Master of Arts A applying for doctoral studies in arts suspected that lecturer B had plagiarised and misappropriated a new idea developed in A’s research plan. Allegedly B presented the misappropriated idea both in an artistic performance and in a programme leaflet. Additionally, A requested for TENK’s view on whether the university had conducted the preliminary inquiry appropriately, as the recording A had provided had not been considered during the inquiry.
TENK’s view was that the text passages in the programme leaflet had similarity in subject matter to A’s research plan only on a general level. Therefore, no plagiarism had taken place. Other similarities were also general and incidental.
However, TENK did state that for the sake of the transparency and clarity of the process, the university should have considered the recording of the contested performance. According to TENK’s assessment, as the alleged similarity was very general in nature, the additional material would not have brought to the process anything new that had given reason to re-examine the allegation. TENK agreed with the university in that lecturer B had not violated the responsible conduct of research.