Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29

Plagiarism in the Japanese universities: Truly a cultural matter?

Greg Wheeler *
Sapporo Medical University, Minami 1, Nishi 17, Chou-ku, Sapporo 060-8556, Japan

Abstract
Although plagiarism is considered among western academic circles as one of the worst ‘‘crimes’’ a student can commit, many
scholars suggest that these attitudes do not apply to students from areas outside this sphere. They believe that in many countries,
plagiarism is considered culturally acceptable. As such, ESL or EFL instructors in charge of students from these places must be
sensitive to their backgrounds. Japan is often believed to be one of these countries in which plagiarism is not considered a moral
transgression. In order to test this theory, a survey was conducted in the fall of 2006 among several classes of first-year students at
Hokkaido University, considered a prestigious university in northern Japan. Results of this survey suggest that Japanese students do
not accept plagiarism as readily as has often been suggested.1 Although this essay does not suggest that Japanese students never
copy without citing sources, it aims to offer the conclusion that it is a lack of understanding of the act, rather than cultural values, that
is the root cause of plagiarism committed by students.
# 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Plagiarism; Culture; Japan; Patchwriting

Background

Plagiarism, and manners in which to deal with this perceived form of academic dishonesty, has long been a topic in
Western academia. There are few transgressions a student can commit during his or her academic career that are
viewed with more disdain than plagiarism. As such, students in the West are familiarized with the subject during the
formative years of their schooling, often as early as in elementary school. By the time they enter university, they are
mostly familiar with what constitutes plagiarism, and almost certainly aware of the punishments they can face if
caught attempting to pass on the labors of other authors as their own. This, of course, is not to suggest plagiarism rarely
occurs; it remains a thorn in the side of educators, especially with students becoming ever craftier in their means of
disguising such. Nevertheless, it may be safe to assume that university students unfamiliar with prevailing negative
attitudes toward plagiarism are few and far between.
There is some debate, however, about attitudes towards plagiarism among students raised outside the Western
sphere. This has been the discussed in numerous works since the mid-1990s (Angèlil-Carter, 2000; Bloch, 2001;
Deckert, 1993; Pennycook, 1996; Scollon, 1995, to name just a few). Many scholars believe that those teaching

* Tel.: +81 11 775 0883.

E-mail address: wheeler@siren.ocn.ne.jp.
1
Results from a pilot experiment were first published in Wheeler (2006), using data gathered from the spring of 2006. However, the manner in
which this study was conducted was problematic and conclusions from the data are open to question, especially due to a lack of statistical analysis.
Concerning the latter point, the author wishes to extend his deep gratitude to Professors Patricia Vermillion and Shinobu Suzuki for their invaluable
assistance regarding the use and interpretation of statistical testing.

1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.004
18 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29

English to non-native speakers must be aware of the cultural difference of these students, and argue that for them,
plagiarism does not necessarily carry the same negative connotations (Bloch, 2001; Dryden, 1999; Scollon, 1995).
Taking a contrary view to this position, some (Bailey, 2002; Baumann, 1996; Buranen, 1999) argue against such
attitudes, fearing that they may be based on superficial—and often mistaken—understandings of the culture in
question. Baumann (1996) notes that foreign students, particularly those from Asia, seem to have their every action
‘‘interpreted with stunning regularity as a consequence of their ‘Asianness’, their ‘ethnic identity’, or the ‘culture’ or
their ‘community’’’ (p. 1). Buranen (1999) worries about the possible consequences that may result from so easily
excusing plagiarism as a mere cultural difference. In doing so, she writes, ‘‘the effect is often condescending or
patronizing, revealing an arrogance that says in essence, ‘Your culture is simple and transparent enough to be
contained in a few pat phrases’’’ (p. 73).
One problem, of course, with such a debate, is defining what one means when using the word ‘‘culture.’’ If one
were to ask a hundred different people to explain what they meant by ‘‘culture,’’ it is quite possible that he or she
would receive a hundred different answers. However, in much of the debate concerning plagiarism in different
countries, authors seem to be following a very simplistic definition of culture, similar to that described by Jary and
Jary (1991), who write that ‘‘culture may be taken as constituting the way of life for an entire society, and this will
include codes of manner, dress, language, rituals, norms of behavior, and systems of belief’’ (p. 101). Although
that is admittedly a broad definition of culture, for purposes of this study, I will follow this basic description as
well.
At present, there is little published research on the issue in regards to Japan. Those who have commented on the
subject (Day, 2001; Dryden, 1999; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2005) conclude that students in Japanese higher education
tend to have a more forgiving approach to plagiarism than those in Western universities. Rinnert and Kobayashi (2005)
conducted a study comparing attitudes toward plagiarism and citation techniques between American and Japanese
university students. From the results of two questionnaires administered to students in the United States and Japan (the
questionnaires were in English for the Americans students, and were provided to the Japanese students in their native
language as well), they suggest that compared with their American counterparts, Japanese students are more likely to
struggle with correct citation procedures, and do not necessarily feel that acknowledging their sources is always
necessary or important. The authors cite, for example, the responses to one of the questions, which asked for students
to express their opinions of plagiarism. Fifty-six percent of the Japanese students who responded exhibited tolerance of
the practice; in contrast, only 5% of the American students showed any kind of conditional acceptance. Additionally,
66.2% of the American students considered crediting sources very important, as opposed to only 12.2% of the
Japanese students who felt this way.
The authors qualify their results by disclosing that the sample size of Japanese students participating in both
questionnaires (first questionnaire: N = 336, second: N = 269) was significantly larger than the American contingent
(N = 76, N = 110). Additionally, 69% of the American students said they had received formal writing training at the
university level, as opposed to only 39% of the Japanese students. Also problematic were the terms used to denote
‘‘plagiarism’’ in the English and Japanese versions of the questionnaires. For the English version, submitted to the
American students, the authors used the term ‘‘plagiarism.’’ The term used for the Japanese version was ‘‘ukeuri.’’
Defined loosely by the authors as ‘‘second-hand account’’ or ‘‘echo of someone else’s words,’’ it conveys a far less
harsh connotation than ‘‘plagiarism.’’ The authors explain their decision as follows:
It is important to note that the terms ‘‘ukeuri’’ and ‘‘plagiarism’’ are not exact translation equivalents in the two
languages, in that the former has fewer negative connotations than the latter. However, we hesitated to use the
technical Japanese terms ‘‘hyousetsu’’ ( ) or ‘‘tousaku’’ ( ), similar terms that both carry strongly negative
connotations, including legal ramifications, and are generally not used or understood by our students (Rinnert &
Kobayashi, 2005, pp. 35–36).
They note, however, that using these terms ‘‘could have skewed the results of the cross-cultural comparison, even
though they were defined exactly the same way in the two languages’’ (p. 36).
Despite the mitigating factors, the authors present a convincing case that plagiarism is not regarded as negatively in
Japan as it is in countries such as the United States. They offer several possible explanations for this. Among them,
they note that Japanese students have little formal writing training in high school, and thus lack the necessary
experience to incorporate the ideas of others into their own projects. The authors add that this is not necessarily
remedied once students enter university. Additionally, they believe the fact that most Japanese universities do not have
 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29 19

