Sorry for the delay - very busy with a British Council project - as I
promised to reply yesterday.

Firstly, after having a couple of people re-use (abuse?) my car driving
analogy, I was tempted to approach Channel 5 with a new idea for a TV
programme: "When Analogies go BAD!" I can see the royalty cheques
rolling in from the video sales alone. Watch out for these later...

Secondly, I would like to make three things clear:

1) The deliberate attempt to circumvent the education process - either
by colluding, cheating or copying (the three Cs?) - is one that I
abhor, because it implies such a lack of self-respect, and respect for
the education process.
2) I see that citation is useful and beneficial to learn, and accept
that it is a requirement of the way in which we assess and education in
British Universities, outdated or not. Alternatives can be debated
later.
3) My legal representative has informed me that I should state how
useful and worthwhile lawyers are ;-)

So, I don't agree with several of Furedi's arguments; one of which was
quoted in the message by Erik Borg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent:
20 August 2004 12:40 Subject: common knowledge

> This isn't to suggest that I believe there is no such thing as
> plagiarism,
> or that prohibitions against it are an "eccentric practice confined to
> outdated British universities" in the words of Furedi's recent screed
> (Furedi, F. [2004, 6 Aug.]. Plagiarism stems from a loss of scholarly
> ideals. The Times Higher Education Supplement, pp. 16-17.).

I had a copy on my desk waiting to be read, so I pulled it out. The
following phrase shot out at me:

"...there is a distinct tendency to treat plagiarism as if it s a form
of bad practice, a minor offence or a learning problem. this cavalier
approach towards what was once seen as a gross violation of the rules
of academic behaviour reflects the mood of moral disorientation on
campuses."

Lack of citation is bad practice. When a student who did not appreciate
the problem with copying, is caught the first (and hopefully only)
time, it should be a minor offence, in the way that I got a caution
once for a dodgy driving manoeuvre, which I knew to never do again. And
anyone who has shared a pint with me will know that I believe that
citation is a learned skill. Therefore, I support Erik wholeheartedly,
and thank him for his support.

So Furedi's argument is very weak, especially as he (like many) confuse
copying with plagiarism.

I will nail my colours to the mast here. There is a distinction, in
that plagiarism is a special case of copying; one where there was
deliberate deception. I, therefore, do allow some benefit of the doubt
when intent to deceive is unlikely. Not to condone the act of copying,
but to mitigate the punishment.

Other quotes from Furedi:

'"experts" on the subject of plagiarism appear more interested in
explaining the problem away than in exposing its root causes'

This statement shows a lack of understanding of a meaningful
groundswell, which is attempting to bring up to date the outdated
British universities. No-one has the right idea here, but there is a
need for change.

"The association of financial hardship with plagiarism is based on the
patronising assumption that the poor have lower moral standards than
those who are prosperous... Financial hardship does not turn
undergraduates into cheats."

So what does? I am sorry, but I believe this is a simplification and
misrepresentation, while I accept that Furedi might sincerely believe
his statements to be fact. I was on Radio Wales during the JISC
plagiarism conference, and was delighted that students were also
represented in the interview. The student raised the issue of having to
work - there are very few students who do not work, as effectively they
are all 'poor' unless they have incredible support from parents - and
there was never any indication that people were saying that the poor
are more likely to plagiarise. Financial hardship encourages part-time
work, often at unsociable hours, which reduces time to study, which
increases stress and desperation. Is it so hard to see the link?

Clearly, there are other causes, including just not giving a damn, or
seeing the ends as justifying the means. However, all these arguments
rely on the assumption that plagiarism is deliberate. This assumption
often prevents discussion of the other situations when copying occur.
We should not forget either case.

Furedi also wheels out the cliche that "honouring great thinkers is
thought reproducing their work." I agree that cliches and stereotypes
are to be avoided. However, Furedi argues that "by embedding copying
within a cultural tradition, it also sanctions it as a normal
activity."

It IS a normal activity. It is a legitimate educational technique, in
certain contexts; not usually seen or accepted at university level.
What is difficult to weed out, is where the word "copying" is used as a
synonym for "cheating" and "plagiarising". We should all be vigilant,
and not to confuse the two. One is a technique, the other is an
offence.

