, Would You Be Inclined to Say That the Statements (a-d)

Below Are True? (Please Tick As Appropriate)

a(1) I have submitted as my own, a work written for me by someone else (ghost-writer) (replacing the author)

b(2) I have submitted as my own, a work written for me by some other student

c(3)

I know of some student(s) that submitted as theirs, a work written for them (ghost writer) by someone else

they did not know (replacing the author)

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

562

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

d(4)

I know of some student(s) that submitted as theirs, a work written for them by another student (replacing

the author and contributing to work)

Figure 1. Students Experience with Ghostwriting and Contract Cheating in NHEI

From Figure 1, 76 respondents acknowledged that at one time, they had deliberately submitted a work

as their own which was prepared by a ghostwriter. This contrasts with the 37 respondents who

disagreed. Furthermore, of the 113 respondents, 100 attested to knowing students who had employed

the services of ghost writers and 60 further noted that they knew students that had gotten help from

other students. This suggests that ghostwriting is prevalent in NHEI. Furthermore, the surveys

highlighted the fact that students in NHEI are acutely aware of these practices among other students. In

addition, it is noteworthy that students who completed the online survey seemed to have been more

comfortable answering questions regarding contract cheating and ghostwriting, possibly a result of

anonymity associated with online surveys.

Figure 2 compliments Figure 1 by exploring further students experience with ghostwriting. It explores

how satisfactory the service turned out to be for the students that used it. The data from Figure 2

reveals that these services incur mixed reviews. A larger percentage of the respondents believed that the

services offered were not satisfactory; 46 participants disagreed that they produced satisfactory results

while 20 were unsure if the results were satisfactory or not. There were positive affirmations (47) also

and this is further complimented by the fact that a good number (46) of the respondents considered

remittance for the service to be affordable probably because there was no comparison with which to

determine the affordability. However, 35 of the respondents stated they were not sure.

Table 2. In Relation to Your Experience, Would You Be Inclined to Say That the Statements (a-c)

Below Are True? (Please Tick As Appropriate)

A(Series1) When these services (Question 1a and 1b) were used, they produced satisfactory results

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

563

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

b (Series 2) Where payment was made for these services(a and b), it was affordable

c (Series 3) I have not engaged in any of these services(a and b)

Figure 2. The Satisfactory Nature of the Service Rendered

64 respondents (Figure 2) stated that they have not engaged with any of the services and again 23 were

unsure whether or not they have engaged with the services. Although the number of participants who

decided to “sit on the fence” of uncertainty suggests that a few participants might have been “holding

back”. Nevertheless, this aid our understanding of the perpetuity of this practice. Satisfactory results

complimented by relative affordability ensures that this practice carries on. The affordability and the

satisfaction attached to the service is not the only guarantee for continued endeavor in the practice.

Figures 3 and 4 which are illustrations of the survey evaluating NHEI Responses to Contract Cheating

and Ghostwriting shows that the implications on the students are not effective deterrents hence proving

a reason to carry on with these practices.

Table 3. Students’ Previous Experience with Institutional Management of Ghost-Writing and

Contract Cheating

In relation to your experience, would you be inclined to agree with the statements (1-4) below? (please tick as appropriate)

1 I have been caught in the past when I submittedas my own, a work written for me by someone else (ghost writer)

2 I have been caught in the past when I submitted as my own,a work written for me by some other student

I know ofsome student(s) that have been caught in the past when they submittedas theirs, a work written for them

(ghost writer) by someone else they did not know

Iknow of some student(s) that have been caught in the past when they submitted as theirs, a work written for them

by some other student

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

564

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Figure 3. Detection of Contract Cheating and Ghostwriting

The data from Figure 3 shows minimal detection of those that engage in these practices. 96 of 113

respondents stated that they had never been caught in the past when they “submitted as their own, a

work written for me them by someone else (ghost writer)”. These are staggering Figures. 90 asserted

that when fellow students aided them, they still escaped detection. A further 76 stated that they did not

know of other students who had been caught employing the services of ghost-writers and finally 68 did

not know any students who was aided by a fellow student and was apprehended.