official policies concerning plagiarism must be factored into the students’ seemingly tolerant attitudes towards the
practice.
Whereas Rinnert and Kobayashi factor Japanese acceptance of plagiarism as due to students’ lack of formal
training, Dryden (1999) and Day (2001) emphasize perceived cultural differences as the key factor. Dryden, who
at the time of his publication was teaching in a Japanese university, insists that plagiarism in Japan is not
considered a moral transgression, and that ‘‘teachers who try to observe such Western conventions as the authorial
ownership of words and ideas find themselves at odds with an academic culture that does not value those
conventions very highly’’ (p. 79). Rather than plagiarism, Dryden writes, cheating on exams is ‘‘the cardinal sin’’
in a Japanese university (p. 78).2 He believes that there exists in Japan a hierarchy system in which subordinates
must defer to their superiors. As such, copying is not just acceptable, but almost mandatory, especially at the
graduate level (p. 80). Day (2001) echoes this sentiment, writing that in Japanese society, originality is not of
great importance, and that ‘‘it is more important to share the ideas than it is to spend extra time painstakingly
documenting the source of every idea or phrase.’’
It is interesting that Dryden (1999) reaches his conclusions despite contradictory results from a survey on
plagiarism he conducted with nearly 200 undergraduate students at his university. He writes that the most frequent
comments from students expressed disapproval of copying sources without proper citation. He dismisses these results,
however, stating, ‘‘The responses were often so similar that I wondered whether the students were simply writing what
they thought they were somehow ‘expected’ to say’’ (p. 76). He considers more valid the comments he received from a
series of surveys and interviews with both Japanese and native-English-speaking professors who opined that
plagiarism was not considered a major issue in Japan.
Both Dryden (1999) and Day (2001) make reference to the views of Japanese psychiatrist Takeo Doi (1973), who
stresses the notion that Japanese society hinges on a group identity and differs significantly from the Western ideal of
individual privacy. Dryden refers to the group dynamics of uchi (‘‘inside’’) and soto (‘‘outside’’), and notes that
‘‘Takeo Doi, the renowned Japanese psychiatrist and social commentator explains that uchi refers mainly ‘to the group
to which the individual belongs, and that an individual’s privacy is secondary’’’ (p. 81). Drawing on this idea that the
group is all powerful, Dryden concludes that in Japanese thought, ‘‘how can there be plagiarism when one’s work is
never done completely independently and when ideas effectively belong to everyone and no one?’’ (p. 81). Similarly,
Day mentions the common notion of the Japanese as placing value in the group: ‘‘[This] tendency, described in detail
by Doi Takeo in The Anatomy of Dependence, suggests that an average Japanese never thinks as an isolated individual;
knowledge, thoughts, actions and behaviors are all socially constructed by the group. Knowledge is shared willingly
by all for the common good.’’
It should be noted that Doi has his fair share of critics, his theories often criticized as far too simplistic. Bailey
(2002) writes that Doi, ‘‘reduce[s] the complexities of Japanese culture to one main framework...that stresses the
importance of groupism’’ (p. 174) Others (see especially Dale, 1986) consider Doi’s views as little more than
promulgation of nihonjinron, roughly described as theories as to how Japan is unique from the rest of the world.
Certainly, plagiarism is not a forefront issue in Japanese universities. It is, for example, the rare university in Japan
that offers any sort of official guidelines on the topic. Additionally, as Dryden correctly points out (1999, p. 78),
universities regularly lift reading passages for their entrance exams from Western sources, without attribution to the
authors. In regard to that point, Japanese copyright law somewhat vaguely states that reproducing published works for
the entrance exams is permitted, as long as doing so does not infringe upon the author benefits. Moreover, as noted by
Rinnert and Kobayashi (2005), many university students are unfamiliar with the term hyousetsu, one of the official
Japanese words for ‘‘plagiarism.’’ More commonly used denominations are tousaku (‘‘stealing work/composition’’),3
inyou (literally ‘‘quotation’’) and pakuri (slang, meaning ‘‘to steal or copy ideas’’).
If the Japanese university at which I teach is any indication, there is certainly enough anecdotal evidence to suggest
plagiarism occurs on a regular basis in Japanese higher education. Colleagues are continuously discovering instances

