The case in summary: Health Minister Kjerkol is accused of having plagiarized parts of his master’s thesis. Professor Asbjørn Røiseland, who has been quoted without correct reference in Kjerkol’s thesis, believes that this is a matter of “academic immaturity”. Asbjørn Røiseland believes Nord University is put in an almost impossible situation. Responsible editor in Khrono, Tove Lie, believes the matter may take months to clarify. Lie points out that it is important to have a public discussion about what actually constitutes cheating or plagiarism. The summary is made by an AI service from OpenAI. The content is quality assured by news’s journalists before publication. On Saturday came the news about Kjerkol: Since then a lot has happened: One of those who has been quoted, without correct reference according to Dagens Næringsliv, is Asbjørn Røiseland. He is a professor of political science and has previously been an examiner. – It is almost verbatim, he says to news. He believes that in the long run it is unreasonable for Jonas Gahr Støre to push Nord University ahead of him. Academic immaturity One paragraph in Kjerkol’s master’s thesis is largely a verbatim transcript from Asbjørn Røiseland’s research article from 2019. What is copied from Røiseland? Dagens Næringsliv revealed the textual similarity from Asbjørn Røiseland’s article: “Co-creation – a useful term for Norwegian researchers and practitioners” He and Christian Lo write: “Co-creation in the form of co-production with clients and users, for example, raises questions about equal treatment, and whether there are differences in welfare benefits because users have different prerequisites for contributing. In that case, co-creation contributes to more difference in a welfare system where the value of equality has traditionally been strong. In many cases, it can also be important to contrast co-creation with other forms of participation, and question what co-creation does to different groups’ opportunities for real participation.” Ingvild Kjerkol and his fellow student write the following in their master’s thesis: “Co-creation in the form of co-production with users, for example, raises questions about equal treatment, and whether there are differences in welfare benefits because users have different prerequisites for contributing. In many cases, it can also be important to see co-creation in contrast to other forms of participation, and question what co-creation does to different groups’ opportunities for real participation (Røiseland & Lo, 2019).” Røiseland and Lo are given as sources in brackets. But this does not hold according to the citation rules. What is taken from Røiseland and Lo, and can be considered a direct quote, should have been marked as a direct quote. Røiseland emphasizes that he has not read Kjerkol’s master’s thesis. news has presented him with clippings from Kjerkol’s master’s thesis, and the similarity to his own article from 2019. – What do you think about the paragraph from your article that ended up in Kjerkol’s master’s thesis? Røiseland replies that it is almost verbatim – and that it should have been reformulated or marked as a direct quote. – But this is quite common among students. That is academic immaturity in my eyes. Ingvild Kjerkol’s master’s thesis. Facsimile: screenshot from Instagram He believes that the similarity of text from the article and the master’s thesis is more reminiscent of “sloppiness” than research cheating. – Pure research cheating is much more serious. If, for example, you take over material from others and make it your own. I came across a case where the entire analysis and empirical evidence was falsified. It ended with the most severe reaction, i.e. beatings and exclusion. It is very serious. The university was in an “impossible situation”. Røiseland has been both examiner and supervisor on master’s theses. He is not sure whether he would have uncovered the aforementioned section if he had been an examiner on Kjerkol’s thesis. – If I had been a censor, I would hardly have discovered it. We have an electronic plagiarism check that shows a percentage of how similar the answer is to other answers. If it had been 20–25 percent, one would have gone into the task and looked at it more closely. But if it is below that, few sensors go into it. Most people won’t have time for that, says Røiseland. But in the role of supervisor he would have been stricter. – As a supervisor, I would ask the students to quote the paragraph or reformulate it. – What do you think as an author about content from your article being used verbatim in a master’s thesis? – I am pleased that the article will be useful. It is actually one of the most read research articles in Norway. – What do you think about the work that Nord University will now do? – It will be very exciting, because it is an almost impossible situation they are put in. If this had happened while I was vice-chancellor at Bodø University College, the case would have ended up on my desk. So I understand that this is a difficult issue, he says and adds: – It is in a way unreasonable that the Prime Minister pushes Nord University ahead of him. Nord University is working on the Kjerkol case. Photo: Bente H. Johansen – But shouldn’t the university be so independent that they are able to assess it? – There is a great deal of beauty in such assessments, and I am simply excited to see if the system can master such a task. – Should another educational institution take over that assessment? – There is a national appeals board that deals with complaints at the next level. One could perhaps imagine that the national tribunal was given some role in this matter, so that the whole matter does not rest on Nord University alone. True that the North is doing the job Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre today presented Oddmund Løkensgard Hoel as the new minister. This in the wake of Sandra Borch (Sp) resigning following revelations about plagiarism in her master’s thesis. However, Ingvild Kjerkol has not resigned, and Støre has been clear that his trust in her is firm – and that Nord University will now deal with her case. When asked by news whether it is not a big responsibility to give to the North, Støre replies as follows: – No, not at all. They must conclude with regard to the task: There are different views on this that have appeared in the media and this emphasizes the responsibility of the teaching institution, which has initially approved the task. – They must make that assessment. As with a normal student. Oddmund Løkensgard Hoel was presented by Jonas Gahr Støre. Much of the focus during the press conference was on completely different things. Photo: Cornelius Poppe / NTB – Does that mean she will stay in the government? – She is a minister in my government and has confidence in my government. – It can take weeks before a decision is made. She will remain in office until Nord University has concluded? – Now they have to make their assessment. That is the correct division of responsibility. For me to pass a judgment in view of what appears in the media would be to deprive her of the rights she has as a student. Handled by people Responsible editor at Khrono, Tove Lie, tells news that it may take time before the matter is clarified because there may be several rounds of both hearings and possible complaints about decisions. – I’m guessing it could quickly take months. Lie says that master’s theses that are submitted are run through a digital system – where an automatic check for plagiarism takes place. This produces a report. – But then the question is; what happens to that report? Maybe someone is in a hurry and doesn’t have time to look at it. That it just slips through, says the editor and adds: – There are people who handle and process it. Responsible editor in Khrono. Photo: Khrono And precisely the fact that it is people who carry out the censorship is something students have complained about. – Different ways of processing and interpreting findings in the reports is something students have complained about. That it will be all bingo. Some take a lot for plagiarism, others don’t. – Is there a difference between the universities? – Yes. – What do you think about this matter yourself? – I think it is very good that it comes up and that there is a public discussion about it, Lie answers before emphasizing that it is not good that all journalists and newsrooms are now playing cheating and plagiarism police, Lie answers. She adds: – Even if there is similarity, it does not have to be plagiarism or cheating. It could be inferior craftsmanship. It may result in a lower grade, but it does not necessarily result in a penalty or ban. Tove Lie points out that the debate around what actually constitutes cheating or plagiarism is still very important.
ttn-69
Kjerkol copied from Asbjørn Røiseland – news Nordland
