An Analysis of Plagiarism In Modern Academia

What steps are universities and colleges taking to discourage academic dishonesty, plagiarism in particular? A review of the literature on the state of academic integrity across North America reveals that the current modes of addressing the problems of dishonesty and plagiarism are largely ineffective. For instance, a recent survey of 10 Canadian universities indicates that 53% of undergraduate students admit to, what researchers Christensen and McCabe term, “serious cheating in written work” (10). Mechanisms designed to combat academic dishonesty are in place, however, as the above statistic indicates, they are grossly inadequate and the problem is far from being resolved. This essay seeks to examine and understand the renewed fervour surrounding the plagiarism dilemma and to provide an analysis of the current research and the steps being taken within the academic community to redress this issue. Ultimately, the reader will gain a more thorough understanding of how the advent of the technological age has exacerbated the scholastic community’s ability to address academic dishonesty and also the concrete steps that educators are taking to enhance current policies as they relate to preventing such dishonesty. Additionally, readers will learn how this technological age has created renewed discourse among educators and how this is bringing about a fundamental shift in the culture of universities and colleges across North America, a culture which is seeking not simply to abide by the rules for the sake of the rules themselves, but rather to embody the values from which the rules are based, namely integrity, honesty and critical thinking.

Historically educators considered understanding and dealing with the issue of academic dishonesty was seen to be relatively narrow in scope, but with advent of the technological age this no longer seems to be the case. In recent years there has been a proliferation in the availability of sophisticated digital technologies providing would-be cheaters with a plethora of new tools, making it increasingly difficult for educators to detect; thus, forcing educators to re-assess what is necessary to ensure academic honesty in the digital age. Foss and Lathrop, in their work on cheating and plagiarism in the internet era, provide a list of “high-tech” tools cheaters have reportedly used to cheat on tests: pocket sized and even watch sized computers; programmable calculators; text message capable pagers; traditional crib sheets modified with laser printers to consist of miniaturized font enabling significant amounts of information to be recorded onto a small piece of paper, which can be more easily concealed; and in some more extreme cases, use of hidden video and audio communication devices which can be concealed in typical test taking items, such as pens(10-14). While this technology presents serious challenges to educators, Foss and Lathrop offer practical steps designed mitigate the problem, consisting primarily of: banning, whenever possible, electronic devices from the test taking environment; innovative testing design, where tests are structured in such away as to prevent any advantage to having access to a crib sheet; as well as to watch for erratic or unusual behaviour, such as continually looking at their watch or into their pockets (15-16).

Students have easy access to an overabundance of literature, and hence the ability to more readily plagiarize from multiple sources using the copy and paste function found in most word processors. While such misconduct has and continues to occur based on print media, the internet is more problematic in that it enables an individual to plagiarize entire volumes of information into a word processor with which any trace of the true author’s identity can be omitted and represented as being the original work of the plagiarizer. In contrast to traditional print based plagiarism, based on time consuming on manual transcription of texts, the electronic form is more widespread due to its relative ease. While electronic forms of plagiarism requires little effort in accomplishing, increasingly they are being considered less viable as internet technologies have also led to new search technology designed to assist teachers evaluating students work submitted, by comparing its content with a massive online databases which contain a vast amount of the sources commonly used for plagiarism (Ryan 56-59). These search technologies have not completely addressed the problem of web-based plagiarism, for beyond the freely available sources of essays that anyone can access, a commercially driven web-based “paper mills”, dedicated to providing scholarly research specific to their clients demands for exorbitant fees. These services are typically carefully promoted and advertised as academic oriented research services, thus absolving themselves of any potential legal liability. In practice however they function quite simply as an online plagiarism service, according to Lathrop’s and Foss’s analysis of cheating in the information age: “Electronic research services prepare ‘original’ papers for a fee; one even asks for a writing sample from the student in order to produce the appropriate level and style of writing. Most sites gladly accept credit cards” (2). The illegitimate use of such services has been confirmed through numerous case studies. The recent survey of Canadian students conducted by Hughes and McCabe, previously mentioned in the opening paragraph of this work, also reveal that nearly one in every ten Canadian undergraduates are known to have used these paper mills (9). When faced with the reality of this and other, more traditional, forms of plagiarism and general academic dishonesty, one is led to question the root causes of such problems; such a question can be seen in the final thoughts of Rockland in his essay concerning electronic plagiarism:

