LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L Archives

CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L  May 2007

CASLL-L May 2007

Subject:

Re: Arguing that Plagiarism is an Ineffective tool

From:

MICHAEL RYAN <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CASLL/Inkshed <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 12 May 2007 18:00:33 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (93 lines)

If I may, I will resituate the argument from the perspective of my day job, internal auditor.  In academe the professor is the adminsitrator, analyst, gate-keeper, etc., etc. on all elements of plagarism, as well as setting assignments, grading, etc..  There is no university-assigned group that has an ongoing mandate to plan, discern and report on unethical behaviour.  In my world we do this on a ongoing basis [predictably based on primarily accounting-based standards].
   
  Internal auditors have developed tests, methodologies for duplication, high-risk actions/behaviour and the means to identify these same activities.  I even belong to the Institute of Internal Auditors - but not the Association of Fraud Examiners.  
   
  As an example of internal auditors' powers of discernment I will use an example.  I understand some schools maintain a copy of all A+ papers.  This is becasue the risk of copying these is greater than the C+ papers.  As a point of debate, I would argue the C+ paper is unlikely to elicit a review for plagarism.  If the student is willing to lead a C+ life, they may do so with impunity.  
   
  Internal audit functions are not cheap.  If the university wished to ensure academic integrity [in terms of plagarism] then it would be required to have a dedicated group doing so.  It would cost the more or less the same for every auditor as it costs for a professor.  Would it be more effective - definitely.  Would it be more efficient - highly debatable.  What would it prove in the end - especially if the uptake in acaemia were markedly uneven.
   
  I volunteeer for the position of National Commissioner of Plagarism [against plagarism?].  As I retire from the federal government, it would be the type of theoretically needed function that could best be administered from Ottawa and delivered through a multi-lateral provincial and territorial framework.  Besides, I hate APA format, and from the offie of Commissisoner I would cancel the Americo-centric usage of APA as my first act.  Besides, I find APA so difficult to use, I imagine myself technically defaulted to plagarim any time I do achieve APA standardization - so far these have only been nightmares.
   
  Best regards,
   
  Michael Ryan
   
  

Russ Hunt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  Yes, thanks for raising this issue, Tania.

It probably won't surprise anybody that I have some responses to 
it. I skimmed the McDermid paper, too, on Tania's 
recommendation, and was struck, as she was, that it ends before 
it gets to the good part.

But my feeling is that there really is not going to be a good 
part, because there isn't any solution to the problem, at least 
not that involves

> ...carefully designing our rubrics and arguments about
> evaluation in order to reduce the potential reward for
> undetected plagiarism and increase the potential reward for
> honest research writing. 

I'd argue that the problem here is the rewards themselves, and 
that changing the arguments for or conditions around them is 
something we've all thought of, and which hasn't worked for any 
of us. Defining the issue as one of ethics and exhorting people 
to "be good" won't work as long as we've structured the whole 
thing as a game, to be won or lost in order to gain rewards. 
McDermid refers to the purpose of writing as "demonstrating 
knowledge." That, I'd contend, (along with "demonstrating 
skill"), is a rhetorically catastrophic motive for writing, and 
one that promotes a divorcing of the text from any dialogic 
situation. If you have authentic rhetorical motives for writing, 
plagiarism would be beside the point (even the excessively well 
documented examples of scholarly plagiarism are almost all 
wreckage from the tenure and promotion wars, where the point of 
writing is to get published and score points, or to be regarded 
as a Writer).

I'm not arguing that it's easy to make the rhetorical situations 
of student writers into ones which don't invite plagiarism, but 
I would argue that it's conceivable -- and that constructing a 
rubric for evaluation that will effectively discourage it simply 
isn't.

Tania says,

> Yet I do wish we could get more field research that would
> analyze (not just theorize) whether or not certain ways of
> evaluating writing, and talking to students about our
> evaluation strategies, really can reduce the motive to
> plagiarize. 

I'd be interested in such field research, too, but my prediction 
is that if we did it we'd find that the answer is "no," as long 
as what we're focally concerned with is evaluating writing. 

-- Russ

St. Thomas University
http://www.stu.ca/~hunt/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
[log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]

For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
  [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
         write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]

For the list archives and information about the organization,
    its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
              http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2023
February 2023
December 2022
November 2022
March 2022
September 2021
September 2020
August 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010
October 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager