Introduction to Graduate Research

Plagiary and the Art of Skillful Citation: Introduction:
Why we need to talk about plagiarism

© 1996 by John Rodgers, Ph.D
798-3903 Room M929

I will attempt in this essay to explain what plagiarism is, why scientists want to avoid it, and how they can. It is my belief that the lack of the last of these - the skills of proper and effective citation of language and ideas obtained from others- that is the chief cause of most cases of plagiarism that I have uncovered. Moreover, I would like to shift the focus from what I see as a problematic focus on the "sin" of plagiarism and related scholarly transgressions to an ethic of excellent competency in the craft of science writing.

Most of what I have to say applies, I think, to other forms of writing as well. However, there are two key differences between the writings of scientists and other kinds of writing. First, scientific writing aspires to an extreme level of "objectivity" where the personal "opinions", conceits, grandiosities and cultural contexts of the writer are minimized. Scientific writing is commonly presumed to be about things that are universally and timelessly "true". Robert Day emphasizes this point in discussing the use of tense in scientific writing:

In order to approach the standard of universality, the writer of science should aspire to a style of writing that minimizes culture-specific allusions and metaphors. The writer should remember that important members of his or her audience are not native English-speakers.

The second chief difference between scientific writing and other forms of writing is the kind of arguments that are used to persuade the reader of the truthfulness of what is written. These arguments are "scientific" arguments in the popular sense of the word that suggests precisely the objective, universal and timeless quality mentioned above. Certainly the arguments need to appear not to be argumentative but based in clear logic and well established premises. The writer will appeal to the reader's trust in such logic and in the existence of such premises. The reader's trust in logic is reflects his or her membership in the rationalist tradition. The reader's trust in well-grounded premises comes from acceptance of the "communality" of science . That is, the reader trusts the writer belongs to the same ethical "club" in which are observed rather strict rules of citation and reporting of findings. This is where the special skills of citation and reporting are most needed, because poor skills can lower one's credibility even in the absence of actual misconduct.

What really needs to be said about plagiarism and related transgressions of a scholarly or academic ethic? To educators it is clearly felt that something needs to be said, because too often we find we must deal with instances of students or colleagues who have plagiarized. At the very least this entails embarrassment for the perpertrator, at the worst it can mean expulsion from school, loss of funding or job, the scorn of colleagues. Dealing with professional misconduct can also become an enormous and sometimes debilitating institutional encumbrance. To deal with plagiarism in general (and, to be sure, other forms of misconduct) committees must be formed to draft policies and ethical codes.

I am discussing plagiarism in detail because I think it is at once one of the more commonly occurring examples of misconduct and one of the easiest to commit "innocently." In many cases, plagiarism is committed simply because the student or scholar does not know the proper techniques of citation. These skills need to be applied not just during the writing phase but during the first approaches to the literature. In this course we have felt it important to deal forcefully and upfront with plagiarism, before student begin to write, and before they begin to take notes.

"Plagiarism" is not so easily defined. In general, definitions of "plagiarism" include the idea of theft of language, wording, or ideas. One definition often repeated (and quite possibly plagiarized) specifies the intent to "pass off" language "as one's own". This definition is one of fraud rather than really of theft.

To some it might appear that plagiarism is easy to spot, but it is easy to find situations where "reasonable people will disagree". For example, copying an entire sentence without citation would be considered by most to be plagiary. What about three or four words in a row? Some sentences are short! What about phrases of three or four words? I once borrowed the phrase "hurtling toward death" from a fellow undergraduate. It had been used by the originator in a paper on existentialist philosophy. I used this phrase, without attribution, in an in-class exam essay in political science, where it was marked for praise by the instructor. This was a clear case of plagiarism. I had used the metaphor and even specific wording of another and passed it off as my own. In scientific writing, however, the somewhat formal style of writing recommended above meanas that we must often use phrases that in other forms of writing would be hackneyed, stale. For example, sentences like, "T lymphocytes were isolated according the method of Forzabruta " might be found in many published papers, yet immunologists would rarely consider these plagiarisms. The same sentence, reproduced by another writer on plagiarism but without citation to this docoument, would be clear plagiary! A key feature of these examples is the issue of fraud: portraying a unique idea or phrase as if it were one's own.

For others, ethical positions are not inherently privileged but appear relativistic. One might also make the case that plagiary- the theft of language- represents a peculiarly difficult (or quintessentially apt) ethical quandary. Thus a deconstruction of plagiary might question an emphasis on particular words, phrases, utterances, content that ignores the "framework" of those utterances. Or, the concept of "theft" implies ownership; and we are left then with understanding just how one person can "own" words, and what it means then to "steal" those words. It is profitable in small groups to discuss assumptions about a posited common framework of science or communality of scientists (to use Barber's (1952)'s phrase), and also to discuss the role of framework or context (such as the use of quote marks) to indicate ownership relationships. Other post-modernist critiques might point out that the notion of ownership of language presupposes an unjustifiably privileged point of view, and that it is another instance where a rationalist justification of ownership is used as cover for a power-play.

It would be easy, however, to allow a discussion about plagiarism based on the paradigm of a rationalist analysis of science to become mired in the anxiety and groundless-ness of post-modernist relativism and thereby fail to give our students clear direction regarding responsible and competent professional writing.

According to Alasdair MacIntyre, the Homeric tradition used the word transliterated as "agathos" ( "good") to refer almost exclusively to the qualities of the warrior hero: a warrior was "good" to the extent that he exhibited excellent courage, technical skill, physical prowess and intuition.

So in our ordinary English use of good, "good, but not kingly, courageous, or cunning" makes perfectly good sense; but in Homer, " , but not kingly, courageous or clever" would not even be a morally eccentric form of judgement, but as it stands simply an unintelligible contradiction. (p. 6)

Send us comments inquires about this page
Last update was 7/30/96

Return to Departmental Home Page