In thinking about downloadable term papers, I have been struck by the feeling that the issue of plagiarism may be symptomatic of a deeper issue. A student who hands in a plagiarized has not bought into the instructor’s goals for a course. The plagiarist and the instructor are in an adversarial relationship. Somehow, the student has come to conclude that the goal is to “beat” the instructor, to fool the teacher. If we can convince our students that the assignments we have developed are truly for the student’s benefit, they will understand that beating the assignment harms them, not the instructor. That’s really what my thoughts about developing assignments that focus on process and are closely tied to the focus of the course boils down to. If we ask students to complete assignments of demonstrable value and offer to work with them as they complete these assignments, they are likely to join us in the educational enterprise we envision. (28)

While intentional plagiarism is rightfully considered a flagrant violation of the accepted norms and practices of academia, controversy exists insofar as unintentional plagiarism is concerned. Price, in her essay discussing plagiarism and pedagogy, maintains that cases of inadvertent plagiarism should not be dealt with as an error requiring adjudication and harsh punishment. As her experience and research indicates that inadvertent plagiarism provides opportunity for educational enrichment for students who lack understanding of intellectual property and its relationship with the internet—largely, this assertion is influenced by her research of Howard’s work on plagiarisms. His analysis of how norms regarding popular transfer of information on the internet, differ radically from academic standards in using devices such as “patchwriting”, defined as taking approach which is more collaborative in its function and very different in its character of how most information is shared within wider western culture. Western, academic concepts of plagiarism are generally rooted 18^th century thought which emphasizes individual “ownership of ideas”(Howard qtd. in Price 103).—she paraphrases Howard’s findings with regard to dealing with inadvertent plagiarism as follows: “Far from being intentional cheating, Howard argues, patchwriting is often ‘a move toward membership in a discourse community’ (Standing 7). Unintentional plagiarism in the form of patchwriting may be almost inevitable for writers new to the customs and rules of academic writing, and it can be responded to as a pedagogical opportunity.” (Price 103)

Further analysis into the history of plagiarism is also quite helpful, and is particularly instructive in understanding that intellectual property as we understand it has not always been understood as such. Our modern understanding of plagiarism can be traced to the Romantic Era of the 18^th century; at which time the according of ownership to an author of original work was driven by technological shifts of the time, such as the advent of the publishing industry, which transformed words and ideas into having intrinsic commercial value (Green 176-177). For that we reason, we cannot assume that organic development of new mediums for exchange in ideas, such as the internet, will automatically conform with our predefined notions and cultural norms that are prevalent in the academia and leaders within society rooted largely in 18^th century reasoning. That being said, the academic perception of plagiarism is not equal to the Romantic periods understanding, however understanding the basis from which this value is inherited is helpful in determining what may be going through the minds of those who engage in plagiarism and how best to combat the problem with a re-affirmation of advice that is focused on the positive aspects achievable through giving credit to whom it is due and expressing a personal commitment to edification of the intellectual self. Margaret Price, in her insightful essay quoted previously in this work for her researching pertaining to Howard, has provided further practical advice—not directly linked to prevention or punishment for plagiarism. But rather focused on creating a class room environment which seeks to understand the problem in academic terms, essentially deconstructing the concept into their varied elements. Though simple in its approach, this could act as a powerful first step in furthering the cause for understanding behind how plagiarism is and should be dealt with in academia:

We might also acknowledge, and if time permits, discuss changes in what we mean by author across different contexts: historical academic workplace vs. business workplace, a paper book vs. a hypertext book, in collaborative papers, on the Web, etc. Far from being a one-day issue-the day the policy is handed out-plagiarism, attribution, and authorship should be ongoing topics throughout the semester, to be revisited from many different angles. This would offer students various points from which to consider what plagiarism means. (109)

Works Cited

Green, Stuart P. “Plagiarism, Norms, and the Limits of Theft Law: Some Observations on the Use of Criminal Sanctions in Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights” Hastings Law Journal 54:2 (2002): 167-242 JSTOR. Mount Royal College Lib., Calgary, AB 10 Nov. 2007

Hughes, Julia M Christensen and Donald L McCabe. “Academic Misconduct within Higher Education in Canada.” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 36.2 (2006): 1-21. CBCA Education. Proquest. Mount Royal College Lib., Calgary, AB. 7 Nov. 2007

Lathrop, Ann and Kathleen Foss. Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era : A Wake-Up Call. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 2000.

Price, Margaret. “ Beyond ‘Gotcha!’: Situating Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy ” College Composition and Communication 54:1 (2002): 88-115 JSTOR. Mount Royal College Lib., Calgary, AB 7 Nov. 2007

Rocklin, Tom. “Downloadable Term Parpers: Whats a Prof to Do?” Lathrop, Ann and Kathleen Foss. Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era : A Wake-Up Call. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 2000. 25-28.

Ryan, Julie J. C. “Student Plagiarism in an Online World.” Lathrop, Ann and Kathleen Foss. Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era : A Wake-Up Call. Englewood: Librares Unlimited, 2000. 56-59.