2
Interestingly, a survey conducted by Diekhoff, Labeff, Shinohara, and Yasukawa (1999) suggests that Japanese university students are more
likely to cheat on exams than American students. This is somewhat surprising, because although exam results are of extreme importance to many
Japanese students up through high school, once the students enter university, they take on a far less important role. In general, the name of the
university the students attend has more value concerning their future endeavors than said students’ grade point averages.
3
Despite Rinnert and Kobayashi’s assertion that students were unfamiliar with this term, I found in a written survey (to be discussed later in the
essay) that students employed ‘tousaku’ more often than any other word in reference to plagiarism.
20 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29

Table 1
TOEFL results for students in departments participating in plagiarism survey.
Department N Minimum score (320) Maximum score (660) x SD
Agriculture 223 377 583 474.73 33.07
Economics 199 343 523 456.74 26.59
Pharmacy 82 397 613 479.57 36.12
Science 308 350 613 452.92 32.04
Veterinary Medicine 44 427 660 509.52 41.72
(N = number, x = mean, SD = standard deviation).

Table 2
TOEFL results for all first-year students.
N Minimum score (320) Maximum score (660) x SD
Total 2583 327 660 462.2 35.7
(N = number, x = mean, SD = standard deviation).

in which written work submitted to them by their students has clearly borrowed from other sources with little to no
citation. The question that poses itself is whether the immediate impulse to label these students as dishonest is out of
place. Is plagiarism really morally acceptable and even expected in Japanese universities? If so, should Western
academics teaching in said universities be more tolerant of the practice? The purpose of this study is to explore
attitudes students at Hokkaido University hold concerning plagiarism. To do so, I examine student reactions to both a
clear example of a plagiarized paragraph, and one that engaged in more subtle plagiarism.

Survey methodology

During their first semester, all students participated in an online general-requirement English course (titled
‘‘English II’’). Towards the conclusion of this course, in order to determine their placement in future English courses,
students were required to sit for a TOEFL exam. Table 1 shows the results of the departments whose students
participated in the plagiarism survey, and Table 2 shows overall totals of the first year students. With the possible
exception of those students from veterinary medicine, there was no glaringly apparent differences in TOEFL mean
scores between students from the different departments who participated in the survey. Moreover, scores from these
participants were similar to the overall total mean.
The survey was conducted during the second semester of the 2006–07 academic year. Data was collected from
seventy-seven first-year undergraduate Hokkaido University students, who were enrolled in general-requirement
English composition classes (the course titled ‘‘English III’’). Twenty-nine students were majoring in the field of
science or pharmacy, twenty-five studied economics, and the remaining twenty-three were agriculture or veterinary
medicine majors.4
Four separate classes participated in the survey, which was conducted within the first three lessons of the course.
Two of the classes wrote the survey during the first lesson, one during the second lesson, and another in the third class.
In order to not contaminate the survey, none of the professors who distributed the surveys mentioned plagiarism
beforehand.
During the survey, held during one 90-minute class, the students read three paragraphs.5 The topic for all three was
the manner in which Christmas differed in the United States and Japan. Students were informed that the first paragraph
(Appendix A) had been submitted as a homework assignment, in which students were to write in their opinions how

