• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

More Thoughts on Plagiarism

December 12, 2011, 3:21 pm

I received so many insightful comments and off-site e-mails about my last post on plagiarism that I’m postponing my post about student evaluations (another end-of-term issue which concerns us all) to continue discussing this topic. For those of you who have not read all the comments (I always do!) Sandy Thatcher, who, I assume, is Sanford Thatcher, director emeritus of Penn State Press—and thus someone who knows much more about the subject than I do—had the following to say, worth quoting in full:

“Mr. Donoghue has not done much to clarify plagiarism here by confusing it with copyright infringement. Plagiarism, as the unacknowledged borrowing of others’ ideas, is not a violation of intellectual property laws and hence should not be spoken of as though it were part of intellectual property. What services like Turnitin are best at detecting is copyright infringement, not plagiarism, which would require a much more sophisticated type of semantic-based analysis. (By the way, it surely is a misstatement that Turnitin owns the individual papers in its system, since it does not get any copyright transfer from the authors of papers in its system. It was indeed sued by some students–unsuccessfully–in a case in the Fourth Circuit for copyright infringement.) For some real clarity on what plagiarism is all about, read Richard Posner’s brilliant “Little Book of Plagiarism” (Pantheon, 2007).”

First, Posner’s book, which I’ve now dipped into, is essential reading for anyone who is responsible for grading student work. Second, I didn’t mean to confuse copyright infringement with plagiarism, only to suggest that copyright infringement should be one of several contexts in which plagiarism would be discussed in the hypothetical orientation I outlined. In any case, I thank Mr. Thatcher for his invaluable comments.

Equally valuable, in a more practical way, is a comment from “bergtrom,” which basically reproduces a detailed set of instructions, entitled “Making Sure Your Term Paper is Your Own Work.” I won’t reproduce it in its entirety, but it’s a crystal-clear outline about how not to plagiarize, the very kind of orientation I’d like to see implemented not course by course, but institutionwide.

I was most encouraged though, by an e-mail from a former graduate student of mine, Chris Manion, who now works for Ohio State’s Center for the Advancement of Teaching. He and his colleagues are currently working to develop a course that addresses the concept of plagiarism in the context of “the wider issues we all tend to miss in the classroom.” Chris referred me to the “Citation Project,” an undertaking that strikes me as extremely full of promise, and only seems to be beginning to gain momentum. The site is subtitled “Preventing plagiarism, teaching writing,” and it problematizes the concept of plagiarism in ways that I believe Thatcher and other commenters would approve.

To date, the Citation Project has analyzed 1,911 citations from 174 student papers produced at 16 different U.S. colleges and universities. It found, to my surprise, not a shocking amount of outright plagiarism, but makes a crucial distinction between “plagiarism” as the dictionary (and most of us would define it) and “patchwriting.” The Citation Project defines patchwriting as: “Restating a phrase, clause, or one or more sentences while staying close to the language or syntax of the source.” A remarkable 16 percent of students routinely patchwrite. How one differentiates that practice from plagiarism is, of course, always a judgment call, but it goes to Chris Manion’s central concern that students are insufficiently or confusingly engaged with the materials they cite. Manion notes that even good students were often “overwhelmingly unengaged with the sources they were citing. They were too often sentence mining from dubious sources to fulfill superficial requirements on assignments.” He concludes, absolutely correctly: “our classroom approach to research and writing is way off the mark. We’re on completely different epistemological worlds than our students, and we do little to bridge that chasm.”

Several commenters noted that plagiarism is ultimately a function of bad teaching. In essence, I think you’re absolutely right, but the solution is not to continue to teach conventionally, just better. Bridging the chasm will require considerably more.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • richardtaborgreene

    Obvious to anyone who worked for both places

  • 3rdtyrant

    My colleagues from Harvard are, with some exceptions, not geniuses.  My colleagues from CalTech are, with some exceptions, all near geniuses, and a lot more collegial, too.  This isn’t to say that Harvard is evil, but perhaps its mystique is evaporating because of the sluggish performance (or illegal performance, in the case of its business school graduates) of some of its graduates.

  • manoflamancha

    Both are overrated, full of “one hit” wonders.

  • jbarman

    That’s OK, it’s still early in the season.

    All Harvard has to do is shore up its offensive line with a couple of astrophysicists. Along with the addition of a durable running back, that should be enough to beat CalTech the next time the two schools meet.

  • fercho

    It is a pity that Caltech is not a university.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1132827296 Chris Manion

    Thanks for mentioning our discussion, Frank. I want to point out, though, that the reason the Citation Project folks didn’t find plagiarized work was that they weren’t looking for it. They were only examining references that were cited.

  • v8573254

    Your graf # 7 should be before us each time we read students’ papers.

  • missoularedhead

    But patchwriting — the attempt at not plagiarizing by making something of a frankenstein of a paper — is still problematic, because it is still a student not trusting their own analysis of something.  I’d much rather read an original paper, even if it rehashes an older idea, than something created from *this* place and *that* place and *another* place.  The boring paper at shows at least an attempt to think, while the other evinces that the student did not, in fact, put anything of substance into his or her paper.

  • fdonoghue

    Yes, and I think patchwriting is is actually the bigger problem.  Students know what outright plagiarism is, and know that they risk being  caught–so I’ve actually seen very few plagiarism cases.  But by patchwriting, students are simply opting out of a chance to do original thinking.

  • mbelvadi

    I wonder how much patchwriting is a matter of students getting confused by instructions from faculty/teachers who themselves are confused about the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism?  Copyright law only protects the specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself, so patchwriting could be seen as a legitimate way to avoid violating copyright by altering the specific wording.  Plagiarism, on the other hand, “protects” the idea, not just the specific wording. But I remember being given what I now know are totally wrong instructions by well meaning teachers that I should “paraphrase” to avoid plagiarism, and what meager guidance they gave on what paraphrasing is actually looks a lot like patchwriting to an unsophisticated student.  For that reason, I think any attempt to provide “how not to plagiarize” advice without addressing the difference between paraphrasing and patchwriting head-on will do students a disservice.

  • missoularedhead

    I don’t disagree. In most of my classes (save one, for particular reasons), I am not one of those who demands citations be perfect, but I go over, pretty extensively, what plagiarism is, how to paraphrase, and how to cite both direct and indirect quotes.  Since patchwriting is, at least to me, a function of the failure to cite paraphrasing, I urge them to over-cite.  If you aren’t sure if you should cite it, you probably should, is what I tell them.  I figure better that than being accused (somewhat problematically, as we seem to agree) of plagiarism.

  • Russ Hunt

    Two comments: it would be worth mentioning Rebecca Moore Howard, who is the force behind the Citation Project, and whose work on plagiarism is groundbreaking. Second: when you say “the solution is not to continue to teach conventionally, just better. Bridging the chasm will require considerably more.” you’re absolutely right. I’ve written about the way plagiarism challenges conventional teaching, and argued that in fact it’s a healthy challenge, because it may, in the long run, make it impossible to continue teaching in those conventional ways.