FEBRUARY24_UNIKUM_WEB

inspection pre-submission:
‘[t]he problem, however, was, that upon close reading and
checking sources (for the purpose of comprehensive and
detailed evaluation), I noticed that the majority of the paper
was more or less “word-for-word” copied from the sources you
list. If you do so, you would have needed to put all that copied
material in quotation marks (to indicate that it is NOT your idea/
writing) AND indicate the actual page number of the source.
To be fair, you did list the page number for your sources, but
you do not indicate anywhere that the sentences are copied
more or less verbatim. Consequently, and unfortunately so,
this would amount to plagiarism, even if unintentional.’
In his ‘Written Explanation to the Appeals Committee’ document,
Duncan notes that he was:
‘blindsided by this email, especially considering that
Professor Schortgen’s “initial read-over” (in his words) [as]
advertised by him in class, in office hours, and through the
use of a video referencing professorial review as suitable to
identify areas of concern in citation did have notes relative
to sources, showed considerable thought to the point of
recommending various inputs for sub-sections, as well as
highlighting reference material to be supplemented or altered,
without identifying or highlighting the area of concern that
he states in the [email] and was determined by whichever
software used by UIA to check citations of assignments.’
While he referenced each source via in-text citation in advance
of the direct quotation, he didn’t bracket those excerpts with
quotation marks, causing the submission scanning programme on
Inspera to flag them as plagiarism. As such, his academic essay
‘Taiwan as an Investment Opportunity’ failed due to the absence
of 44 characters, a completely avoidable error had this been
highlighted earlier, during the professorial review (now an ‘initial
read-over’), from kildekompasset or a Library Digital Guidance
Booking had Duncan been prompted to access them upon request
for help with citation checking. He wasn’t. And nobody knows
why.
Although Duncan doesn’t dispute his mistake, UiA committed
further unforced errors in communication while handling his case
during the appeals process. At the end of March last year, Duncan
was informed by his case advisor Julie Engebakken Arnesen
via email that he could access a lawyer, whose costs would be
borne by the university, and speak to the student ombudsman.
Unfortunately, Arneson provided Duncan with the contact details
for the student ombudsperson in Kristiansand, apparently
unaware that this position hadn’t been filled and had instead
been placed under the jurisdiction of the one at the University of
Stavanger (UiS).
Assisting Duncan in his case, Maiken Køien Andersen, President of
the Student Organisation of Agder (STA), told Duncan she would
contact the student ombudsperson (which STA were aware was
now in Stavanger, but not Duncan) when asked by him in mid-
Jason Duncan volunteered as an Active Member and
Buddy in the Erasmus Student Network (ESN)
April, however, due to a clerical error, the email was drafted but
never sent. Two days before his hearing in front of the Appeals
Committee in late May, STA located Maren Anne Kvaløy, the
student ombudswoman at UiS, who was also helping to cover the
open position at UiA. Duncan emailed Kvaløy that day to which
she responded the day following to suggest two possible lawyers,
both of whom Duncan reached out to. Later the same day, Håkon
Noraas of Advokathuset Stavanger confirmed assistance, but due
to the immediacy of his case, his associate, Hege Veland, would
support Duncan instead. A request to delay the hearing was denied
by UiA.
Since verbal presentations by students before the Appeals
Committee are limited to 15 minutes, Duncan delivered his
overview of preceding events in English while Veland provided
a statement of the case from a legal perspective in Norwegian.
Asked by the Committee why there was such a delay between his
online meeting with Arneson late March, where the services of a
lawyer were suggested as an option, and his decision to contact
one mid-May, Duncan pointed out that this step is usually taken
after a discussion with the student ombudsperson, whom, by mid-
May, he still couldn’t source. One of the case managers on the
Committee posited that since the possibility of legal support was
offered, the student should automatically recognise this to reflect
the severity of the situation and contact a lawyer immediately. No
further questions were asked.
FEBRUAR 2024 UNIKUM NR 2 27