4
At Hokkaido University, general-requirement courses are divided according to department. In other words, classes will usually be made up
entirely of students studying the same field. However, there are some exceptions to this. For example, although pharmacy and science are different
departments, students from these fields attend several courses together. The same applies to those in the fields of agriculture and veterinary medicine.
5
In somewhat different form, these paragraphs were taken from Wheeler (2005).
 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29 21

they felt Christmas was different in the two countries, by a (fictional) student given the pseudonym Kintaro Takahashi.
After reading the paragraph, students were asked to assign it a score from one to ten points (one point being the lowest
possible score), based on their beliefs of the accuracy of the contents, as well as writing style. Most professors at
Hokkaido University follow a standard 90–80–70–60 grading scale. As such, a score of nine or ten points would be
considered excellent, eight points very good, seven good/average, six a low pass, and anything under six would be
considered a failing grade. Students were also requested to explain the reasoning behind their scores.
Next, students read the second paragraph (Appendix B), made to appear as if it had been published previously in an
academic journal. The author of this paragraph was given the name ‘‘John Smith,’’ and the piece was dated
approximately four years before Takahashi submitted his assignment. This paragraph, with minor alterations, was
practically identical to Takahashi’s work, both in content and wording. After students read Smith’s paragraph, they
were asked to re-evaluate and score what Takahashi had written.
The final paragraph (Appendix C) was another ‘‘student’’ offering, submitted by Makoto Watanabe. Similar to
Takahashi’s piece, the content was the same as that in the Smith composition. Additionally, the main points were
presented in a similar chronological order. However, unlike Takahashi, Watanabe used different vocabulary to express
his points. After reading, students evaluated and scored this paragraph, again on the ten-point scale.
In order to minimize potential confusion, the three paragraphs were kept short, ranging from 155 words
(Watanabe) to 224 (Smith). As much as possible, simple vocabulary with which most students would already be
familiar was utilized. Toward this end, an online vocabulary list created by the faculty of English at Hokkaido
University was consulted. This list charts vocabulary according to when a student is likely to encounter it during the
course of his or her academic career. The majority of the vocabulary in the three paragraphs was categorized as high-
school level. Additionally, students were permitted to use dictionaries if they encountered unfamiliar vocabulary.
Students were allotted as much time as they needed to complete the tasks. Overall, all the students were able to finish
within one hour.
Written instructions were in both Japanese and English. Moreover, students could choose between Japanese or
English when writing their evaluations. Although a few chose to write their responses in English, the majority opted to
use their native language in their comments.
In order to avoid potentially predisposing students to view Takahashi unfavorably even before they re-evaluated his
work, there was no mention of plagiarism to the students until after they had finished the three evaluations. On a similar
note, there was no discussion in the classroom until after the survey was completed, and the evaluations were
submitted to the professor. In order to ensure that students did not change their scores and evaluations due to the
influence of others, students were requested not to talk to their classmates during the course of the survey. All questions
were directed to the professor.
To examine first whether the respondents scored the three paragraphs differently, three separate paired t-tests were
performed, with the respondents’ scores as the dependent variable and paragraph as the independent variable.
Specifically, the t-test compared the responses for (1) Paragraph 1 versus Paragraph 2, (2) Paragraph 2 versus
Paragraph 3, and (3) Paragraph 1 versus Paragraph 3. The results were highly significant for each test (p < 0.000). The
scores received for Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 had a mean difference of 3.711 (t = 9.656, SD 3.350); the mean
difference between Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3 was 1.566 (t = 4.434, SD 3.078), and for Paragraph 1 and
Paragraph 3, the mean difference was 2.169 (t = 8.012, SD 2.375).
To test whether the in-between variables (students’ sex and department) had any effect on the data, six separate
analyses of variance were performed on the paired paragraphs (i.e. Paragraph 1 vs. Paragraph 2; 2 vs. 3, and 1 vs. 3),
with students’ sex (two levels: male and female) and department (three levels: science/pharmacy, economics, and
agriculture/veterinary medicine) as the in-between variables. There were no significant differences found for sex,
illustrating that male and female students responded similarly to the paragraphs. There were also no significant
differences found for the different departments in which the students were enrolled.

Results

Initial evaluation

Table 3 indicates the breakdown of initial scores for the Takahashi paragraph, classified by sex, department, as well
as overall totals.
22 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29

Table 3
Distribution of initial scores for Takahashi paragraph.
N x SD
Sex
Male 46 7.43 1.500
Female 31 7.06 1.750
Department
Science/Pharmacy 29 8.14 1.302
Economics 25 7.16 1.546
Agriculture/Veterinary Medicine 23 6.35 1.496
Overall total 77 7.29 1.605
(N = number, x = mean, SD = standard deviation).

Irrespective of sex or department, the majority of the students regarded Takahashi’s work favorably. Seventeen
students (22% of the respondents) felt the paragraph was deserving of the highest grade, awarding it with scores of nine
or ten points.
Students were generally positive in their evaluations, satisfied that the paragraph fulfilled the requirements expected
of the homework assignment. ‘‘I have no complaints with the composition. There were examples, and it was easy to
read,’’ wrote one, explaining the reasons behind giving Takahashi full marks.6 Another wrote, ‘‘That is interesting
because it explains how Christmas is different in Japan and the United States. And it is easy to understand that.’’
Echoing these sentiments, and summing up the prevailing positive opinions of the piece, another student opined,
‘‘There weren’t any bad points in particular, and it was easy to read. [Takahashi] was clear in what he wanted to
convey.’’
The lowest score Takahashi received was four points (from five students). In total, twelve respondents gave the
paragraph a score that would be considered a failing grade. Among these students, several expressed their belief that
Takahashi should have gone into greater details concerning the differences between the two countries. Others noted the
omission of religious differences between Japanese and Americans among the examples provided: ‘‘I wish he could
have explained more about why Japanese, who are Buddhist, celebrate Christmas anyway.’’ Several contested the
claims Takahashi made, deploring what they felt were overgeneralizations: ‘‘In Japan, many people stay with their
family [as in the United States]. So, in this point, there are no difference[s] between America and Japan.’’ The greatest
number of complaints from students concerned the format of the composition. Several were critical of the work for
being a single paragraph. They felt each point should have been divided into a separate paragraph, their views summed
up by the sentiments of one student who wrote, ‘‘It is difficult to read without indented paragraphs.’’ Despite these
criticisms, however, the overall student sentiment was that Takahashi had submitted a fair to excellent paragraph.

Re-evaluation

Initially positive concerning Takahashi’s work, such sentiments all but dissipated after the students read the
‘‘published’’ Smith paragraph. Table 4 shows scores for Takahashi dropping substantially among all categories of
students when they did their re-evaluations.
Out of the respondents, 34, or approximately 44%, gave Takahashi the lowest score possible (of those, eight
students evidently believed that even one point was too generous, choosing to assign a score of zero). Among these
students, three had originally given full marks, and five others had felt the original paragraph was deserving of nine
points. A total of 59 students lowered their original scores, while twelve made no changes. Five students raised their
scores.
In their re-evaluations, students expressed disapproval at what they believed was Takahashi’s almost total disregard
toward academic honesty. A sampling of their comments illuminates this clearly.

6
Most student comments transcribed in this essay are translations from the original Japanese. For comments that students wrote in English, I have
taken the liberty of correcting minor spelling and grammar errors.
 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29 23

Table 4
Distribution of re-evaluated scores for Takahashi paragraph.
N x SD
Sex
Male 45 4.04 3.191
Female 31 2.90 3.037
Department 28 4.89 3.489
Science/Pharmacy 25 2.72 2.821
Economics 23 2.91 2.627
Agriculture/Veterinary Medicine 76 3.58 3.159
Overall total 76 3.58 3.159
(N = number, x = mean, SD = standard deviation).

 He changed a few words and expressions, but he almost completely copied [the Smith piece]. (original score: 8, re-
evaluated score: 1)
 That is almost the same as a published article. He should write by himself. (10, 1)
 He didn’t do his homework by himself. He wrote the same paragraph as a journal written by John Smith. (7, 1)
 He copied a public journal article for his assignment. (10, 1)
 This article is plagiarism. (8, 1)
 He doesn’t think by himself. He just changed words of the article. (5, 0)
 No matter how I look at it, I can’t think this is anything but a copy. Moreover, because it’s a complete copy, I think
this crime is serious. (9, 1)
 He rearranged a few synonyms and changed a few expressions, so it is not completely the same, but since I think it’s
unmistakably plagiarism, he gets the lowest score. (8, 1)
 In that it is almost completely the same, I do not want to evaluate it. One cannot plagiarize. It is a crime. (4, 1 or 0—
the student wrote both)

In total, 45 students wrote comments pointedly criticizing Takahashi’s transgression.

Moreover, comments taken from those who did not change their scores, or assigned higher marks, indicate possible
confusion on the part of at least one student. Despite the Japanese instructions, rather than re-evaluating Takahashi, the
student in question appeared to have instead assigned marks to the Smith paragraph. In his evaluation, he wrote ‘‘There
are sections in this [Smith’s] paragraph in which the nuance somehow seems different from the university student’s
paragraph, and I think this paragraph [italics added] is more appropriate.’’ Although it cannot be claimed with
certainty that he had graded Smith’s paragraph, it is certainly a definite possibility.
Other students seemingly did not recognize similarities between the two paragraphs. One, who assigned a score of
ten points both initially and in his re-evaluation wrote, ‘‘I understand that the two paragraphs are different, but I cannot
see any mistakes [in Takahashi’s paragraph].’’
Only two students wrote comments that could possibly be construed as approval of Takahashi’s actions. One,
maintaining the original score of ten points in her re-evaluation, wrote, ‘‘I thought it was amazing how similar the
paragraphs were.’’ The other, raising his initial score from seven points to nine, commented somewhat vaguely, ‘‘The
first paragraph looked like a published journal at most.’’

The final paragraph

Table 5 shows scores for the third and final paragraph (submitted by Watanabe) ranging somewhere between the
two scores for Takahashi.
Although the mean was higher than that of Takahashi’s re-evaluated paragraph, with the exception of students from the
science and pharmacy departments, Watanabe’s mean score by department was still a failing grade. In total, 45 students
deemed the paragraph not worthy of a passing grade, including eight respondents assigning it the minimum score.
Similarities between the Watanabe and Takahashi/Smith compositions were not lost upon the students and 49
students commented on such. The following is a sampling of the comments from several of these students, with all
three of their scores in parentheses:
24 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29

Table 5
Distribution of scores for Watanabe paragraph.
N x SD
Sex
Male 46 5.63 2.542
Female 31 4.35 2.602
Department
Science/Pharmacy 29 6.07 2.520
Economics 25 5.00 2.784
Agriculture/Veterinary Medicine 23 4.04 2.205
Overall total 77 5.12 2.626
(N = number, x = mean, SD = standard deviation).

