Hi Russ No I did not write this document and the originial writer's name was supposed to remain with it. In fact, I argued that it would be a case of plagiarism if my name appeared with the document. I will see to it that my name is removed. We have just had a big re-organization here and somebody probably just got enthusiastic. As for the orginal document--it represents a deeply-felt, and deeply-shared set of attitudes about plagiarism. I disagree with much of the document but cannot deny its existence. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Hunt" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: Re: Arguing that Plagiarism is an Ineffective tool > Miriam says it just about right, I think: "I'm not convinced > those job applicants that Rob referred to thought of it as > plagiarizing. I'm inclined they were trying to fit in in the > same way that we ask our students to. Hence, the same results." > > There's a good deal to be reflected on here; it's a way to > illuminate, I think, just what our _students_ are trying to do. > Interestingly, in trying to find the case I remembered from a > couple of years ago, I stumbled on a nice review of a book > which, among other things, clearly makes the case for the > parallel between composing a teaching statement (for a portfolio > or dossier) and producing that term paper. The review is Jane > Mathison Fife, "Changing the Contexts for Documenting our > Teaching," _Pedagogy_ 5:1 (Winter 2005), 157-161, and the book > is _Composition, Pedagogy, and the Scholarship of Teaching_, ed. > Deborah Minter and Amy M. Goodburn (Boynton/Cook, 2002). > > I've now read the "information about Plagiarism" that the > Waterloo letter said you should read "before starting your > teaching dossier." ( > http://www.trace.uwaterloo.ca/tacerteach.html ). It's a > fascinating document. It's directed to participants in the > Waterloo Certificate in University Teaching, and it's a fairly > sophisticated version of the sort of advice about ethics and > plagiarism that universities regularly offer undergraduates. Its > central focus is integrity and values, and it makes the usual > move: yes, we all believe in integrity . . . but just in case, > here are the draconian punishments for violating our rules. > > It also offers references for "how to avoid plagiarism," as > pretty much all the anti-plagiarism documents I've read do. I > was reminded that there's something extremely odd going on here. > > A document explaining "how to avoid" something would normally > outline strategies for avoiding something that might _happen to > you_. How to avoid being electrocuted, how to avoid being > mugged, how to avoid eating contaminated food. No one writes > documents giving strategies for avoiding stealing, or > infanticide, or lying. If it's a matter of integrity it's not > something that happens to you, is it? > > Seems to me there are mixed messages here -- just the kind we > often hear in parent-to-kid discourse. Being bad is something > you somehow "fall into." You're not "bad," you get corrupted. > But you'll be punished for falling, anyway. > > I've said this before, so sorry if I'm boring people . . . but > if I really cared about communicating with you, plagiarism would > never occur to me. However, if I were in a situation where I had > to produce discourse you'd approve of, and I had no investment > in the relationship being mediated by the discourse, I'd do what > was easiest. And if you said to me, as that letter does, "For > almost all written submissions to the CUT Program (the exception > being your research paper), no references are necessary, or even > desirable. We are primarily interested in your personal > reflections on the subject matter of the workshop, panel, > observation report, etc.," I would know that you are not, in > fact, actually interested in my personal reflections at all: > you're interested in whether my personal reflections are the > kind you approve of. > > I would certainly, on the basis of that rubric, never think of > explicitly bringing anybody else's ideas in (after all, you're > interested only in what you can imagine comes out of my soul: > "no references are . . . even desirable"). So I'd find something > that I think you'd be impressed with, and I'd try to make sure - > - if I thought you were checking -- that you couldn't find the > source. Nothing about this would be about communication: it > would be about producing an impressive text. To fit in. > > In that case, plagiarism would be a pretty effective tool. Just > make sure no one saw you using it. > > Seems to me the problem, in both cases, is, as Miriam points > out, the strange rhetorical situation the writer's in. Fife's > review (and, it appears, even more the book, which I'm about to > go find) talk about some ways to make the teacher's rhetorical > situation more reasonable. They apply to what we ask students to > write, as well. > > (Interesting as well that the Waterloo document is signed by > Cathy Schryer -- though it says composed by a previous director > of the service. I wonder if Cathy can help us understand the > genre we're working in here?) > > -- 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/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-