And as for Furedi's concern over devoting greater resources towards
providing students with the "skills" necessary to avoid the problem',
he would possibly do better at thinking about it another way. As I
mentioned in my car driving post, we need to avoid teaching students
the wrong thing. Which is better:

1) Teaching a student what to do to get above the threshold of the
acceptable; just changed enough not to be plagiarism. Slowing down just
enough for the speed camera.
2) Teaching a student how to set their thoughts in a context, justify
their opinions, and be confident that their opinions are valued more
highly because of this extra care. One would hope that even without the
former, they would be valued to some degree anyway.

Plagiarism is institutionalised already, but that does not mean that it
is accepted or acceptable. Even students in my experience know that it
is wrong, when done deliberately. Just as it is wrong to break the
speed limit, or to tape your friend's Nora Jones CD... The problem is
when people find a justification. That can only be overcome by
attacking the thought process: there needs to be a victim and a reason
not to. "Just say No!" is not enough.

Furedi's last statement "It's the University, stupid." - a prize for
the origin of that phrase! - is actually one that I agree with, but I
suspect our interpretation is different.

Erik Borg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] states:

> I see plagiarism as a specific case of a general phenomenon,
> intertextuality. Intertextuality is both inevitable and desirable:
> inevitable because of the nature of language, and desirable because
> we, as
> teachers, want students to understand and draw on the knowledge of our
> fields. It's up to us to convey our own understanding of the space of
> appropriate explicit acknowledgement.

He is not being ridiculous, Duncan Williamson <[log in to unmask]>.
To try to convince you, a mental model that I often try to use, when
considering the issue of copying, rather than plagiarism, when doing
training:

Imagine a continuum ranging from completely original writing, making no
attempt to link to previous work, nor to justify it by setting it in a
context by citation or quotation, to completely patch written - i.e. no
self-written - material, whether or not there are citations or
quotations. [Let's just forget the offence aspect of this for a brief
moment]. On that continuum, I would say that the two extremes are
undesirable, and bad practice. The first, because any arguments are
unsupported and lack evidence of an understanding of the field. The
latter, because it is effectively regurgitation, with no synthesis or
evidence of understanding of the field. So, somewhere in between is
good practice. Now think about how you write your research papers.
There needs to be originality (but often not too much, as it will
ruffle the referees' feathers) and there needs to be justification and
evidence of the development from the work of others. See, we do it
ourselves! Now think of a student assignment. They often err too far
towards the latter case; in my experience, students are quite scared of
declaring their own opinions in case 'they are wrong!' That is, not in
agreement with their tutors.

Introducing the idea of citation, to strengthen an assessment is
twofold, when you think of this continuum. Firstly, it allows both the
student and the marker to see what was original and what came from
elsewhere. Secondly, it bolsters the idea of justification for the
argument in the assessment. We all know this. We learned it and forgot
it, the way we don't think about changing gear anymore. The students
are stalling the car, regularly and getting rather stressed with that
impatient driver honking behind them.

And now on to George MacDonald Ross <[log in to unmask]>

> Date: 21 August 2004 15:12:02 BST
> I'm delighted that Mike Reddy has made his views so clear - even Frank
> Furedi couldn't misrepresent them as crassly as he did in his recent
> THES article. But why does Phil Baty continue to treat Furedi as an
> expert on plagiarism?

Deadlines. He informed me that he was hoping to get my comment on the
Sunderland article, as well as others, but time ran out.

> Baty was at the JISC conference, and he knows the
> names of dozens of real experts, unlike that ex-Marxist turned
> reactionary who doesn't seem to have read anything on the subject
> (which
> is at least one way of avoiding plagiarism).

I hope this was referring to Furedi. I am an ex-ex-Marxist, a Socialist
in fact, and proud. However, this paragraph does smack of name calling.
Not what I would expect from the Director of Philosophical and
Religious Studies Subject Centre of the Higher Education Academy.

> I hope Mike will agree
> that, after students have been given extensive training, with plenty of
> feedback, in how to conform to the rules of academic literacy, then
> plagiairism should be treated as a criminal act in the rare cases of
> those who persist.

Yes. See above
>
> I also agree with Christina Mainka, as against Stephan Botes, that it
> isn't really relevant whether the plagiarism is intentional or not. An
> analogy would be a club treasurer who didn’t know how to keep proper
> accounts, and accidentally transferred funds into his private account.
> He would still be culpable. At most one might say that deliberate,
> blatant plagiarism should carry a heavier penalty.