 He says the same things as John Smith, using different words. (original score:9, re-evaluation: 1, score for Watanabe: 2)
 This paragraph says the same things as the journal article, but it is not a copy. (10, 1, 8)
 He referred to a published journal article, but [wrote] the paragraph with his own words. (10, 1, 10)
 He wrote this essay in his own style. (8, 1, 5)
 Makoto had read John’s essay before he wrote, but he wrote in his own words. (6, 1, 8)
 I feel the content is the same as Smith’s, but it is good that he expressed himself with his own words and expressions.
It is very easy to understand the content. (5, 1, 3)
 He changed the structure, but the ideas are exactly the same. (8, 0, 2)
 This is clearly a copy, but he wrote in his own words. (8, 1, 4)

Numerous other comments reflect similar sentiments to the above.

Overall, 35 students who recognized similar aspects gave Watanabe a higher score than they had for the re-
evaluated Takahashi paragraph. However, their scores were lower than their initial marks for Takahashi, given before
they realized he had plagiarized. Among these 35, 25 had given Takahashi a score of one point or zero when re-
evaluating his work. The general student consensus was that although they felt Watanabe had copied from Smith,
because he used his own words and expressions, his misconduct was not as grave an offense as Takahashi’s.
Twelve students scored the paragraph higher than they had in either of their evaluations of the Takahashi
composition, including three students who had given marks of one point or zero to the re-evaluated paragraph. Most
commented positively on the use of simpler vocabulary. Others noted with approval the manner in which they felt
Watanabe had utilized the Smith article. One student, after lowering Takahashi’s score to one point, after initially
giving it seven, felt the Watanabe paragraph was deserving of nine points: ‘‘I think he [Watanabe] used the information
from the journal skillfully, and organized his ideas well.’’
Eight students awarded Watanabe with only one point. Of these, most were of the opinion that merely changing the
vocabulary was insufficient; the paragraph was unacceptable because the ideas remained the same:

 Because he doesn’t think by himself. Even if he changes words totally, this essay is not permitted unless he writes his
opinion.
 He changed John’s paragraph a bit but the content is identical.
 He changed the expressions, but copied the content.
 He altered a few words here and there, but the structure and contents of the composition are exactly the same.
 The expressions are simpler, but in the end it is the same. Plagiarism is a crime!

Discussion: Why do they plagiarize?

The scores and accompanying comments for the re-evaluated Takahashi paragraph seemingly contradict Dryden’s
conclusion that for Japanese students (at least when writing in a second language), ‘‘the tendency to copy freely from
published sources seems only natural’’ (1999, p. 83). Other than the vague statements from two students, there was no
indication in student comments of even a tacit approval of Takahashi’s plagiarism. Rather, students were explicit in
 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29 25

their censure of his actions. Taking into account the scores concerning the re-evaluated composition, as well as the
students’ explanations for these scores, any theory stating plagiarism is perceived differently in Japan due to cultural
differences should, at the very least, be questioned. The Japanese students here interpreted Takahashi’s actions as a
clear academic transgression, and as such condemned it in a manner similar to what one could expect from students in
Western universities.
The manner in which the respondents reacted to the Watanabe paragraph is further indication of their unease with
plagiarism. It is true, of course, that the scores were mostly higher than those from the re-evaluated Takahashi piece.
However, the overall higher mean was not an indication of acceptance; rather, students were differentiating between
levels of dishonesty. It speaks volumes that nearly 60% of the students still assigned a failing grade to Watanabe.
Moreover, even those students who gave Watanabe higher marks were not demonstrating a belief that copying without
attribution was acceptable. Rather, they were betraying a lack of awareness of what constitutes plagiarism. Most of
these students who felt Watanabe’s work was acceptable because of the wording changes had only minutes earlier
censured Takahashi severely for his actions. Lack of knowledge of what constitutes plagiarism, rather than cultural
acceptance, was the key driving force for these students.
The Watanabe paragraph is interesting, because it is the kind of composition that so many Japanese learners of
English submit in class. However, it may behoove instructors not to immediately assume that these students are
plagiarizing outright. If one is to believe the results of the survey presented in this essay, most Japanese are strongly
opposed to that practice.
Pecorari (2003) suggests a possibility other than cultural considerations to explain the reasons second-language
students plagiarize. She writes that they do so not in order to deceive, but because they have not fully developed as
writers. She refers to her study in which learners of English engage in a form of loose plagiarism, known as
patchwriting, which involves ‘‘copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical
structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym-substitutes’’ (Howard, 1993, p. 233). In her study, the work of 17
graduate students at three British universities was studied. All were international students and non-native speakers of
English. When examining their writing samples, it was noted that at some point, all 17 students failed to clearly cite
their source use. However, Pecorari concludes that the students were not engaged in deceptive plagiarism. She notes
that none of the students attempted to hide their sources, and did not hesitate to provide them if requested. Moreover,
several students brought up the issue of plagiarism on their own initiative, showing an awareness of the topic. From
this, she believes ‘‘culture did not emerge from the students’ accounts as a strong explanation for the inappropriate
source use found in this study’’ (p. 337). Pecorari concludes that the students in her survey who failed to cite sources
were not meaning to engage in academic dishonesty, and suggests that given time and practice, ‘‘today’s patchwriter is
tomorrow’s competent academic writer’’ (p. 338).
Watanabe’s paragraph seems to fit the criteria of what constitutes a patchwritten work. Additionally, the Japanese
students from the current study bear striking similarities to those from Pecorari’s (2003) research. Both groups are
cognizant of the idea that plagiarism is wrong, yet express in some manner approval of a text—either one they have
written themselves (Pecorari’s students) or read (the Watanabe paragraph)—that engages in some form of copying.
Cultural differences, at least in the moral sense, play little role here; rather, the students simply lack the experience
needed in order to properly cite sources.