It is important to note that in all instances, >50 of the respondents suggested that there is a failure of

NHEI detection measures. Furthermore, wheresome participants agreed to knowing students

caughtwho submitted works written by another (39), less stated that they have been caught (27).

Figure 4 which illustrates students experience with being penalised as a result of ghost-writing

reinforces the data collected, analysed and depicted in Figure 3.

Table 4. In Relation to Your Experience, Would You Be Inclined to Say That the Statements (a-d)

Below Are True? (Please Tick As Appropriate)

a(1)

I have been penalised in the past when Isubmitted as my own, a work written for me by someone else

whom I paid (contract)

b(2) I have beenpenalised in the past when Isubmitted as my own, a work written for me by some other student

c(3)

I know ofsome student(s) that have been penalised in the past when they submitted as theirs, a work

written for them (ghost writer) by someone else they did not know

d(4)

Iknow of some student(s) that have been penalised in the past when they submitted as theirs, a work

written for them by some other student

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

565

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Figure 4. Students’ Previous Experience with Institutional Management of Ghost-Writing and

Contract Cheating

From this analysis, 85 of the 113 students disagreed that they have been penalised in the past when

theysubmittedas their own, a work written for them by someone else whom they paid. Also, 75 of the

students disagreed that they have been penalised when theysubmittedas their own, a work written for

them by some other student. Even when they were reporting that they knew ofsome student(s) that have

beenpenalised when they submittedas theirs, a work written for them by someone else they did not know

or other student, 81 and 71 students respectively disagreed.

Findings from Figure 4 augments the argument that there are possibly no ghost-writing detection

mechanisms, penalties or policies in most NHEI. If there are, then they are lacking in implementation.

Indeed, if there is a great failure in detecting the students as highlighted in Figure 3, then, it will be

inappropriate to penalise anyone. If also those that were detected are rarely penalised then the act will

be rife. The percentage of students that engaged in ghost-writing and were not penalised is over 50%.

10. Discussion

A significant finding from this study was the knowledge that majority of the students interviewed

understood the potential implications of contract cheating and ghostwriting to the individual/student,

the institution and the society. Specifically, their understanding of the institutional implications was

consistent with the opinion of Barbour (2010) who submitted that these practices have the potential of

threatening the credibility of medical knowledge and medical journals. It was encouraging that the

students perceived contract cheating and ghostwriting as unethical practices. This suggests that these

students could differentiate between ethical and unethical practices. However, this study also revealed

that despite this understanding of these practices as unethical, a great majority (>60%) of the interview

and survey respondents have engaged in ghostwriting and contract cheating. This fact sourced from the

surveys and interviews gives credence to the works of Clarke and Lancaster (2006) and Mammen and

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

566

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Meyiwa (2013) who highlighted the prevalence of the practice in all academic fields.

It is asserted by the findings of this study that despite the students’ perception of these practices as

unethical, their views are distorted by two main factors which appear to have caused them to relegate

their initial perception to the background; these factors are the existence of opportunity and the

student’s ethics of care. These factors reveal the peculiarity of the situation in NHEIs since in different

academic contexts, there will be varied and unique factors at play.

From the reviewed literature the authors that explored the motivating factors behind the practice of

contract cheating and ghostwriting all had different conclusions (Lancaster & Clarke, 2007; Osipian,

2012; Hu & Wu, 2013; Rigby et al., 2015; Zheng & Cheng, 2015). Where Rigby et al. (2015) note that

the fear of achieving lower grades as well as a student’s enrolment in a foreign language speaking

country are major factors that compels students to cheat, Lancaster and Clarke (2007) blame

institutional admission criteria, poor student understanding of plagiarism and poor academic skills

while Hu and Wu (2013) and Osipian (2012) emphasize the monetary value of the practice as the

prevailing influences to engage in these practices. It was also observed that Zheng and Cheng (2015)

criticized students’ obsession with achieving good grades as the prevailing factor. However, in this

research, the authors identified opportunity and the student’s ethics of care as the unique factors which

are specific to NHEI.

