Dr. Malcolm Lock, who also serves as medical officer of health in Brant County, relied heavily on a nine-page report prepared two years ago by Toronto Public Health. The reports are so similar that Lock has been accused of plagiarism.

In an interview this week, Lock admitted he “cut and pasted” from the Toronto document for the report that appeared under his name this week at Norfolk council. Lock did so without footnotes or attribution, even though the sections in question are cited and referenced in a bibliography in the Toronto report.

“This was not intended as an original piece of work from me,” Lock said. “It was a report based on the best evidence we have. Certainly, a lot of that was cut and pasted.”

Patti Moore, Norfolk and Haldimand’s general manager of health and social services, reviewed Lock’s report before submitting it to Norfolk council. Moore said this week that health units in Ontario have a history of treating each other’s reports in this manner.

Moore said Ontario health units do not have the time or resources to produce original, in-depth reports on complicated scientific and medical issues every time a municipal council asks for one. The way around this, she said, is by maintaining a pool of common information.

“This is normal practice for health units,” Moore said. “We’re a very sharing group. It’s all the same body of research that we’re looking at.”

Simcoe Coun. Charlie Luke, however, isn’t so forgiving. If Norfolk staff is going to lift entire paragraphs from reports prepared by others, Luke wants to see them attributed.

“He obviously hasn’t presented it in the proper format,” Luke said. “This is something staff should be aware of. When they put these comments and facts in a report under their name, I expect them to be the source of this information. It’s unfortunate when something like this happens. When you have a controversy like this, it just muddies the water.”

Diane Sprules of Oakville, an opponent of fluoridated water, said Lock’s report is a case study in plagiarism. She is especially disturbed that Lock relied heavily on a report that is two years old. The information in the Toronto report, she says, has been overtaken by new research.

“I don’t know what his profession thinks of this,” Sprules said. “But it appears very unprofessional. It’s shocking that he thought he could get away with it. I’m sure he’s busy, but he should’ve attributed this. He should have said where he got his information from. That report is two years old. It is not up to date. It just seems unacceptable to me.”

Lock said he would have handled the report differently had he known it would prompt this sort of reaction. Lock said he did not consider the report an original “learned piece” based on primary research. Rather, he saw himself gathering and reviewing the best facts available for council’s consideration.

Toronto Public Health declined to comment on Lock’s treatment of its report.

“We often share our board reports with other medical officers of health,” spokeperson Mary-Margaret Crapper said this week. “And we often work together on issues we’re all facing. Fluoridation is one of them. I’m not going to comment on your question. That is for the other medical officer of health to answer.”

Dr. Lock’s report recommended that Norfolk continue fluoridating municipal water in Simcoe and Delhi. Norfolk’s public works department wants the county to abandon fluoridation because the chemical involved — hydrofluosilicic acid — is highly corrosive and has been identified as a hazard to employees of the county’s water division. Following a three-hour discussion Tuesday night, Norfolk council left open the possibility of putting the fluoride issue to a public vote in the next municipal election.

519-426-3528 ext. 150

msonnenberg@bowesnet.com
The Simcoe Reformer (Ontario, Canada)
March 27, 2009 Friday
FINAL EDITION
Norfolk’s top doc accused of plagiarism;
REPORT: Cited word for word
BYLINE: BY MONTE SONNENBERG, SIMCOE REFORMER
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 656 words

Fairey continually uses the word “reference,” and points to great artists who worked from photos. However, Fairey doesn’t clarify how he used the photo: was he just glancing at it as he worked, or did he (as it almost looks) just Photoshop the original image to come up with “his” artwork? And if he did “just” Photoshop the image, is that sufficient artistic contribution to constitute originality?

Fairey argues that the purpose of his poster transforms the purpose of the original image, so they don’t compete, and his appropriation of the image is essentially fair use: “My Obama poster variations of “HOPE” and “PROGRESS” were obviously not intended to report the news. I created them to generate support for Obama; the point was to capture and synthesize the qualities that made him a leader. The point of the poster is to convince and inspire.”

