JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PLAGIARISM Archives


PLAGIARISM Archives

PLAGIARISM Archives


PLAGIARISM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PLAGIARISM Home

PLAGIARISM Home

PLAGIARISM  March 2018

PLAGIARISM March 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Is intention to cheat taken into account in your academic misconduct policy?

From:

"Dr. Mike Reddy" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Plagiarism <[log in to unmask]>, Dr. Mike Reddy

Date:

Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:16:59 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (18 lines)

Thanks for posting the link; I suspect the digest form may cut out the attachments. 

While it is good to see an alternative to the Speeding Analogy of Plagiarism, which was first publicly used, I believe, at the launch of JISCPAS in September 2002, I think the Athlete Doping one both succeeds and fails in several respects:
1) Where there is a clear advantage to the individual - copying text does not automatically imply a better grade will result - this comes from improved performance in sport, not the lack of performance, which plagiarism would be; the runner still has to cover the same distance, not run a shorter track. However, while I do like the fact that such an analogy infers the advantage over other competitors without directly affecting them - the drugs taken improve the culprit’s performance, making the race unfair - in academic work everyone could come first, or should if grade quotas aren’t in place to enforce the dreaded Normal Curve. There is no Gold, Silver, and Bronze, only individual percentages.
2) Traces of drugs taken will only include tests for those prohibited for having a known beneficial effect. These could have legitimate reasons for being present; bronchodilators for asthma, for example. Traces of copied text, etc, have no such legitimacy, but could inadvertently be present the same way an athlete might have taken the wrong cough medicine. However, the medicine, while prohibited, might not have provided any advantage. Text, on the other hand, contributes to the submission by its presence, even if it might not score against the rubric. It could be accidentally present (poorly cited, or not summarised properly) or difficult to detect; the plagiarism of the structure, or idea, is harder to spot.
3) I just was listening to an interview with Sir (Dr) Roger Bannister, the first man to break the four minute mile, who died recently. [Radio 4’s More or Less, https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/more-or-less-behind-the-stats/id267300884?mt=2&i=1000405685191 ] In the programme, he explained that the four minute limit was psychological, having been unchallenged for nine years, but this was because:
a) Swedish runners, who were pushing that limit, were declared to be “professional” and excluded from competition. Could these be the Athletics Analogy’s equivalent of essay mills, assuming we can widen the concept beyond Dope Testing?
b) Better training techniques (Learning and Teaching?) saw another runner complete the four minute mile, breaking Sir Roger’s record, quickly after, and several more the following year, although only 1500 runners have officially done so. 
c) The hiatus in breaking the four minute barrier was an artificial one, invisibly affected by poor nutrition (lack of educational opportunities?) as a result of rationing during and after the Second World War. 
The point I’m making here is that we have to consider many other factors, not just the doping. Education isn’t simply running a race, because where we get to is as important as how we get there, and where we were allowed to start from/overcome.
Finally, 4) Cheating to win a race has hardly any consequences beyond possible denial of the medal to someone else, and potential health risks. No one else was likely to be put in danger by the drug taking. Where the Speeding Analogy might do better, is returning the idea of potential victims to the act of academic misconduct. Speed limits are set, based on safety considerations. The difference between me driving at 40 in a 30 mph school district is subtly different to 80 on a motorway; both are offences, but one is more likely to be a risk than the other. The difference between getting away with it, getting caught by a speed camera, or killing someone is, actually there isn’t one: the act was the same, the only difference was luck, and circumstance. Speeding has consequences, and victims. Shortcutting education may only affect the individual, but the same act may have long reaching consequences for more people.

To address Irene’s point about teaching integrity. Trainers don’t explain how not to cheat in a running race, they focus on teaching running. Personal bests (PBs) and striving to do better, and do it properly or well, are the motivations, not avoiding tripping up other runners, false starts, or cutting corners and lane changes. We need to speak the value of the running, not the virtue of the finish line. Integrity is, therefore, a side effect of wanting your participation to matter, to be recognised, to be worth something. Of course, the driving test falls down here too; it only gauges your ability to understand, and follow the rules. We NEVER drive in Real Life, the way we do in our driving test. The harsh edges are worn off and polished by experience, and we (my hand is up here) have bent the rules, knowingly and unknowingly. What we do in our test is show the strict liability in action and deed. We show we are capable of keeping to 30, and not endangering ourselves or others. The Athletics Analogy doesn’t have this duty of care so much. In Education, a five year ban and the stripping away of medals and public reputations are very rare. It is all done ‘sub rosa’ and behind closed doors. Not that I am advocating the outing of academic offenders, because we still have that duty of care; the chance for everyone to learn from transgressions. Speed Awareness Courses - the subject of my ENAI paper, if I can beg the funds to attend :-( [donations gratefully received] - are effective at reducing reoffending, because they show the faulty thinking that leads drivers to poor choices, are in place of penalties, provided the participants fully engage. They lead to better drivers too, on the whole, but there will always be the few serial speedsters. It is this area that Clare Johnson and I want to focus our labours, on interacting with offenders to understand their positions and perceptions. It is my intent, pro bono if necessary, to support students accused of plagiarism, as well as to get ethical approval to interview convicted offenders; a voice that has hardly been heard in the debate. To that end, I feel Stephen’s document contributes well to the discussion of how we should take forward the handling of plagiarism and academic outsourcing. Thank you, Stephen.
*************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
May 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager