defining plagiarism.
Marshall’s essay also provides a useful contrast to the discussions of authorship, ownership, and “cheating” that follow. Because first-year composition often offers students their only (or at least primary) instruction on the ethics of ownership in academic culture, composition teachers are routinely expected to behave as gatekeepers, stemming the flow of dishonesty and confusion about plagiarism; as gatekeepers these instructors are expected to not only be aware of cultural differences in their first-year students but also to understand these differences sufficiently to provide clear instruction for preventing any kind of “cheating” in college. In Chapter 10, Rachel Knaizer highlights the overlapping and often conflicting cultural understandings of plagiarism that exist in any one classroom, and shows how those overlaps can confuse students about the nature of plagiarism, especially as students don’t get their information about plagiarism solely from teachers but also from one another. She explains that writers from different countries are especially at risk for being misidentified as plagiarists due to their cultures’ different understandings of language and ownership.
Lise Buranen, in Chapter 11, discusses how various cultures define concepts related to plagiarism and the ownership of language. Based on the results of her own qualitative study, Buranen argues that much of the literature about cross-cultural understandings of plagiarism has resulted in oversimplified maxims for the classroom. Such maxims put all students at risk of believing they don’t understand the rules simply through some fault of their own rather than as a result of complex influences embedded in their individual cultures. Anne-Marie Pederson likewise complicates ideas about plagiarism in Chapter 12 by explaining some of the cultural contexts that contribute to misunderstandings about what constitutes plagiarism and why some people do plagiarize. She explains how Western ideas about property ownership tie to common ideas about plagiarism, and then explains how material conditions and educational experiences facilitate the practice of plagiarism in some cases.
All of these ideas—cross-cultural, popular, academic—provide fertile ground for discussion and, taken together, they present contrasts that are important to examine. Rather than offer a simplistic definition and a guide to avoiding plagiarism, this volume is intended to help students and teachers alike think critically about the very concept itself, and to participate in serious intellectual inquiry and discussion. It is the contention of the editors of this collection that all of us be aware of and understand in a deep way the controversies about plagiarism that writers continually negotiate. All writers, for example, must confront the “problem” that we all owe an enormous debt to those who have come before us, and to our contemporaries, for feeding and shaping our own ideas. All writers struggle to understand what plagiarism really is. Are all ideas plagiarized? Is there really such a thing as true originality? How do we deal with information overload versus our responsibility to document the writers and thinkers already published? Critical Conversations About Plagiarism opens these questions for a collaborative exploration of their meaning and implications in our increasingly complex academic lives.
Works Cited
Atkins, Thomas, and Gene Nelson. “Plagiarism and the Internet: Turning the Tables.” English Journal 90 (4): 101–104. Print.
Blum, Susan D. My Word!: Plagiarism and College Culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2009. Print.
Callahan, David. Preface. Guiding Students from Cheating and Plagiarism to Honesty and Integrity: Strategies for Change. Ed. Ann Lathrop and Kathleen Foss. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2005. xv–xvi. Print.
Donnelly, Michael, Rebecca Ingalls, Tracy Ann Morse, Joanna Castner, and Anne Meade Stockdell-Giesler. “(Mis)Trusting Technology that Polices Integrity: A Critical Assessment of Turnitin.com.” inventio 8:1 (Fall 2006). Web. 14 January 2010.
Hamalian, Leo. “Plagiarism: Suggestions for its Cure and Prevention.” College Composition and Communication 10.1 (1959): 50–53. Print.
Hamilton, Edward. “Let’s Teach Composition!” College English 6.3 (December 1944): 159–164.
“Honor Code & Councils.” WM.edu. The College of William and Mary. n.d. Web. 14 January 2010.
“The Honor Code at Longwood University.” Longwood.edu. Longwood University. n.d. Web. 14 January 2010.
Howard, Rebecca Moore, and Amy Robillard, eds. Pluralizing Plagiarism: Ideas, Contexts, Pedagogies. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2008. Print.
Lathrop, Ann, and Kathleen Foss, eds. Guiding Students from Cheating and Plagiarism to Honesty and Integrity: Strategies for Change. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2005. Print.
Lathrop, Ann, and Kathleen Foss. Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era: A Wake-Up Call. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2000. Print.
Lipson, Charles. Doing Honest Work in College: How to Prepare Citations, Avoid Plagiarism, and Achieve Real Academic Success. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P, 2004. Print.
Marsh, Bill. “Turnitin.com and the Scriptural Enterprise of Plagiarism Detection.” Computers and Composition 21 (2004): 427–438. Print.
McCabe, Donald L., Linda Klebe Trevino, and Kenneth D. Butterfield. “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research.” Ethics & Behavior 11.3 (2001): 219–232. Print.
McCabe, Donald L., and Jason M. Stephens. “‘Epidemic’ as Opportunity: Internet Plagiarism as a Lever for Cultural Change.” Teachers College Record (30 November 2006). Web. 14 January 2010.
Moran, Charles. “The Winds, and the Costs, of Change.” Computers and Composition 9.2 (April 1993): 35–44. Print.
Selfe, Cynthia. “Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention.” College Composition and Communication 50.3 (1999): 411–36. Print.
Stern, Linda. What Every Student Should Know About Avoiding Plagiarism. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. Print.
Zwagerman, Sean. “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism, and the Rhetoric of Academic Integrity.” College Composition and Communication 59.4 (2008): 676–710. Print.
Part I
Definitions of Plagiarism:
Distinctions, Laws, and Rules
In most discussions, the definition of plagiarism is assumed to be obvious to all. Most composition textbooks, especially those that deal with research writing, contain sections on plagiarism and appropriate citation of sources. Virtually every writing “handbook,” a staple of the first-year writing course, does the same. In most cases, these texts offer a simple one- or two-sentence definition, as if plagiarism is really a simple matter—agreed upon by all—and easily avoided by the use of proper citation. Few offer more in terms of critical discussion or even indicate that there is disagreement over what plagiarism is.
The fact is—there is no one simple definition of plagiarism that works clearly and effectively for all cases. Consider, for example, the following definitions provided by three different writing handbooks:
“Plagiarism is understood to be a writer’s deliberate misrepresentation of another’s writing or ideas as his or her own” (Blakesley and Hoogeveen 358).
Researchers who fail to acknowledge their sources—either intentionally or unintentionally—commit plagiarism. Buying a term paper from an online paper mill or “borrowing” a friend’s completed assignment are obvious forms of plagiarism. But plagiarism also includes paraphrasing or summarizing