Somewhat pompously, Fairey gives himself major props for his role in electing Obama

“I am glad to endure legal headaches if that is the trade-off for Obama being president” and raising awareness of Mannie Garcia’s image: “In fact, the argument has been made that the reference photo would have faded into obscurity if it were not for my poster which became so culturally pervasive.” He neglects to mention that he did not give Garcia credit for his image until stirrings about copyright violation forced him to do so.

Perhaps most disturbingly, Fairey asserts, “I do not think permission, or a collaboration is warranted in every case where an artist works from a photo reference. I collaborate with photographers because I WANT to, not because I believe I HAVE to.” Whether or not Fairey “has” to derive his works from other works (which he almost always seems to do), the definition of collaboration involves, well, collaboration”the active participation of all parties, not the use of others’ work without their consent or knowledge. We realize we’re living in a “remix culture,” but part of the remix ethos involves using artists’ work in ways they want it to be used, which usually includes giving proper credit. Fairey himself did not give credit to Mannie Garcia for use of his photo until pressed by copyright criticism, and has in fact asked others to stop using his work as inspiration for their own. So why is Fairey allowed to shut others’ art down without being subject to criticism himself? Even if he’s not a copyright infringer, Fairey is at minimum a hypocrite more concerned with his own image than with art.

Newstex ID: GOTH-0002-33596324
Bostonist
March 27, 2009 Friday 1:00 PM EST
Shepard Fairey Speaks Out: Plagiarism or (Unattributed) “Reference”?
BYLINE: Kerry Skemp
LENGTH: 469 words
Mar. 27, 2009 (Gothamist delivered by Newstex) –

If it was contemporary, the issue of plagiarism would arise because the words are virtually the same, or exactly the same.

His theory may have evolved in Tibet Charles Darwin has been accused of many things – but never before of being a closet Tibetan Buddhist. A leading scholar of human emotions and facial expressions has suggested his views on human compassion and morality were strikingly similar to those held by Buddhists.

Professor Paul Ekman says his studies of Darwin’s texts had revealed that the great Victorian scientist had identical views to those expressed by the Dalai Lama, a personal friend of Professor Ekman.

Darwin wrote at length on human emotions and compassion and strongly believed in the unity of humanity as well as the commonality of emotions shared between humans and the animals we eat, says Professor Ekman. ‘The words Darwin used are identical to those used by Tibetan Buddhists to describe compassion and morality. It is an amazing coincidence, if it is a coincidence, that his views on compassion and morality are identical to the Tibetan view. When I read to the Dalai Lama some of Darwin’s passages he said, ‘I will now call myself a Darwinian.’ ‘How did this coincidence occur? If it was contemporary, the issue of plagiarism would arise because the words are virtually the same, or exactly the same. I’m by no means accusing Darwin of plagiarism,’ Professor Ekman told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.

Darwin could have learned about Tibetan Buddhism from letters written to him by his friend Joseph Hooker, who spent time in Tibet studying the local flora. The Dalai Lama was surprised to find how similar Darwin’s writings on compassion and morality were to his views, says Professor Ekman. ‘When I see you suffer, it makes me suffer and that motivates me to reduce your suffering so I can reduce my suffering. That’s identical to the Tibetan Buddhist view.’ – Agencies.

The Statesman (India)
February 25, 2009 Wednesday
THE ORIGINS OF DARWIN
LENGTH: 303 words

Now Turnitin has a student service, but unsurprisingly, it costs money. So what are the alternatives?

UK website Scan My Essay offers two plagiarism scanners that seem to be a good alternative to Turnitin. Let’s have a look at each one.

Viper

VIPER is downloadable plagiarism software and isn’t VISTA compatible. The advantage of it being downloadable software is that it uses your connection to do the scan rather than a server connection. So if the website is busy, it doesn’t matter – you won’t be affected.

VIPER checks against all previous scans – and that’s a lot as VIPER’s been around a while. It also checks against the internet and against anything you ask it to check – an archive of files or a folder on your PC for example.

The plagiarism software has good settings control – so you can adjust it to be more or less sensitive depending on your preferences.

The slightly annoying thing is that you do have to sit next to your computer to watch the scan – sometimes you have to type in a Google captcha code to keep it running. But as the scans usually don’t take very long, that’s not a huge issue.

You can scan as many documents as you like at once, which is a benefit, although hundreds of documents logically take a lot longer.

VIPER doesn’t check against archives of digital books or journals, although it will detect any that Google has listed (quite a lot) so you’re covered pretty much as well as you would be with a Turnitin scan.

Overall this is a great piece of free plagiarism software, although if you’ve got VISTA you can’t use it unfortunately.

Raptor

Raptor plagiarism software is listed as VIPER’s alternative. It’s a purely online scanner so the benefit of this is that you can use it anywhere in the world, as long as you can remember your access details!

The scans are run through their servers, so if you have a slow connection speed, this is probably a better option for you.

As it’s online, VISTA or MAC compatibility is not an issue.

RAPTOR does scan against a library of digital books and journals, unlike VIPER – and it also scans the internet, archives of documents you upload, and against all past scans.

Users of plagiarism software will have different needs and RAPTOR and VIPER between them cover the great majority of those needs. Both are totally free and both offer free support. I’d like to see some additional features adding to Raptor as I think it could be improved – for example, scanning against your own library of documents is possible but a bit clumsy. But since both are free, and both work well, they are possibly the best free plagiarism software you’ll find. Your comments are welcome below!

“Bishop had been tripped up on a few minor matters last year including accusations of plagiarism, and some in the media had tagged her gaffe-prone.”

Malcolm Turnbull phoned Peter Costello last Sunday morning, missed him and left a message. Costello phoned him back later in the morning. The two men don’t agree on much of what happened next.

Neither has spoken publicly about the specific content of the call. But each has given an emphatic account to his political intimates. And from these we have a very good idea of their wildly differing versions.

Why does it matter? One is the alternative leader of the country. The other is a potential alternative leader of the country. They are, notionally, in the same party. Yet they cannot both be telling the truth.

First, the reason for the call. The Opposition Leader had been troubled for months by the performance of his deputy, Julie Bishop, in her post as shadow treasurer.

Turnbull was unhappy with Bishop’s ability to make the Coalition’s case against the Rudd Government. She was not able to make an impression in the media or the Parliament.

Bishop had been tripped up on a few minor matters last year including accusations of plagiarism, and some in the media had tagged her gaffe-prone.

This would have passed in time but for her detractors in her party. A group of fellow Liberals exaggerated her mistakes. And they crowed to reporters, on a non-attributable basis, that she was incompetent. Bishop grew frustrated that her public appearances had become a game of gaffe watch. She could not cut through.

Then, on the front page of last Saturday’s Herald, the paper’s chief political correspondent, Phillip Coorey, broke the news that Bishop’s support had collapsed. There was a near-universal view that she should leave the shadow treasury post before the budget is handed down in May. If she would not move, she would be forced out in a party room spill, Coorey wrote.

Bishop was alarmed. In a spill she might not only lose her portfolio but the deputy’s position. She spoke to Turnbull that night. They discussed her options. Turnbull did not urge her to quit the treasury post but he didn’t encourage her to stay either. “It’s your call, Jules,” her leader told her. “I’ll support you whichever way you decide to go.” She promised to think about it over the weekend. In the accounts that Turnbull and Bishop have given to political confidants about their conversations, there were no inconsistencies.

Turnbull and Bishop spoke again on Sunday morning, a brief call about their media plans. They decided neither would make media appearances that day. Reporters would want to ask only about one thing – Bishop’s position – and they did not want to talk about it while she decided what to do.

Bishop, in her home town of Perth, said she was still considering her options. She would spend the afternoon with friends and call Turnbull back with a decision later.

Turnbull next made his call to Costello in Melbourne. The former treasurer’s version of the call, as recounted to political intimates, is:Turnbull: You’ve seen the stories in the papers about Julie. What do you think?

Costello: Julie is the deputy leader of the party. She deserves support. She’s had a bad week. But she’s made no great errors in treasury. There was the plagiarism stuff – so what? I think she should stay.

Warming to the idea, Costello said he would phone Bishop and try to buck up her spirits.

In the interim, Turnbull phoned Bishop to share a laugh. It had been pointed out to him that a sentence from a Kevin Rudd essay in The Monthly magazine was almost identical to a sentence in the US journal Foreign Affairs. Was it plagiarism? They both chuckled.

