Scholars from these sister disciplines contributed pieces we felt were essential to presenting the issues surrounding plagiarism in their fullness. Composition studies intersects middle and high school writing pedagogy as well; concurrent credit courses are common now in every state, calling on universities and middle and high schools to share theories and practices with one another. Thus, the voice from middle school was important to providing a more complete picture of a far-reaching and complicated issue. In short, the present collection benefits from conversations about plagiarism occurring in the disciplines most closely connected to those in composition scholarship.
Part I. Definitions of Plagiarism: Distinctions, Laws, and Rules
We begin this volume, as any good critical study should, with a discussion of definitions. Simplistic definitions of plagiarism, we believe, have done more harm than good. Thus the essays collected in Section I look at plagiarism from a variety of perspectives that expose and examine some of the gray areas in and between definitions. Phillip Marzluf has developed a set of specific, hypothetical cases of “plagiarism” and asked both students and teachers to identify those that are, in fact, plagiarism. The results of his study illustrate not only that students and teachers often disagree about what constitutes plagiarism but also that teachers sometimes disagree among themselves. Students and teachers alike can use this study to begin their own discussion of what does or does not count as plagiarism and why. Moreover, this study should inspire larger questions about what difference these classroom definitions might make to the field in general: If the composition classroom becomes the laboratory for how we conceptualize plagiarism, how do these locally changing definitions shape how scholars in the field talk to one another and promote national statements on the issue?
The most important point, we argue, is not that any particular act does (or does not) constitute plagiarism, though there are greater and lesser degrees of consensus on different scenarios; rather, there are clearly differing definitions in play, and moreover, no one definition is equally germane to all possible scenarios. One way to more fruitfully explore these competing definitions is to compare notions of plagiarism to other, related concepts, as Jessica Reyman (Chapter 2) and Esra Mirze Santesso (Chapter 3) do. In asking, “Is All Copying Theft?” Reyman untangles the terms “copyright infringement” and “plagiarism.” In so doing, she offers a part of the plagiarism discussion that is fairly new to composition pedagogy, which has taken for granted that students would learn to engage research in their writing development: the rights and responsibilities of students using outside sources. What are they? What is at stake? While she acknowledges the many ways writers may cheat, she argues against the tendency to quickly condemn all acts of copying as plagiarism and supports a concept of “allowable copying,” which she believes to be inherent in successful academic work in the digital age. Situating a similar sort of discussion in the literature classroom, in Chapter 3 Santesso teases out the differences in meaning among concepts of plagiarism, borrowing, imitating, reworking, and reinterpreting, arguing that we must understand these differences or run the risk of oversimplified understandings of literature and confusion over the value of intellectual collaborations and artistic dialogue.
These discussions of the definitions and meanings of plagiarism demonstrate, as Paul Parker argues in Chapter 4, that avoiding plagiarism is not merely adherence to a set of technical rules but rather a complicated process involving the development of critical, “authorial judgment.” It is assumed in composition pedagogy that writers must learn to navigate a complex set of texts, distinguish between the ideas of others and their own, and determine the extent to which attribution is necessary in a particular set of circumstances. It’s a tall order, and few students develop a meta-awareness of how the synthesis of these skills should “look” in a text. Sure, students may read academic texts for their content; but how often do they examine the mechanical construction of those texts as researched documents? Examining the linguistics of source integration in a series of specific texts, Parker shows how academic authors construct meaning as they make informed citation decisions in their analyses.
Part II. Texts, Technologies, and Surveillance
Competing definitions and conflicting contexts are especially significant in the digital age in which we live, work, and write, and the changes in digital technologies is at the heart of much discussion in composition studies. Thus in Part II we turn to discussions of a variety of media, which bring with them a whole new set of concepts, including creative collage, sampling, remixing, and media piracy. In Chapter 5, for example, Richard Schur explores the work of artists DJ Danger Mouse and Kanye West as a way to celebrate the collaborative culture and “ethical code” of hip hop, and to illustrate the ways academia perceives similar standards for authenticity and documentation. Schur argues that such examples of sampling in popular culture can help us better understand the creativity and integrity involved in utilizing outside sources.
Likewise, taking a progressive stance in the field to resist the traditional notion of writing as the work of an author operating inside of a bubble of unique ideas, Martine Courant Rife and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss argue in Chapter 6 that composing should instead be perceived and taught as “remixing.” This term recognizes the innovation of technology, which encourages authors to construct new meaning by assembling pieces that are often derived from others’ work. This concept of “writing-as-remix,” the authors argue, should inspire us to embrace and complicate the conversation around an “ethic of Fair Use.”
These essays discuss some of the ways the digital age has raised the stakes. In some ways, it seems, it is easier to plagiarize; in other ways, it is also both harder and easier to spot and identify. What some scholars and cultural critics view as a “culture of cheating” (Callahan xvi) has created an academic culture of suspicion and surveillance, as demonstrated by the development (and increasing popularity) of plagiarism detection software. Such a climate, in which the focus is on policing plagiarism rather than teaching and supporting students as they learn conventions of attribution and citation, is counterproductive. In Chapter 7, Deborah Harris-Moore draws from Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish to highlight the ways plagiarism detection software can be used by administrators and teachers to abuse their power over students. It is important to consider here the complexities of teacher authority and power in the composition classroom, especially in contrast to other classroom settings. How should we define the culture of the composition classroom? What effect does an adversarial relationship between teacher and student have on that culture?
In a similar vein, but for different reasons, Sean Zwagerman argues in Chapter 8 that enforcing anti-plagiarism policies through surveillance and punishment creates hostile divisions between students and teachers and even between those students who do plagiarize and those who don’t. These divisions can have negative effects particularly in the composition classroom, which relies on a collaborative, cooperative environment between teacher and student. Zwagerman explains that both students and teachers are sometimes oversensitive to evaluation; students sometimes plagiarize to avoid bad evaluation, and teachers sometimes deal with such plagiarism unproductively, also to avoid negative teaching evaluations. Zwagerman believes plagiarism policies reliant on surveillance and punishment exacerbate these divisions, and he calls for more collaborative policies that might heal unproductive rifts.
Part III. Authorship and Ownership: Cultural and Cross-Cultural Perspectives
Ultimately, plagiarism is a cultural concept. In a digital, multicultural, and global context, then, cultural and cross-cultural perspectives on authorship and ownership merit exploration. Thus, we begin the final section with Bridget M. Marshall’s “Who Cares About Plagiarism? Cheating and Consequences in the Pop Culture Classroom,” an examination of portrayals of plagiarism and cheating in American popular culture. Using specific examples from television, literature, and film, such as Harry Potter and South Park, and comparing/contrasting these with examples of other media, Marshall reveals the mixed messages sent by pop culture about what constitutes “cheating.” Indeed, students and teachers live in a daily barrage of media references from pop culture, and these references help shape not only the content of our compositions but also our relationships to those texts. Marshall’s chapter offers us