With respect to the existence of opportunity, this is caused by the inadequacies of NHEI in formulating

and consistently applying countermeasures to curb ghostwriting and contract cheating. According to

Park (2003), “student perceptions of cheating situations are contingent upon the interplay of multiple

factors such as need, provocation, opportunity and intentionality” (2003, p. 476). Thus, there is a

seeming “opportunity” for these student’s perception of ghostwriting as there appears to be no risk of

being caught. Hence, the opportunity for them to engage in the practice exists because of the

inadequacies of the NHEIs institutional framework for deterrence. These inadequacies are

unfortunately complemented by the natural elusive and problematic nature of the practice as

highlighted in the paper by Walker and Townley (2012).

According to Orim (2014), they are seemingly complex and virtually undetectable which invariably

leads to the continued existence of opportunity. The above observation being made concerning the

relationship between the inadequacies of NHEI in curbing ghostwriting and contract cheating is further

supported by the “rational choice theory” addressed by Akers (1990) and Ogilvie and Stewart (2010).

From this, one can deduce that with the existence of legal punishments and reprimands which would

act as deterrents, individuals would rationally avoid such actions. When deterrents are not formulated

or adopted by the NHEI, the students see an opportunity for maximum gain at extremely minimal risks.

The study by Akers (1990) takes this understanding further as the author notes that a lack of deterrence

not only provides opportunity but it serves a reinforcing factor for the practice. According to the author,

the reward (not getting caught) reinforces the belief that the behaviour cannot be sanctioned.

This understanding is contrary to rhetoric’s which are anchored on the belief that the morality and work

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

567

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

ethic of the student are the greatest motivating factors influencing how students perceive ghostwriting

and contract cheating. Such an opinion is shared by Lancaster and Clarke (2007) who calls attention to

the moral bankruptcy of the student as well as personality factors such as laziness. Several academics

have dubbed it as a sin against originality (Freedman, 1994; Colon, 2001). The paper by Adebayo

(2011) proposes that the morality of the Nigerian student is a factor perpetuating the practice. He states

that despite “extra-judicial” methods devised by universities to punish offenders, cheating in NHEI

abounds, because they have not acted as “strong deterrence”. He further suggests academic cheating is

a criminal offence by law and should be treated as one (deserving jail time) so that the practice can be

managed. While the opinion of Adebayo (2011) could possibly deserve some consideration by some

people, problems can immediately be inferred from suggestion of such stringent measures. The time

and energy that would go into such countermeasures would be immense and the penalty could be

argued as not commensurate with the offense. What occurs then is that, out of their depth, educational

instructors who attempt to address the issue are steered away from their primary duties. Instead as

Walker and Townley (2012) had noted, focus should remain on supporting the “honest students and

good academic practice” (2012, p. 27).

This study further reveals the prevalence of another factor influencing student’s perception of

ghostwriting and contract cheating. That factor is the Nigeria students focus on values such as

friendship. As it was highlighted in the interview findings, one of the motivating factors for students

engaging in ghostwriting is the need to help friends. This was understood in reference to the theory of

ethics of care’ which notes that interpersonal relationships override any moral obligation. Furthermore,

the surveys revealed that Nigerian students are aware of academic cheating among their peers as well

as possibility of punishment and sanctions but are indifferent to this fact. While observers may consider

such a state of affair incredulous (that is, the willingness of a student to help a fellow student despite

possible sanctions), a study of the papers by Held (2005) and Corsetti (2010) presented the opportunity

of such a situation. Importantly, Gilligan (2011) reveals that humans are by nature empathetic beings.

Thus, human interdependence and relationships which are valued more would lead to actions which

areinductive, contextual, and psychological rather than being deductive.

