I
am an obsessive promoter of academic integrity. I also believe that the most
prevalent violations
of academic integrity result more from ignorance and misunderstanding than from
intentional dishonestly.
The purpose of the following is to explain my reasoning and, by providing
illustrations, to clarify the
parameters of plagiarism, the most pervasive violation of academic integrity.
Please do not hesitate
to contact me if any confusion remains about what defines plagiarism, and what
does not. The consequences
for trespassing the boundaries of plagiarism are automatic failure of the course
and potential dismissal from
Temple University. Do not take any risks.
The plagiarist is the academic counterpart of the bank
embezzler, the manufacturer who mislabels his
product, and the advertiser who makes phony exaggerated claims for a product
(note the discrepancy
between McDonald’s photograph of the Big Mac and the actual physical product).
The student or
scholar who leads the reader to believe that what he is reading is original when
in fact it is stolen from
someone else. Remember in John
Locke’s discussion of property he contends that “intellectual
property” belongs to the writer just as much as the house in which he lives or
the other property he
owns.
If it could be assumed that the distinction between
plagiarism and the honest use of sources is perfectly
clear in everyone’s mind, there would be no need for this explanation.
But it is apparent that
sometimes men and women of good will draw the suspicion of guilt upon themselves
(and, indeed, are
guilty) simply because they are not aware of the illegitimacy of certain kinds
of “borrowing” and of the
procedures for correct identification of materials other than those gained
through independent research
and reflection.
The spectrum is a wide one.
At one end there is word-for-word copying of another’s writing without
enclosing the copied passage in quotation marks and identifying it in a
footnote. It hardly seems
possible that anyone of college age or more could do this without clear intent
to deceive. At the other
end there is the almost casual slipping in of a particularly apt term which one
has come across in
reading and which so admirably expresses one’s opinion that one is tempted to
make it personal
property. (What would Locke say?)
Between these two poles there are degrees and degrees but they
may be roughly placed in two groups. Close
to outright and blatant deceit—but more the result,
perhaps, of laziness than of bad intent—is the patching together of random
jottings made in the course
of reading, generally without careful identification of their source, and then
woven into the text, so that
the result is a mosaic of other people’s ideas and words, the writer’s sole
contribution being the cement
to hold the pieces together. Indicative of more effort and, for that reason, somewhat
closer to honesty,
though still dishonest, is the paraphrase, and abbreviated restatement of
someone else’s analysis of
conclusion without acknowledgement that another person’s text has been the
basis for the
recapitulation.
Because one of the principal aims of a college education is
the development of intellectual honesty, it is
obvious that plagiarism is a particularly serious offense and the punishment for
it is commensurately
severe. What a penalized student
suffers who plagiarizes and “gets away with it” is less public and
probably less acute, but the corruptness of his act, the disloyalty and baseness
it entails, must inevitably
leave an ineradicable mark on him as well as on the institution of which he is
privileged to be a member.
The following material is taken from William W. Watt, An
American Rhetoric, Revised Edition (New
York, 1957) 413-414:
Much
of the confusion and unintentional dishonesty in undergraduate research papers
results
from ignorance
or carelessness about the difference between quotation and paraphrase.
Study
the following illustrations carefully:
1
Direct Quotation.
Since this is a long quotation, it is indented and would be typed
single-space without quotation marks.
Notice the use of periods to indicate omission
and the careful reproduction of the author’s italics.
In his candid analysis of the character, E. M. Forster carefully distills
the essence of
English hypocrisy:
The Germans are called brutal, the Spanish cruel, the Americans
superficial,
and so on; but we are perfide Albion, the island of hypocrites, the
people who
have built up an Empire with a Bible in one hand, a pistol in the other,
and
financial concessions in both pockets.
Is the charge true? I think
it is; but
while making it we must be quite clear as to what we mean by hypocrisy.
Do
we mean conscious deceit? Well,
the English are comparatively guiltless of
this . . . . Do we mean
unconscious deceit? Muddle-headedness?
Of this I
believe them to be guilty. When
an Englishman has been led into a course of
wrong action, he had nearly always begun by muddling himself.
A public
school education does not make for mental clearness, and he possesses to
a
very high degree the power of confusing his own mind.
2
Ambiguous and Imprecise paraphrase.
The words of Forster and the student
are indiscriminately confused. Unacceptable.
Forster says that, whereas Germans are called brutal, the Spanish cruel,
the
United States citizens superficial, the English are perfide Albion, the
people
who have built up an Empire with a Bible in one hand, a gun in the other,
and
pockets full of financial concessions.
He goes on to say that, though this
charge is true, English hypocrisy is not conscious deceit, but
unconscious
deceit. When an Englishman
has been misled into a wrong action, he has
nearly always begun by muddling himself. A public-school education, Forster
says, does not make for mental clearness, and the Englishman possesses to
a
great degree the power of confusing his own mind.
3
Partial and Precise paraphrase.
Brief quotations from Forster are properly
identified. Acceptable.
In his analysis of the English character Forster carefully considers the
indictment of England as “the island of hypocrites,” a nation of
Empire builders
“with a Bible in one hand, a pistol in the other, and financial
concessions in both
pockets.” Although
admitting the essential truth of this charge, he finds his
countrymen guilty not of conscious hypocrisy but of “unconscious
deceit” or
“muddle-headedness”—a quality which the public schools have helped
to
develop.
4
Complete paraphrase.
Forster’s main point is put into the student’s own words.
Acceptable.
Although Forster claims that the English have built an Empire on
hypocrisy, he
concedes that hypocrisy is usually the unconscious by-product of mental
confusion partly fostered by the public schools.