Costello made the promised call to Bishop about 5 or 6pm (eastern summer time) on the same day. Australia’s longest-serving treasurer rang the former education minister.

The two have been friends and allies since 1998 when Costello campaigned for Bishop’s election to Parliament. This doesn’t sound like such a big deal, except that John Howard had forbidden it.

Howard had his own candidate competing for the same seat, Curtin, and did not want Bishop elected. Costello defied his prime minister. Bishop had been a fast friend ever since. The two have recounted their phone conversation to political confidants – with no inconsistencies in the two versions – as follows:

Costello urged Bishop to stay in her post: “You have to fight your way out of these things. If you resign, you make your position as deputy impossible.”

Ignore the backbiting and punch on, he urged. And as for plagiarism, she wasn’t the first politician in history who had had something written for them by a staff member. Costello assured her that he had had to put up with all sorts of criticism and difficulty and had never let it stop him.

Bishop countered that he had never been in quite the position she was confronting. The personal vitriol from within the party and in the media was making it impossible for her to conduct the economic debate.

Costello insisted: “Jules, you’re doing a fine job. Nobody could do better in these circumstances.”

And what are your plans, Peter? Bishop asked. She always asks; he always evades. But he did say: “‘I was shadow treasurer in 1994. I’m not interested in your job. I’ve made that very clear from the outset.”

Later, about 10.30pm (eastern summer time), Bishop phoned Turnbull with her decision. She would announce the next morning that she would stand down as shadow treasurer and exercise her prerogative as deputy leader of the party to assume the foreign affairs portfolio. She would remain as deputy.

This meant Turnbull would have to make a minor restructuring of his front bench. He asked Bishop to delay so he could have more time. It wasn’t that complex a task – she refused. She announced her decision on Monday morning. Turnbull announced the consequent changes. Joe Hockey would leave the finance portfolio and become the new treasury spokesman. Helen Coonan would move from foreign affairs to fill finance.

And that would have been the end of the matter. But that afternoon Sky News reported that Turnbull had offered the treasury post to Costello before offering it to Hockey. Reporters at other news outlets quickly checked with senior Liberals and were given confirmation. Other TV channels reported it as fact, too. But none spoke with Costello.

News that Hockey was Turnbull’s second choice was not very helpful for Hockey. But it infuriated Costello. He told his political intimates that Turnbull had not offered him the job at all. This, he fumed, was a fiction.

Costello interpreted the spreading of this fiction as an attempt by Turnbull to portray him as a troublemaker who was not prepared to step up and help the team, to discredit him.

Costello phoned Turnbull as soon as he heard the reports on Monday afternoon. In the account Costello has given his political confidants, he said that somebody was putting around this story and that Turnbull had better stop it.

Turnbull replied that he was not the one putting it around. “Somebody is putting it around – how is it getting around?” Costello asked his leader. It could be anybody, answered Turnbull. “You can kill it,” Costello replied.

Turnbull’s political intimates report that the leader has insisted all week that the story is accurate, that he had indeed offered the post to Costello. Turnbull would not give any details of the form of words used or any other aspect of the job offer.

This is the glaring discrepancy between the two men’s versions. Costello has given a full account of the phone call and is adamant that Turnbull did not offer him the treasury post, or even sound him out about the possibility.

Further, he points out that his friend Bishop was still in the post – there was no job to offer.

On Monday, after it had been reported that the leader had made the offer to Costello, Turnbull phoned Bishop.

According to the account she has given to her political intimates, Turnbull told her now that, during his Sunday conversation with Costello, he had put the offer to Costello. It would not have been responsible not to offer it to him, he explained.

After she put the phone down, Bishop was puzzled. Why had Turnbull not mentioned this at the time? Curiouser yet, if Turnbull had offered her job to Costello on Sunday morning, why had the former treasurer not mentioned this to her in their conversation on Sunday afternoon?

Bishop knew very well that Costello disliked Turnbull. If the leader had been behaving disloyally to his deputy by offering her job around, she was sure Costello would have told her.

If Costello and Turnbull disliked each other last weekend, by this weekend they loathe each other. That’s one point on which they can agree.

Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
February 21, 2009 Saturday
First Edition
Daggers are drawn between Costello and Turnbull
BYLINE: PETER HARTCHER. Peter Hartcher is the Herald’s political editor.
SECTION: NEWS AND FEATURES; Opinion; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 1429 words

“…she made a few stumbles but the one that was most often thrown at her – plagiarism of a Wall Street Journal article – was a cut-and-paste mistake by a staffer.”

Julie Bishop’s resignation explains why so few women go far in politics.

THERE was a certain inevitability about Julie Bishop’s demise as shadow treasurer. Not because she was incompetent. She wasn’t. Not because she handled herself badly, made shocking errors or backstabbed her leader. Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Bishop wasn’t a bad performer. Yes, she made a few stumbles but the one that was most often thrown at her – plagiarism of a Wall Street Journal article – was a cut-and-paste mistake by a staffer.

Kevin Rudd was accused this week of borrowing somebody else’s observations and plonking them into an essay he penned over the Christmas break. But there was barely a murmur in relation to the claims, compared with the haranguing of Bishop, which helped force her resignation on Monday.

There wouldn’t be a politician in Canberra who hasn’t had a staffer write a speech or essay for them. Does this make it plagiarism because it is not their own words?

One of the biggest things Bishop had in her way was her gender. It was all well and good to make her deputy leader – a political play under Dr Brendan Nelson, which owed much to gender politics – but whoa!

Under Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership she went that audacious one step further and seized a portfolio that blokes firmly believe belongs to blokes. Women should take social policy or softer jobs than Treasury. Don’t give ‘em the country’s purse strings, for crying out loud.

Bishop was never given a chance to grow into the job, as, say, Wayne Swan was allowed to do after a nervous start in Treasury.

The snapping at Bishop’s heels started almost as soon as she assumed the job. For five miserable months she was taunted in Parliament, talked about in whispers behind her back; she was ambitious, it was hissed. Funny: to a bloke, that’s a compliment.

The more she was attacked, the more her confidence eroded. And the more she put her head down. Some days she looked so despondent, it was hard to watch her, but she always rose to her feet and delivered what was expected, trying to set her discomfort aside.

Ultimately, she did what she thought was probably expected of her. Her resignation on Monday wasn’t preceded or followed by any bitchy or nasty comments in the media sourced to “supporters” or others.

Contrast that dignified silence with the outrageous spate of ambitious, disloyal, and laughably self-serving tosh that’s swirled around many of her male colleagues in the aftermath of her resignation.

Predictably, there was talk – yawn, snore – about Peter Costello, with stories that he’d been approached to take Bishop’s job, and counter stories that he hadn’t, and he was being framed and outrageously undermined.

Then there were stories that Tony Abbott was angry that the job of manager of Opposition business went to Christopher Pyne. Hardliners were miffed at being sidelined by the moderates; Pyne, in turn, being miffed at a South Australian colleague’s online musings about something that happened 14 years ago that didn’t even name him; and said colleague, Cory Bernardi, being dispatched from the front bench for disloyalty.

All the stories were whispered by MPs feeling narky, unloved or upset with their lot in Opposition. Funny – there are no women’s names in any of the reports, either directly quoted or sourced from their “supporters” or their “camp”. Either the women don’t care enough to squabble over the laughably modest spoils of opposition, or female politicians are more loyal, less hormone-fuelled about promotions and demotions and generally a hell of a lot less self-serving than their male colleagues.

The result of a week that started with the resignation of a woman hounded off the Opposition front bench ended with such serious ructions among warring blokes, Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership was under close scrutiny.

Bishop isn’t the first female politician to fall victim to the boys’ club. Nor will she be the last. Some thrive in the male world. Labor’s deputy, Julia Gillard, is teflon-coated and gives as good as she gets. But she’s an exception to the rule. Things have marginally improved since the days when Joan Kirner’s suitability for the job of Victorian Premier was questioned because she wore polka-dot dresses – but only just. There’s clearly a long way to go.

