What Is Plagiarism? An Attempt to Clear the Murky Waters
Introduction
Plagiarism is “old news” rather than some new innovation
developed by today’s students. However,
evidence indicates that the plague of
plagiarism is widening in scope and increasing
in number of cases. Straw (2002) cites
a 1997 study in which 97% of the high
school students surveyed reported having
cheated or plagiarized at least one time
in their academic careers. She also cites
a recent college study reporting a 744%
increase in cheating on their campus over
a brief 4-year period. Admittedly, suc
h
statistics include other cheating behaviors
in addition to plagiarism. However, the
greatest increases in academic dishonesty
seem related to plagiarism specifically.
According to Mahon (2002), “[a]cademics
and teachers of all types seem to be totally
bumming about all the kids who (allegedly)
ain’t writing their own stuff”
(p. 4).
Why the increase in plagiarism? We see several theories in the literature. Some authors suggest that recent advances in technology renders this “most slippery and discomfiting of literary crimes” (Fitzgerald, 2002, p. 16) more readily committed, as students use the Internet and the handy “cut-and-paste” capabilities of word processing to generate essays, book reports, and term papers filled with the uncredited musings and findings of others. Straw (2002) cites statistics from a study conducted by Donald L. McCabe of Rutgers University regarding anonymous self-reports from students at 21 colleges and universities with regard to their academic integrity. The numbers most relevant to the current paper are these: some 15% of students reported having accessed a paper from online sources, which they subsequently submitted as their own work; approximately 51% reported that they have taken passages from a website without proper citation. Comparisons of these proportions with those of past student populations without such easy access to the work of others seem to suggest that plagiarism is “on the grow” at last in part due to the new technology. Straw suggests that some students seem to have “a sense of entitlement” to online information, since it may further blur the already somewhat vague definition of common knowledge.
Straw (2002) also suggests that today’s students face different – and greater – stressors that did previous generations. She “confesses” that her college experience was simpler in some ways that the lives of current students. She did not work, as do the majority of today’s students. And she was of a different age with respect to other demands on time and energy. “Most people have little free time these days,” she opines. “Our lives are too complex; we have too many demands and not enough time for what matters most … So people take short cuts” (p. 5). Straw is attempting to explain the increase in cheating rather than excuse it, and she refers to the current population of college students as the “Why not?” generation (p. 4).
Some educators and other authors entertain the possibility that much of the plagiarism currently in evidence derives from honest ignorance of the moral necessity and/or the correct format required to give credit to original authors (Whiteneck, 2002; Fitzgerald, 2002; Burnett, 2002). For example, Whiteneck (2002) recognizes the “somewhat foggy understanding among some students of what intellectual property is” (p. 6). For the most part, educators with this view promote proactive approaches that educate students regarding the several definitions of plagiarism and other relevant terms, as well as acceptable citation styles. As Burnett (2002) expresses it, “educators seem to agree that the best policy it prevent plagiarism rather than policing it” (p. 7).
For current purposes, we
will assume that fewer students would
commit crimes of plagiarism if information
regarding the nature of the beast and
associated pitfalls were made available.
Thus, plagiarism will be defined and discussed
in the following sections, as will appropriate
approaches to citation and paraphrasing.
Definitions
Definitions of plagiarism abound in the
literature. Some attempts to characterize
the phenomenon are expressed simply. One
online source states that “[p]lagiarism
is using others’ ideas and words
without clearly acknowledge the source
of that information” (“Avoiding
Plagiarism”). Janowski (2002) offers
a more operational definition by listing
the following behaviors that he feels
constitute plagiarism:
· Buying or downloading a paper
from a research service or a term-paper
mill and offering it as your own.
· Turning in another student’s
work, with or without that student’s
knowledge, as your own.
· Copying any portion of another’s
work without proper acknowledgment.
· Copying material from a source
and supplying proper documentation, but
leaving out quotations marks or failing
to indent properly.
· Paraphrasing ideas and language
from a source without proper documentation.