Conclusion

Like nearly all studies, there are limitations to how much we can conclude from these surveys. First, there is the
matter of how much—if any—exposure students had experienced with the concept of plagiarism before taking the
English III course. By its very title, one must recognize that students had likely already participated in English I and
English II classes. As explained earlier, English II is an on-line course, in which students mostly prepare for the
TOEFL. Plagiarism was not a topic covered in this course (although it appears that it will be in the future). English I
is a four-skills course. It is taught by many instructors, including those who work at the university on a part-time
basis. Each instructor is free to make up his or her own class content. Most instructors emphasize speaking
strategies in the course, and it is unlikely that they included plagiarism in their syllabi, but the possibility cannot be
eliminated entirely.
Moreover, it would be interesting to compare how students would evaluate paragraphs with similar contents that
had been written in their native language. Although it may appear odd to students taking an English course—taught by
26 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29

native-English speakers—to be asked to participate in a study done entirely in Japanese, it is a study that could well be
worth pursuing.
Despite the above points, the results suggest that one should be careful about concluding that plagiarism is inherent
in Japanese culture. As noted earlier, Dryden (1999) conducted his own survey, but was skeptical about the results
which indicated student opposition to plagiarism. His reasoning—students were simply responding in a manner they
believed was expected of them—needs to be examined closely. Assuming the survey was conducted anonymously
(unfortunately, the methodology was never explained to the reader), why would the majority of the students provide a
response they did not actually believe? More importantly, if plagiarism is not considered a major issue, as Dryden
asserts, why would they believe they were expected to condemn the practice?
Dryden’s (1999) conclusions are commonly held throughout Japan. Although as mentioned earlier there have been
few published works on plagiarism as it specifically relates to Japan, his explanation seems to be believed by numerous
foreign instructors in the country. I have heard similar theories on many instances from other native English speaking
university instructors. For them, the prevailing view is that plagiarism comes naturally to the Japanese. It is important to
note, however, that in the course of my research I have never heard this from Japanese professors, most of whom express
surprise that their foreign colleagues could hold such views. On a related note, soon after the original draft of this paper
was submitted, it was discovered that a professor from Hokkaido University’s International Media and Communication
department had copied large sections of other authors’ works into several of her own manuscripts without proper citation,
and subsequently submitted them as her own research. The university’s response was to immediately suspend the
professor, and dismiss her soon afterwards. An embarrassing incident for the university, certainly, but its quick response
suggests a belief that plagiarism is considered unacceptable and grounds for severe punishment.
In the end, those that believe concepts of plagiarism are foreign to second language learners, and those who suggest
students understand plagiarism to be wrong, but unwittingly do so anyway, agree on one principal: they both seem to
advocate a certain amount of leniency toward the students. The former argues that it is in essence cultural imperialism
to impose the values of one’s own country onto those of another. The latter believes rebuking the student could stunt his
or her growth as a writer. However, even if both sides believe it is detrimental to condemn almost automatically a
student who plagiarizes, attributing the student’s action to cultural differences is rife with negative potential, albeit
unintentional. It is admirable and in fact necessary that those instructors teaching second-language learners strive to be
accommodating of the cultural values of the students they teach. However, if they are of the belief that a tolerance of
plagiarism is inherent in the students’ culture, they may decide that they have no business infringing upon the students’
beliefs, and spend little to no time explaining how the act should and can be avoided. Unfortunately, considering how
abhorrent the practice is considered by these instructors, it is not beyond belief to imagine that at least some would
consider a culture—in this case Japanese–that supposedly encourages plagiarism odd, or even untrustworthy. That is a
great shame, because these beliefs would be based on assumptions that, at least according to the survey described in
this paper, have little factual basis.

Appendix A. The Takahashi paragraph

The following is a homework assignment written by a university student. The assignment was to write one
paragraph about how Christmas is different in Japan and the United States.