The Sun Herald (Sydney, Australia)
February 22, 2009 Sunday
First Edition
Treasury: it’s a bloke thing
BYLINE: KERRY-ANNE WALSH
SECTION: COMMENT; Pg. 41
LENGTH: 710 words

Organised by Shue Yan University, the workshop, Combating Plagiarism in a Globalised Higher Education Environment: An International Perspective, explored why students plagiarise and measures to combat the problem.

Don McCabe, a business professor at Rutgers University in the US, said “the urge to succeed” and “close bonds between students” were possible reasons for the practice.

“Some students cheat as they think the courses are too hard for them and the faculty is being unreasonable,” he said.

Professor McCabe said a lack of awareness about what constituted plagiarism was also to blame.

“Definitions of cheating are changing because of the increasing access to electronic information,” he said. “Some students conceive what they are doing is not actually cheating and some think there aren’t any problems with plagiarism.”

Tony Hung Tong-ning, of Baptist University’s Language Centre, blamed educators who saw their role as “transmitters of knowledge” for unconsciously abetting the practice.

“Some set assignments that merely call for regurgitation of existing knowledge,” Professor Hung said. “The assignments are turned into trivial exercises in searching for information online … it’s an invitation to plagiarise. Teachers should set questions that require analyses of issues.”

Professor Hung said many of the cheating culprits were “lazy” and “apathetic” students.

“The Hong Kong education system claims to nurture the whole-person development of students … but many university students [are reluctant] to engage in enquiry and discover knowledge themselves.”

With only 60 plagiarism cases lodged with the University of Hong Kong’s disciplinary committee in the past eight years, David Gardner, from the Centre for Applied English Studies, said the convoluted systems for dealing with plagiarism meant many cases went unreported.

Jude Carroll, staff and educational development consultant with Oxford Brooks University, said universities had yet to wake up to the severity of the problem.

“There are 38 universities in Sweden and only 200 cases [of plagiarism] were reported last year,” she said, adding that plagiarism had reached alarming levels.

“In the UK, essay banks are doing a thriving business. The industry is worth GBP200 million ($2HK.29 billion) a year now.”

She said universities needed to adopt a holistic approach to deal with plagiarism.

“There has to be better detection and universities have to train teachers to spot it and review policy and procedures for dealing with cases,” she said.

South China Morning Post
December 13, 2008 Saturday
Student plagiarism at ‘alarming levels’
BYLINE: Elaine Yau
SECTION: EDUCATION; Pg. 3
LENGTH: 450 words

Nine percent of respondents admitted to having used ADHD medications without a prescription since they started college. Five percent reported use within the past six months. Rates of unprescribed use increased dramatically the longer students had been at college.

The growing popularity of “study drugs” at schools like Duke is at once generally known and truly disturbing.

What’s more, although most students either take unprescribed Adderall or Ritalin or know people who do, concrete numbers of student use were unknown. This study represents the first empirical evidence that records this trend at Duke, and so it is important to consider the real weight of the figures it makes public.

Three questions present themselves. First, is the use of unprescribed ADHD medications to study a form of cheating? Second, is such use harmful to the undergraduate experience of a student at Duke? Third, can any action be taken to mitigate this rising trend? In short, the answer to all three questions is affirmative.

Taking ADHD medication without a medical diagnosis and a prescription is not only illegal. It is also a morally reprehensible means to get ahead in class. Like other forms of academic dishonesty, this behavior gives its users an unfair advantage over others. Although it is far easier to conceal and harder to detect, unprescribed use of Adderall is as dishonest as plagiarism and cheating on an exam.

Second, the deception involved in this self-medication undermines the spirit of cooperation and healthy competition that defines a vibrant academic community. The use of study drugs accustoms a student to a cycle of procrastination, desperation and cramming with the secret help of a strong stimulant.

An unchecked culture of study drugs only exacerbates the real academic pressures that exist in any competitive university. It also replaces a culture of learning with an environment in which getting the task done in as little time as possible is the only focus.

And on the level of the individual student, this is a self-destructive habit with numerous negative health effects. For the rest of your life, will you reach for a pill before every major assignment?

For these reasons, abuse of ADHD medications for academic purposes should be designated in the University judicial code as a form of cheating. By codifying this in University judicial policy, our generation’s newest form of academic dishonesty will take its rightful place alongside plagiarism, cheating and lying.