(p. 26)
Janowski’s list of plagiaristic
activities contributes significantly to
our progress toward operationalizing the
definition.
Though the list offered by Janowski (2002)
may seem unnecessarily detailed, students
need these specifics if the conscientious
among them are to avoid plagiarism successfully.
With these caveats in mind, we will now
address when to use others’ materials
and how to indicate that we have done
so.
Use of Quotations
The writer of this paper realizes that
overuse of quotations is to be avoided.
Yet the reader is undoubtedly aware that,
thus far, a considerable amount of material
from outside sources has been quoted.
Under certain circumstances, such direct
quotations are not only permissible but
indicated.
One online source suggests that a writer should quote another’s material when “the wording of the original is memorable or vivid and you can’t re-write it to sound any better” (“Paraphrase: Restating Ideas”). Additionally, according to this source, one might chose to quote an authority in a particular field in order to add credibility to one’s own statements regarding some phenomenon related to that field. Finally, quotations provide a relatively simple way of emphasizing the opinions or philosophy of the cited author.
Generally speaking, writers will want to avoid quotations that offer little uniqueness of phrase or perspective. Additionally, material that is overly technical or otherwise incomprehensible to the anticipated audience should be rendered more “accessible” through paraphrase (“Paraphrase: Restating Ideas”). Some writers quote especially difficult material because they themselves do not fully understand it. The obvious guideline in such a case is that one should not use information without some understanding of it.
Regardless of when or why other authors are quoted, it is imperative that the source of the information be acknowledged. In the case of brief quotations, the words lifted directed from another’s work must be enclosed in quotation marks. Longer passages cited are indented without quotation marks in most citation styles, including MLA and APA. Pages numbers from the original source are included to indicate specifically from whence the borrowed words came. When online sources are quoted, one must provide sufficient data within the text to lead the reader to the URL for the site, which is included in the information about sources that follows the text.
Paraphrases
According to one online source, a paraphrase
may be defined as a “thorough restatement
of the original text in your own words”
(“Paraphrasing: Restating). The
material, the thoughts, the work belong
to another, whom one is obliged to acknowledge.
The particular “turn of phrase”
now used to express those thoughts, however,
belong to the “new” author
– the individual who cites the original
source.
Maas (2002) suggests that writers use
lead-in phrases to alert the reader that
a paraphrase of another’s thoughts
will follow. “According to Pierce,”
“One source suggests,” and
“As reported in the New York Times,”
are examples of such lead-in phrases,
though additional information about the
source should be provided as well according
to the particular style being followed.
Developing this habit may serve as a reminder
that paraphrases must be acknowledged
and documented.
Guidelines for appropriate
paraphrasing are actually more complex
than those associated with direct quotations.
The idea of expressing thoughts in one’s
own words lends itself to multiple interpretations.
Even well-meaning students and other writers
may soothe their respective consciences
by changing a word here and there before
neglecting to use quotation marks or appropriate
indentation. The wording of the paraphrase
must be substantively different from the
original text. If it is not, plagiarism
is the result, regardless of the intent
of the writer.
Maas (2002) provides considerable detail
with regard to specific manipulations
of material the writer should avoid.
[P]partial or a la carte plagiarism consists
of simply changing the tense or the voice
of the sentence, substitution past tense
verbs for present tense verbs, passive
for active voice, removing an occasional
adjective, making the manuscript appear
somewhat ‘different’ from
the original, or simply substituting synonyms
without really understanding the sense
of the passage. (p. 197)
Maas suggests that good paraphrasing “takes a great deal of cerebral energy” (p. 198), and Uemilianin (2002) concurs that understanding is essential to the legitimate paraphrase.
Borrowed Ideas
To a great extent, the information above
regarding acknowledgment and citation
of borrowed ideas applies to reference
materials as well as works by individual
authors. In both cases, the reader should
be provided sufficient information to
locate the original source of the material.
Reference material references resemble
book references, specifically, in that
the publisher or holder of the copyright
is required as part of the data provided
readers.
