Throughout 2024, the Norwegian higher education sector has grappled with a particularly slippery topic: what constitutes plagiarism, and can an individual plagiarise themselves?
The year began with the resignation of higher education minister Sandra Borch, after she admitted to using passages from other publications without crediting them in her 2014 master’s thesis. Near the year’s end, a student accused of “self-plagiarism” – in a case taken to the Supreme Court by the ministry under Ms Borch – was determined not to have cheated.
“The debate has caused more uncertainty and fear,” said Helene Ingierd, director of Norway’s National Research Ethics Committees (FEK). “But at the same time, of course, it contributes to more awareness of the need to adhere to research ethics norms.”
Much of the current conversation was prompted by the 2022 suspension of a student at the University of Inland Norway, following accusations of self-plagiarism. While sitting an exam at home, the student reused two paragraphs from a previous exam they had failed without citing the past paper, prompting the university to exclude them for two semesters.
After taking their case to court, the Court of Appeal ultimately ruled in the student’s favour. The education ministry subsequently appealed the case in the Supreme Court, with Ms Borch citing a need to “clarify important legal issues”. It was this decision that inspired a finance student, Kristoffer Rytterager, to examine Ms Borch’s own thesis, eventually leading to her resignation in January.
Similar accusations emerged that month concerning the then health minister Ingvild Kjerkol’s master’s thesis; after Nord University revoked her degree, she was dismissed from her position by prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre.
Last month, the Supreme Court concluded that the INN student’s “covert reuse” of their own work, because it was taken from a failed exam, had not enabled them to “achieve double credit for the same course content”. Thus, the reuse should not be considered cheating, and the suspension was ruled invalid.
The current research and higher education minister, Oddmund Hoel, told national broadcaster NRK: “For the state, it was important to get the fundamental questions clarified by the Supreme Court, and we have now got that.”
Dr Ingierd described the term “self-plagiarism” as “really misleading”, telling Times Higher Education: “The core meaning of plagiarism is stealing. But you cannot really steal from yourself, so the concept of self-plagiarism is meaningless.”
Sigbjørn Løes, a professor at the Arctic University of Norway (UiT), told THE: “I think the whole idea of ‘self-plagiarism’ is rather stupid, with one or two exceptions,” among them attempts to receive double credit or the uncredited replication of text in multiple publications.
“But that someone has the same ideas or views over time is nothing but natural,” he said. “In unpublished texts, like exams, I cannot see the big problem.”
While the cases against the former ministers, Ms Borch and Ms Kjerkol, centred on textual similarities between their theses and previous publications, both Dr Ingierd and Professor Løes cautioned against defining plagiarism so narrowly. “It’s not only a matter of text similarities, but also about the quality of the text,” Dr Ingierd said.
“There have been a lot of cases with questions of text similarities or bad citation practice, but these cases do not necessarily constitute plagiarism,” she continued. “So it’s important to clarify the threshold.”
“I think students should be very much aware of the pitfalls in this landscape, and proper citation culture must be indoctrinated early,” Professor Løes added. “On the other hand, teachers must understand that any similarity in a text doesn’t necessarily mean plagiarism, and far less scientific fraud.”