The analogy is confused, as in law ignorance is no defence. This does
not apply to copying - in case you had not noticed, I do use this term
preferentially, as it is less emotive and does clear the air - in the
same way that you couldn't realistically criticise a 1 year old for not
telling the difference between P and d. More footage for "Where
Analogies go BAD!", hereafter referred to as WAGB.

> It is also misleading of Stephan to use the metaphor of theft (though,
> as he implies, the metaphor is as old as the concept of plagiarism
> itself - at least as far back as the Roman poet Martial). A student
> plagiarist doesn't deprive the author of anything
>
The student could be said to be stealing the chance to learn from
himself; much more foolish than crime.

> Robert Muller's question is a good one, and I am sure there are
> disciplinary differences. For example, philosophers cite far less than
> social scientists.

I like to think that this fits on the Continuum of acceptable described
above. Different disciplines place themselves towards different ends.

> On the other hand, I don't agree with Ciara and Verity Brack on the
> Kent
> case. The student concerned may have been taught to patchwrite while at
> school. Whether or not he had read the rules on plagiarism in the
> university handbook, the fact that he was getting good marks for
> plagiarised work would reinforce his bad practice.

Some people see good marks as evidence that you are doing the right
thing. It is often the only feedback they do look at, and sadly,
sometimes the only feedback they get.

> It wouldn't take a
> very clever lawyer to argue that his university teachers were
> professionally negligent in failing to notice how he was putting his
> essays together.

I agree.

Verity "E.V.Brack" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 20 August 2004 12:12:05 BST
> Subject: Re: Common Practice
>> I think it is
>> ludicrous that a student who admits to down-loading material from the
>> internet for his degree plans to sue his university for negligence (as
>> is happening at the University of Kent at the moment). Anyone who is
>> equipped with common sense and indeed any sense of pride in their own
>> academic integrity would know that this is wrong.
> Agreed! After all, surely it's 'common knowledge' that plagiarism is
> wrong? Saying that he hadn't been told not to plagiarise is a bit like
> driving on the right-hand side of the road and claiming that no-one
> told him to drive on the left - the correct way of driving is going on
> all around him, and maybe he might not have understood at the
> beginning, but he surely should have caught on after 3 years!
>
Ahah! WAGB! But if he had been driving with no tax, no licence, or
driving in second gear or with the clutch out all the time, it would be
easy for him to drive around for three years... Just as inappropriate,
but easier to miss.

Stephan Botes, (PowerResearcher)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 19 August 2004 20:45:35 BST
> Subject: Re: Sunderland slammed
>
> Every sensible judicial system differentiates between deliberate and
> unintentional transgression. Culpable or vehicular homicide is not
> judged as
> premeditated murder. The intent of the transgressor is absolutely
> pertinent;
> not in establishing guilt, but in adjudicating punishment. Therein
> lies the
> inadequacy of using detection services only. You have very limited
> ability
> to determine the intent of the plagiarist. However, deliberate
> concealment
> as one would have to engineer against plagiarism prevention software,
> would
> identify intent.

Methinks there is a hidden agenda here. WAGB! University regulations
are not judicial systems. I would not put the 1 year old in prison for
not being able to distinguish between P and d.

> I submit that the intent of requiring citation when another's
> intellectual
> property is "borrowed", is not to demonstrate the writer's
> understanding, or
> consensus of and a wider context, though it may be a secondary result.
> The
> intent is the protection of individual property rights, hence
> "plagiarism"
> from the Latin word "Plagiarus", meaning to kidnap, or "plagiarii",
> those
> who stole children. (WRITING WITH SOURCES: A Guide for Harvard
> Students, by
> Gordon Harvey, Expository Writing Program, 1995.) Christina's point:
> theft
> is theft - imperative, not relative.

George refutes this quite well. Plagiarism is not theft.

Stephan goes on about theft and ownership. Maybe this is an important
issue, but it is a digression from the point of education and
assessment.

> Elaborating on the driving analogy, exceeding the speed limit on
> occasion
> does not equate to stealing on occasion; the former does not violate
> another's basic and fundamental human rights; the latter does. Perhaps
> setting an 80 KPH speed limit on a limited access dual carriage way,
> could
> be classed as "arbitrary and artificial". Protecting everyone's private
> property rights, is certainly not.

Arbitrary and artificial is driving on the left or the right. Or more
importantly, whether 30 is safe enough or not as safe as 20 in a built
up area. Different types of artificial and arbitrary: one is not
important, as they are functionally equivalent, the other is much more
subjective.