Thus, for the Nigerian student, when all things are considered, the ethics of justice or integrity ranks

second to the ethics of care suggesting that ghostwriting and contracting cheating are trivial issues

when compared to friendships and relationships. It appears that students in NHEI fail to reconcile

friendship and interpersonal relationships with justice and integrity which means they are ready to

condone and even promote these practices because they empathize with those who cheat as they have

an understanding of the pressures involved as a student.

While the understanding of student’s ethics of care in this context functions as an explanation which

illuminates how NHEI student’s perception of ghostwriting and contract cheating is distorted, it also

serves another function. That is, it reveals that ghostwriting in NHEI occurs in varying degrees. The

ethics of care as understood in this context highlights the importance of interpersonal relationships.

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

568

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Consequently, we understand here that students help students. However, this is not the only method

through which students engage in ghostwriting, they also outsource their works to non-students

(ghostwriters) as noted in the survey. The point being made is that in the case of students helping a

fellow student by virtue of interpersonal relationship, the student who assumes the role of a ghostwriter

may contribute little parts or huge aspects to the written paper. In this situation, there are two authors,

although the ghostwriter student will not be recognized. However, the second degree in which

ghostwriting occurs, the student (client) may completely outsource the work to a professional

ghostwriter or service, without making any contribution. This phenomenon of the varying degree

ghostwriting is supported by McCrostie (2009) who also explored this feature of ghostwriting.

11. Conclusion

This study explored the experience and perceptions of Nigerian students who have engage or may not

have engaged in contract cheating or ghostwriting. Their perceptions suggest that these practices are

not serious academic misconducts. This stems from their observation that in a number of Nigerian

universities, staffs and the management are doing little or nothing to curb the practices. In some cases,

it is revealed that some staffs of Nigerian universities even engage in academic misconducts, thus

promoting this perception.

Student suggestions regarding what could be done include: the formulation and adoption of mechanism

and measures which should appeal to the student’s values (such as integrity and to foster a culture of

social responsibility); the need for lecturers to be adept at understanding the students present ability and

thus assist them to achieve what they are incapable of; the eradication of pressure from the students in

the form of academic workloads which drives them to cheat; the eradication of pressure on the students

by the parents which causes them to enroll on courses in which they have no interest; and finally the

use of viva voce where students will defend their papers verbally to confirm authenticity.

Although these measures are useful, not all can be implemented in all NHEIs. The adoption of

mechanisms by the university, the eradication of pressure through reduced workload and

implementation of viva voce are all attainable. However, the suggestion calling for teaching staffs to

focus highly on student ability will be difficult to achieve except in small NHEIs where the staff:

student ratio is high. Suggestions regarding eradication of pressure from the parents are difficult to

achieve because the external pressures in question are beyond institutional control. Where the workload

on the student can be reevaluated, pressure from parents cannot.

Reference

Adebayo, S. O. (2011). Common Cheating Behaviour among Nigerian University Students: A Case

Study of University of Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 114-149.

https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v1n1p144

Agu, N. (2009). Evaluating Students’ Plagiarism in Higher Education Institutions. An International

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

569

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 3(4), 363-371.

Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology: The

Path Not Taken. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(653).

https://doi.org/10.2307/1143850

Barbour, V. (2010). How ghost-writing threatens the credibility of medical knowledge and medical

journals. Haematologica, 95, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2009.017426

Berger, K. S. (2009). The Developing Person through Childhood and Adolescence. New York: Worth

Publishers.

Bretag, T. (2013). Challenges in Addressing Plagiarism in Education. PLoS Med, 10(12), 1-4.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001574

Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing and Presenting

Qualitative Data. British Dental Journal, 204, 429-432. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.292

Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the Successor To Plagiarism? Identifying the Usage of

Contract Cheating Sites. In Proceedings of 2nd Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policy

Conference 2006. Newcastle, UK, June 2006.

Colon, A. (2001). Avoid the pitfalls of plagiarism. Writer, 114(1).