It should be clear that this column does not mean to condemn students who truly need these drugs, take them on a regular schedule and have a prescription to use them. For many, ADHD medications are a medical innovation that have helped to level the playing field. (By contrast, abuse of ADHD medication attempts to manipulate and surpass this playing field.)

College campuses across the nation have witnessed a rising trend of unprescribed study drug use with alarming nonchalance. The University must take steps to formally condemn this behavior in a general effort to dissuade it. We do not want the abuse of drugs to become even more of a part of campus culture than it already is. Inaction is not an option.

(C) 2008 The Duke Chronicle via UWIRE
University Wire
January 13, 2009 Tuesday
Editorial: Just say no to study drugs
BYLINE: By Editorial Board, The Duke Chronicle; SOURCE: Duke
LENGTH: 575 words
DATELINE: DURHAM, N.C.

If the new forms of detection software are to be believed, a sizeable proportion of students are plagiarists – and the worst culprits are international students.

But when does poor referencing and an inability to better phrase an original source become cheating – and a reason for serious disciplinary action and the humiliation that goes along with it?

An Australian study of Turnitin – a detection service that compares work submitted electronically with the 2.6 billion publicly available pages on the internet and with all the essays it has previously checked – found that 14 per cent of 1,925 essays examined contained examples of plagiarism. Unacceptable levels of plagiarism were found in all six universities in the study and in more than 70 per cent of the subjects covered. The study noted that what was detected was just the tip of the iceberg because Turnitin did not check against many books, journals or “paper mills”.

Detection systems are enough to make any student suffer from paranoia. Did I invent the line I just wrote? Have I created a new phrase, or am I regurgitating expressions that have been sitting in my brain from the article I read this morning or a website a year ago?

The challenges are far worse for international students, who work in a second or third language in an unfamiliar academic culture – and now are prey to suspicions that they may suffer from a congenital habit of plagiarism.

In fact, the reason such students are branded as cheats is that universities have flawed ideas about plagiarism. Plagiarism is not a simple phenomenon. It is not a straightforward choice between cheating and not cheating. A number of complex conditions shape the writing practices of students.

International students who study in the UK are given the vocabulary (theoretical ideas) and the grammar (academic style of writing, structure, argumentation, referencing and so on) and then are expected to be expert users of the academic language, and to be able to converse (write an essay) by directly creating independent phrases.

However, these ideas, rules and conventions, even if understood individually, do not equip non-native students to immediately speak and write this new language.

International students learn to deal with academic study through “patch- writing”. In the process of learning to “speak like the teacher” and the authors they read, international students copy from source texts, use different grammatical structures where needed, and replace words with synonyms. In itself, patch-writing can demonstrate an active and informed engagement with texts, and can often be used to develop an independent argument.

There are also cultural considerations. In many Asian cultures, copying, especially through large amounts of repetition, is seen as the true route to learning. Young learners are encouraged to copy good expression and exemplars.

Detection systems do not pick up on plagiarism – they detect exact copies of strings of characters. This is an important distinction if we are to treat students appropriately.

For example, one by-product of the detection system is a league table that highlights the submissions with the most text copied. But this table is likely to list at the top those students who struggle with language, academic culture or subjects rather than just students who cheat. They might more usefully be branded “problem” detection systems.

With regard to their potential to identify “cheats”, you could argue that those who cheat deliberately would try to avoid detection by rewriting many of the words they have copied and thus escape notice. Indeed, if one changes the text sufficiently from the original, it is possible to copy the ideas and retain some of the text of the original source but remain undetected. So what are we detecting?

The issue of plagiarism detection cannot be delegated to an electronic system or service that can cope only with the idea that copying equals plagiarism. The software is being used too early in the careers of students, when they need some time and understanding of the transition they are making into the sometimes shadowy rules of academic writing, not even more suspicion and scrutiny.

Niall Hayes is a lecturer in organisation, work and technology, Lancaster University Management School.

The Times Higher Education Supplement

January 29, 2009

A cheat, moi? That’s unfair

BYLINE: Niall Hayes

SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 26 No. 1881

LENGTH: 733 words