Plagiarism in the University: The Transition from Ethics to Instrumentalism

Plagiarism in Iran can be interpreted as an overt manifestation of "academic anomie"—a condition in which the mismatch between pure scholarly ideals—such as the production of original knowledge and the creation of novel insights—and existing institutional mechanisms—including quantitative-oriented policies, accumulated bureaucracy, and ever-increasing economic pressures—fosters the formation of deviant behaviors. The dimension of the "academic system," with components such as short-sighted educational policymaking, cumbersome administrative structures, and non-transparent relationships, reflects the decisive impact of institutional structures on the actions of academic agents. In other words, when the university, instead of being an arena for cultivating "cultural capital" and "symbolic capital" within the framework of research ethics, turns into a field for instrumental exchanges and the pursuit of material interests, a fertile ground for the spread of plagiarism is provided.

At the level of "social factors," components such as "an instrumental view of science" and "weakness of laws" indicate that plagiarism is rooted in society's dominant discourse toward knowledge. If science in the public sphere is understood more as a commodity for advancing social status and obtaining economic privileges than as a realm for the search for truth and service to society, it is natural that academic actors also lean toward "academic profiteering" and reducing the symbolic costs of knowledge production. This attitude, alongside the weakness of supervisory and judicial institutions, creates a weakened normative atmosphere in which the boundaries of research ethics are easily breached.

At the individual level, components such as "lack of motivation," "deficiency in research capabilities," and "weak subjective norms" express the internalization of structural conditions by actors. Students and researchers who are placed in a system with an excessive emphasis on quantitative indicators and intense competition, in the absence of sufficient educational support and ethical guidance, may choose plagiarism as an adaptive strategy for survival in the "academic field." This process removes the issue from the realm of mere moral judgment and turns it into a phenomenon arising from "incomplete academic socialization" and a "crisis of giving meaning to scholarly action."

Ultimately, confronting plagiarism requires moving beyond a purely punitive perspective and selecting holistic strategies at the micro, meso, and macro levels. It is necessary for structural reforms within the university institution (including a turn away from suffocating bureaucracy, a shift in evaluation models from quantitative-centered to qualitative-centered approaches, and the institutionalization of research ethics education), the strengthening of laws and social norms supporting scholarly originality, and the individual empowerment of researchers to proceed simultaneously and in alignment. Only by grasping the sociological depth of this phenomenon and understanding its connection to larger structures can one hope that Iran's academic sphere will move toward the production of original, responsible, and more equitable knowledge.