Copes, H. (2003). Societal attachments, offending frequency, and techniques of neutralization. Deviant

Behavior, 2(24), 101-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620390117200

Corsetti, A. C. (2010). Articulating an ethic of care: The moral narratives and practices of working

lone mothers in south wales (Unpublished PhD Thesis). University of Glamorgan.

Culwin, F., & Lancaster, T. (2001). Plagiarism Issues for Higher Education. Vine, 31(2), 36-41.

https://doi.org/10.1108/03055720010804005

Curasi, C. F. (2013). The Relative Influences of Neutralizing Behavior and Subcultural Values on

Academic Dishonesty. Journal of Education for Business, 88(3), 167-175.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.668145

Curtis, G. J., & Clare, J. (2017). How Prevalent is Contract Cheating and to What Extent are Students

Repeat Offenders? Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 115-124.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9278-x

Devlin, M., & Kathleen, G. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian

university students plagiarise. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 181-198.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310805

Exposito, J. A., Ross, D. B., & Matteson, R. (2015). Academic Integrity: Corruption and the Demise of

the Educational System. Fischler College of Education: Faculty Articles, 240, 1-30.

Faloore, O. O. (2016). Towards A More Enduring Prevention of Scholarly Plagiarism among University

Students in Nigeria. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies

, 9(1), 83-97.

Freedman, M. (1994). The persistence of plagiarism, the riddle of originality. Virginia Quarterly

Review, 70(3), 504-518.

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

570

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Gilligan, C. (2011). Ethics of Care. Retrieved from http://ethicsofcare.org/carol-gilligan/

Goldschmidt, J. (2001). In Defense of Ghostwriting. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(3), 1145-1212.

Held, V. (2005). The ethics of care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hu, Z. W., & Wu, Y. S. (2013). An empirical analysis on number and monetary value of ghostwritten

papers in China. Current Science, 105(9), 1230-1234.

Idiegbeyan-ose, J., Nkiko, C., & Osinulu, I. (2016). Awareness and Perception of Plagiarism of

Postgraduate Students in Selected Universities in Ogun State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and

Practice (e-journal), 1322.

Lancaster, T., & Fintan, C. (2006). Preserving academic integrity—Fighting against no originality

agencies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 153-157.

Ligi, M., & Karmen, T. (2014). University Students’ Reasons for Committing Academic Fraud and

Knowledge About Regulations: A Qualitative Interview Study. Education Statistics and Sociology,

1-21.

Lines, L. (2016). Ghostwriters guaranteeing grades? The quality of online ghostwriting services

available to tertiary students in Australia. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-26.

Macatangay, J. (2015). Understanding, Perception and Prevalence of Plagiarism among College

Freshman Students of De La Salle Lipa, Philippines. International Journal of Social Science and

Humanity, 5(8), 672-676. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.538

Mahmood, Z. (2009). Contract Cheating: A New Phenomenon in Cyber-Plagiarism, 93-97.

Mammen, K. J., & Thenjiwe, M. (2013). Perceptions and Concerns on Plagiarism and its Implications

for Teacher Education: A Case Study of a South African University. International Journal of

Education and Science, 5(2), 99-108.

Marcia, D. (2006). Policy, Preparation, and Prevention: Proactive minimization of student plagiarism.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 45-58.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500283791

Marlena, J. (2013). On The Implications Of The Unalienability Of The Right Of Authorship For

Ghostwriting Contracts, 77-92.

McGowan, U. (2005). Plagiarism detection and prevention: Are we putting the cart before the horse?

McLaughlin, E., & Muncie, J. (2006). The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. London: Sage

Publications.

O’Malley, M., & Tim, S. R. (2012). Plagiarism on the rise? Combating contract cheating in science

courses. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 16-24.

Ogilvie, J., & Stewart, A. (2010). The Integration of Rational Choice and Self-Efficacy Theories: A

Situational Analysis of Student Misconduct. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,

43(1), 130-155. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.43.1.130

Onuoha, U. D., & Chinyere, N. I. (2013). Dealing with the Plague of Plagiarism in Nigeria. Journal of

Education and Practice

, 4(11), 102-106.