Such reference materials
typically draw from other scholarly works
extensively. One would not expect the
author of an encyclopedia article, for
example, to draw exclusively from her
or his own experiences or knowledge. Thus,
secondary sources are often involved in
such cases. Writers should identify secondary
sources as such, giving the reader sufficient
information to identify the original “thinker”
or writer.
According to the Publication Manual of
the American Psychological Association
(2001), inclusion of another author’s
tables, maps, and the like in one’s
own work requires an additional step.
Permission must be obtained from the holder
of the copyright before such borrowed
data is used in whole or part, “as
is” or after adaptation. If the
material in question is found in a publication
for which the American Psychological Association
hold the copyright, “[i]t is not
necessary to obtain permission from APA
to reproduce one table (or figure) provided
you obtain the author’s permission
and give full credit to APA as copyright
holder and to the author through a complete
and accurate citation” (p. 174).
Whenever a writer is in doubt regarding
whether permission from a copyright holder
is necessary, she or he should err on
the side of caution by requesting permission
from the appropriate person or entity.
Common Knowledge
Determination of whether a specific fact
or other datum requires documentation
of some sort is not always an easy task.
According to one online source, common
knowledge includes “[f]acts that
can be found in many places and are likely
to be known by a lot of people”
(“Avoiding plagiarism”). A
definition such as this one, however,
may not offer sufficient guidance for
writers, however. According to Straw (2002),
issues related to common knowledge are
especially confusing to young or inexperienced
writers.
Another site offers a more detailed description of common knowledge delineates specific data that require no acknowlegment or citation information. “(B)irth and death dates of well-known figures, generally accepted dates of military, political, literary, and other historical events” and any other “factual information contained in multiple standard reference works” may generally be used without citation (“Quoting and Paraphrasing”). If the actual wording of a particular source is used, of course, rules for direct quotations apply in all cases.
Even with these guidelines, an author may be undecided regarding whether a particular datum can be considered common knowledge. In these ambiguous cases, the writer is wise to cite the source rather than risk accusations of plagiarism.
Conclusion
As indicated above, plagiarism involves
complex concepts open to various definitions
and interpretations. In this age of instant
access and gratification, the temptation
to plagiarize looms ever larger for many
writers – students and professionals
alike. But cheating in its diverse manifestations
is not new, to be sure, and implementation
of the proactive education will not eliminate
plagiarism altogether. In order to help
the “good guys,” however,
information regarding how to avoid plagiarism,
including how to document appropriately,
should be readily available to all writers.
References
American Psychological Association. (2001).
Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association. Washington, DC:
APA.
Avoiding plagiarism. (2002). Curry College. 17 Apr 2002. <http://www.curry.edu/academic/library/tutorial/plagirism.html>
Burnett, S. (2002, July 8). Dishonor & distrust. Community College Week, 14(24), 6-8.
Fitzgerald, M. (2002). A plague of plagiarism. Writer, 115(7), 16-18.
Janowski, A. (2002, September/October). Plagiarism: Prevention, not prosecution. The Book Report, 26, 28.
Maas, D. F. (2002). Make
your paraphrasing plagiarism proof with
a coat of E-PRIME. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics,
59(2), 196-205.
Mahon, R. L. (2002). Got plagiarism? Try the guillotine. Community College Week, 15(9), 4-5.
Paraphrase: Restating ideas in your own words. (2000). ASU: The Writing Center. 27 Mar 2000. http://www.asu.edu/duas/wcenter/paraphrasing.html
Quoting and paraphrasing:
What must be documented. (2003). Writer’s
Handbook.
http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/QuoWhatDocumented.html
Straw, D. (2002, July 8). The plagiarism of Generation “Why not?” Community College Week, 14(24), 4-6.
Uemlianin, I. A. (2002). Engaging text: Assessing paraphrase and understanding. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 347-358.
Whiteneck, P. (2002, July
8). What to do with a thought thief. Community
College Week, 14(24), 9-11.