> Perhaps Sunderland's tolerance and acceptance of occasional plagiarism
> is
> the result of believing citations to be "arbitrary and artificial"?

I don't think that citations are arbitrary and artificial. I don't
think that my statement...

> Similarly, the academic
> insistence on proper referencing is arbitrary and artificial, but
> useful. Showing what is your work, its underpinnings/justifications,
> and the work of others to set the wider context, is a way of providing
> evidence of your ability and understanding. It allows us to gauge with
> confidence, whether the argument is consistent and believable. The real
> world does not need citation - just ask any journalist - but if you can
> show that you can do it, then you are safe to proceed.

...can be interpreted as saying that citations are unnecessary (the
first type of arbitrary). Rather it is the second, as evidenced by the
end of the paragraph.

Apologies once again for a lengthy comment. I also forgot to respond to
Stephan's comments on my comments of PowerResearcher... This gets
bloody, but as his and my original messages were on this list, I think
it appropriate to post my response here. If you don't like personal
comments, don't read any further; no, I don't like flames either.

> From: "Botes, Stephan (PowerResearcher)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 15 July 2004 19:21:54 BST
> Subject: PowerResearcher and Dr. Reddy
>
> I agree with Fiona Duggan's request that the JISC Discussion forum
> should not be used to advertise products as she admonished a fan from
> South Africa .
>
> However, when one of the members uses the forum to libel my product and
> me as evil or naive, it warrants a response on the same forum . Since
> his heading included my product name, in the interest of fairness, so
> should mine.

If I have libelled your product, sue me. Actually, several statements
you make could be construed as libelling my good character. So, let's
keep things to an academic debate, shall we?

> It is glaringly obvious that Dr. Mike Reddy has never actually used
> Powerresearcher, nor even looked at it any closer than some media
> sources he relies on.

I have never used heroin, but it is glaringly obvious that I know that
I don't want to.

> Teaching and reminding a person to drive safely, does not remove his
> choice to drive recklessly. I challenge him to support his assetion
> that
> it "could dangerously shape student thought and actively prevent
> learning".

My 3 year old daughter keeps spilling drinks. Giving her a baby cup, or
even giving her an intravenous drip, would prevent spills. However, it
is not actually very beneficial to her. Preventing someone from being
able to cross the centre of the road while driving a car, would clearly
prevent accidents. However, everyone would have to navigate purely by
left turns; feasible, but hardly desirable. Anything that forces the
practice of an activity or removes the chance for mistake and
reflection harms someone's ability to learn.

> Powerresearcher no more denies anyone's choice than a
> detection service that relies on fear of being caught as deterrent.

In the presentation at the JISC conference, it was implied that your
product would prevent someone from not citing, without there being a
"gap in the logs". This, in my opinion, implies guilt until proven
innocent.

> Significant in its abscence, is any comment by Dr. Reddy that
> plagiarism
> detection services would demonstrate a lack of "respect and trust" of
> his students.

I have criticised the abuse of detection software, but it is morally
neutral, in that it can be used diagnostically, and only makes a
comparison of originality. This software does not make a judgement on
plagiarism. I am, therfore, happy to use it. Other people might
disagree with me and see PowerResearcher as a useful tool.

> I am puzzled why any essay with automated, properly cited sources,
> would
> produce "citation riddled essays" any more than properly writing and
> citing manually.

Look back up at the top for my comments on the Continuum and desirable
assessments.

> The "crude and dubious" description fits one who would, posing as a
> scholar, with rudimentary and elementary knowledge, render an
> uninformed
> opinion, apparently resentful that anyone may profit from automation
> by
> solving a universal problem.

This is a defamatory statement, impugning my academic integrity.
Despite me emailing you personally and asking you to refrain from such
statements, I find it offensive that you would do such a thing. Hardly
an effective way to win an argument.

> I suppose he resents technology,
> computers, word processors, Ford, Microsoft or Turnitin too?

No, he doesn't. What "he" resents is abusive use of technology.

> Fortunately, very few academics share his view, as Powerresearcher is
> receiving rave reviews from academia and is being adopted by schools
> and
> universities worldwide.

Well I am very happy to be in a minority, if such is the case, and wish
Stephan well in his business and profit led endeavour! I am not a
business man, I am an educator.

Mike Reddy

*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
your subscription options, or access list archives, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************