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

571

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Oribabor, O. A. (2008). Impact of National Universities Commission (NUC) Accreditation Exercise on

University Administrative Structure. African Research Review, 222-235.

https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v2i3.41069

Orim, S-M., Glendinning, I., & Davies, J. (2012). A Phenomenographic Exploration of the perception

of plagiarism: Case Study of Nigerian students in a UK University. Coventry University UK.

Osipian, A. L. (2012). Economics of corruption in doctoral education: The dissertations market.

Economics of Education Review, 31, 76-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.08.011

Park, C. (2003). In Other (People’s) Words: Plagiarism by university students—Literature and lessons.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 472-488

Park, C. (2004). Rebels without a Clause: Towards an institutional framework for dealing with

plagiarism by students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(3), 291-306.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877042000241760

Rigby, D., Michael, B., Kelvin, B., Ian, B., & Abay, M. (2015). Contract cheating & the market in

essays. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 111, 23-37.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.019

Robbins, I. P. (2010). Ghostwriting: Filling in the Gaps of Pro Se Prisoners’ Access to the Courts.

Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 23(2), 271-321.

Roberts, D., & Rabinowitz, W. (1992). An investigation of student perceptions of cheating in academic

situations. Review of Higher Education, 15(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1992.0020

Rothschild, D. (2011). Can Ghost writing Be Considered Plagiarism? Retrieved from

http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/64034/Can-Ghostwriting-Be-Considere

d-Plagiarism#.VMkPr2isVPU>

Singh, S., & Remenyi, D. (2016). Plagiarism and ghostwriting: The rise in academic misconduct. South

African Journal of Science, 112(5/6), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150300

Sivasubramaniam, S., Kalliopi, K., & Sharavan, R. (2016). A close encounter with ghost-writers: An

initial exploration study on background, strategies and attitudes of independent essay providers.

International Journal for Educational Integrity, 12(1), 1-14.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0007-9

Sivasubramaniam, S., Kostelidou, K., & Ramachandran, S. (2016). A close encounter with

ghost-writers: An initial exploration study on background, strategies and attitudes of independent

essay providers. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 12(1), 1-14.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0007-9

Sykes, G., & David, M. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency. American

Sociological Review, 22, 664-670. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089195

Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralisation: A theory of delinquency. American

Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089195

Taylor-Powell, E., & Marcus, R. (2003). Analyzing Qualitative Data. Wisconsin: Cooperative

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjer World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 4, No. 4, 2017

572

Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Extension Publishing Operations.

Thomas, L., & Robert, C. (2007). Assessing Contract Cheating Through Auction Sites—A Computing

Perspective. Higher Education Academy.

Thomas, L., & Robert, C. (2014). Using Turnitin as a tool for attribution in cases of contract cheating.

The Higher Education Academy.

Tomar, D. A. (2016). Detecting and Deterring Ghostwritten Papers: A Guide to Best Practices.

Retrieved from

http://www.thebestschools.org/resources/detecting-deterring-ghostwritten-papers-best-practices/

Turuk, M. C. (2008). The Relevance and Implications of Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory In The

Second Language Classroom. ARECLS, 5, 244-262.

Ubaka, C., Fajemirokun, G., Nduka, S., & Ezenwanne, N. (2013). Academic dishonesty among Nigeria

pharmacy students: A comparison with United Kingdom. African Journal of Pharmacy and

Pharmacology, 7(27), 1934-1941. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJPP2013.3587

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. New York: Plenum

Press.

Walker, M., & Townley, C. (2012). Contract cheating: A new challenge for academic honesty?

Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(1), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9150-y

Weber-Wulff, D. (2014). False feathers: A perspective on academic plagiarism. Berlin, Germany:

Springer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39961-9

Woods, M. (2011). Interviewing for Research and Analysing Qualitative Data: An Overview.

Palmerston North: Massey Univeristy.

Zheng, S., & Jie, C. (2015). Academic Ghostwriting and International Students. Young Scholars in

Writing, 12, 124-133.