It’s ironic to think that a society that espouses the value of freedom and access to information must also become concerned with the value of protecting one’s intellectual property from infringement brought about by the theft of information. But then I suppose there always will be the inevitable imbalance between those that have and those who don’t have. Under these circumstances, usually such theft is clearly intentional. In the world of academia the irony is perhaps even more greatly poignant because the intent of education – including higher education – is to obtain information in an effort to better oneself. The concept of “open access” would seem to be paramount; but it isn’t.
In academia we strive to maintain the balance between access to information and the theft – intentional or accidental – of information. Academia thus creates a corollary to the concept of access to information known as plagiarism. An interesting distinction is made then between “access” to information as opposed to the “kidnapping” of that information; for that is the morphological origin of the word plagiarism. I suppose we can elevate the importance of this concept if we consider a favorite debate strategy known as “slippery slope.” A minor infraction of a rule will eventually give way to nuclear destruction and the collapse of society; therefore, it must not be allowed to exist at any level in order to deter such destruction.
Actually plagiarism may not prove to be that devastating, but it does raise the question of moral turpitude. And one might ask if that is what should be feared most beyond the actual theft of information. To this we must also consider the character of our perpetrators; there is a grave distinction between a middle schooler committing the act of plagiarism and that of an adult in higher education. For both the sin may be one of ignorance of the rules; for both it may be a matter of desperation, but how we as educators handle the situation should certainly not be monolithic.
In a democratic and literate society the custom is to consider proactive or preemptive measures and to communicate and educate both the circumstances of plagiarism and the methods for avoiding it. In this way we trust in the integrity of the individual to preserve the integrity of academia and by extension society. Our intent isn’t to teach the learner how to fool the system, but to understand how it can occur that one may cross the line between “access” to information and “kidnapping” that information. This is why colleges, for example, may make their detection system available to students. If as a student I genuinely want to avoid plagiarizing a paper – out of an interest in integrity or a fear of its repercussion if caught – having access to a detection system allows me the opportunity to run my paper through it to find questionable passages so that I can correct and amend it before official submission to the professor.
Access to tutorials through the library staff or the professor is another proactive strategy. Tutorials can provide opportunities to understand the elements of plagiarism and to practice methods of correcting or avoiding it. Of course, offering such opportunities is an “assumption of good will,” trusting to the integrity of the individual. What can be done for the student who commits the sin of plagiarism because he’s also committed the sins of procrastination and apathy? Is it a matter of punishing as a consequence after the commission of plagiarism, or is it a matter of designing the activity to limit the incidence of plagiarism? A professor might be adept enough to create an activity that allows collaboration, and therefore the sharing of information is encouraged. The professor could also consider an “open” assessment such as a “take-home” essay exam. Given the prompts well in advance, the student has the opportunity to ponder the question and his response and even to survey the past readings for support. Such strategies openly encourage the use of resources and make the issue of documentation less stressful but rather more ordinary.
What if a course is more skill-oriented than concept development, calling for a more factual approach to understanding and mastery? For those assessments that aren’t subjective, essay-response activities, probably the use of a bank of objective questions can be considered from which can be develped multiple forms of the test. With today’s computers and available software, it is possible to randomize the questions in an effort to create multiple versions of an assessment. With this capability, it might be possible then to allow “do-overs” if a student fails to achieve mastery on the first attempt.
You may have noticed that throughout this entire entry, there isn’t a single instance of documentation. Is this because I waited until the last minute to write it and just couldn’t find the time to back up my generalizations with authoritative support? Or is this the type of topic that calls more for personal perspective? Would this message be strengthened with the inclusion of specific information and therefore documentation from authoritative and published sources? Or would such documentation tend to slow down the message?
What do you think? Have I plagiarized? Or have I shown some understanding of the issue and been able to extend it beyond the collective readings on the topic?