Christmas is different in America and Japan

American and Japanese people recognize Christmas as a special day, but they observe it in different ways. First, in
the United States, Christmas is a family holiday. Most Americans feel it is of the utmost importance to spend the day
with relatives. People in New York do not think twice about traversing across the country to be with their loved ones
 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29 27

living in Los Angeles. On the other hand, in Japan, Christmas Eve is more of a time for romance. Young Japanese
couples mark the day on their calendars with notes reminding them to make reservations at the nicest restaurants in
town. Another difference is the food that is consumed in the countries on Christmas. Turkey and ham are popular foods
for Americans, as are lobster and duck in certain areas. In Japan, chicken is the main food of choice. In particular,
Kentucky Fried Chicken does brisk business at Christmas time. Finally, perhaps because it is viewed as a day to be with
one’s family, students do not go to school on Christmas in the United States, and the majority of companies and other
workplaces shut down business as well. However, for most Japanese people, people have to go to work and school. For
these reasons, although recognized in both countries, the manner in which Christmas is celebrated is different.
Score this paragraph on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)

Explain your score

Appendix B. The Smith paragraph

Read the following extract from a published journal article

Vol. XV, No. 2 Culture and Countries June 2002

Christmas Differences: The United States and Japan

JOHN SMITH
American and Japanese people recognize Christmas as a special day, but they observe it in different ways. First, in
the United States, Christmas is considered a family holiday. Most Americans feel it is of the utmost importance to
spend the day with relatives. Even those living in New York do not think twice about traversing across the country to be
with their loved ones living in Los Angeles. On the other hand, in Japan, Christmas (in particular, Christmas Eve) is
more of a time for romance. Young Japanese couples mark the day on their calendars with notes reminding them to
make reservations at the nicest French or Italian restaurants in town. Another difference is the food that is consumed in
the countries on Christmas. Turkey and ham are popular cuisine for Americans, as are lobster and duck in certain areas.
In Japan, chicken is the main food of choice. In particular, Kentucky Fried Chicken does brisk business at
Christmastime. Finally, perhaps because it is viewed as a day to be with ones’ families, students do not go to school on
Christmas in the United States, and the majority of companies and other workplaces shut down business as well.
However, for most Japanese people, Christmas is a normal school or workday. Thus, although recognized in both
countries, the manner in which Christmas is celebrated differs.

Read the first paragraph again. Score it on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)

Explain your score

28 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29

Appendix C. The Watanabe paragraph

Read the following paragraph

How Christmas is different in Japan and America

American and Japanese people recognize Christmas as a special day, but they observe it in different ways. In
America, people like to spend time with their families. For example, many people will travel thousands of miles so that
they can be with their families. However, in Japan, we think Christmas is a romantic day. Young Japanese couples mark
the day on their calendars with notes reminding them to make reservations at the nicest French or Italian restaurants in
town. Another big difference is the religious significance of Christmas. Many Americans are Christians, so for them
Christmas is considered a very holy day. However, because most Japanese are not Christian, Christmas does not have
much religious importance. Finally, perhaps because it is viewed as a day to be with ones’ families, students do not go
to school on Christmas in the United States, and the majority of companies and other workplaces shut down business as
well. On the other hand, in Japan, everybody has to work or go to school. In fact, many stores take down the Christmas
decorations on Christmas day! In these ways, Christmas in Japan and the United States is different.
Score this paragraph on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)

Explain your score

References

Angèlil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Bailey, A. A. (2002). Moving beyond ‘‘groupism’’ and other cultural myths in Japanese university English classes. Ritsumeikan Journal of Business
Administration, 40(6), 171–185.
Baumann, G. (1996). Contesting culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloch, J. (2001). Plagiarism and the ESL student: From printed to electronic texts. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives
on L2 reading–writing connections (pp. 209–228). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Buranen, L. (1999). But I wasn’t cheating: Plagiarism and cross-cultural mythology. In L. Buranen & A. M. Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on plagiarism
and intellectual property in a postmodern world (pp. 63–74). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dale, P. (1986). The myth of Japanese uniqueness. London: Croom Helm.
Day, M. (2001). A meshing of minds: The future of online research for print and electronic publication. In J. Barber & D. Grigar (Eds.), New worlds,
new words: Exploring pathways for writing about and in electronic environments (pp. 251–277). New Jersey: Hampton Press. Retrieved from
<http://www.engl.niu.edu/mday/meshing.htm>.
Deckert, G. D. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(2), 131–148.
Diekhoff, G. M., Labeff, E. E., Shinohara, K., & Yasukawa, H. (1999). College cheating in Japan and the United States. Research in Higher
Education, 40(3), 343–353.
Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Dryden, L. M. (1999). A distant mirror or through the looking glass? Plagiarism and intellectual property in Japanese education. In L. Buranen & A.
M. Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world (pp. 75–85). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(3), 233–246.
Jary, D., & Jary, J. (1991). HarperCollins dictionary of culture. New York: HarperCollins.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
12(4), 317–345.
 G. Wheeler / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 17–29 29

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230.
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2005). Borrowing words and ideas: Insights from Japanese L1 writers. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1),
31–56.
Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in Society, 24, 1–28.
Wheeler, G. (2005). Assisting student recognition of plagiarism. The Language Teacher, 29(3), 27–28.
Wheeler, G. (2006). A survey of Hokkaido University students’ attitudes toward plagiarism. Media, Language and Culture, 51, 227–242.

The author has lived in Japan for nearly 16 years and has made Sapporo his residence for the past 12 years. He currently teaches English at Sapporo
Medical University.