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.
As so eloquently expressed by Mike, you dare not punish indiscriminately if
you had not adequately instructed your students on academic integrity or do
not adhere to ethics yourself. Assuming you have "clean hands" in both
cases, establishing the intent of the plagiarist should then be your first
objective. There are many reasons, some more egregious than others, as our
paper presented at the JISCPAS Conference demonstrated.
(http://www.powerresearcher.com/download/plagiarism_tech_impact.pdf)
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.
If one was able to steal another's tangible property without retribution,
anarchy would result. The Internet, until recently, enabled anyone to steal
other's intellectual property without detection and retribution. Unchecked
theft of intellectual property on the micro and most paramount level,
deprives individuals of the fruits of their labour, their child; one of our
most basic human rights, a right that fortunately, both socialists and
capitalists agree on. Even on the collectivist, macro or societal level, it
stifles the creation of new ideas and innovation, which would causes
inevitable stagnation.
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.
Perhaps Sunderland's tolerance and acceptance of occasional plagiarism is
the result of believing citations to be "arbitrary and artificial"?
Stephan Botes
-----Original Message-----
From: Mainka, Christina [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 11:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sunderland slammed
Mike,
I couldn't agree more. On that note, isn't any and every institution
closing at least one eye by even distinguishing between "intentional" and
"unintentional" plagiarism or worse yet, following up with "severity levels
of penalty" for "major" vs. "minor" offenses in their policy? There is no
difference between "limited" use of another's material and "substantial"
use-both is plagiary, is it not? Think of the message to the staff/student:
"Cheating a little bit is ok." Akin to "Stealing 50 pounds is ok, stealing
500 pounds is not."?? I am very worried for quality standards in HE, and I
could only guess at the number of universities not as explicit as Sunderland
in their plagiarism policy on paper, but at least as irresponsible in
practice.
Christina Mainka
-----Original Message-----
From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mike
Reddy
Sent: 19 August 2004 15:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sunderland slammed
Back page of THS has the following headline:
"Plagiarism edict slated"
and goes on to explain that Sunderland has had a policy of allowing
"students to copy up to one fifth of their assignments without
punishment." This on the day of clearing, must have been a real
embarrassment!!! What incredible timing for the news to break.
However, it also gives a bad name to those of us who want an initial
understanding phase, where we accept that citation skills are totally
absent for new students. However, the way forward is not to condone
plagiarism where "there is some doubt about whether the cohort has been
properly briefed". What we should be doing as lecturers is growing up
and accepting our responsibilities to teach citation and referencing
explicitly, and making sure that no student past the first assignment
or two is in any doubt as to what we expect from them. This has to be
done by every lecturer, every time, not just in some personal skills
module or stuck away in a student handbook.
Unless we can ensure that students are 1) informed and aware of
unacceptable academic practices 2) educated and supported to develop
good practice skills (not just how to change things enough not to get
caught) and 3) given justification as to why this is important and
relevant from the student's perspective (i.e. not just because we say
it is bad, without a why!), we are being unfair in either the letting
off, or the harsh punishment of students. We also need to abide by
these rules ourselves; there are numerous examples of plagiarism by
lecturers and even vice chancellors. And plagiarism, or to use a less
emotive term, "copying", is at times the most effective way to learn,
and positively encouraged in the work place.
People are not born being able to cite, nor to drive cars. We all break
the speed limit by going 78 on the motorway, knowing that this is
pretty OK. 38 in a built up area next to a park, on the other hand,
could mean death. So, learning to drive involves judgement calls, as
driving "too slow" in the middle lane can be dangerous. However, when
passing a speed camera - notionally a way of 'encouraging' the speed
limit to be adhered to - we can either encourage drivers to realise
they are potentially driving dangerously, or condone them just slowing
down for that bit, then speeding up again in time to knock over that
child round the corner. The driving test does not test for the ability
to drive the way you have to on the road, but more for a minimum
threshold of safety in order to get out there and get the experience
that makes you a safe confident driver. 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.
Mike Reddy, Member of the Experts Group, JISC Plagiarism Advisory
Service
*************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************
|
