What 바카라사이트 right¡¯s ¡®plagiarism war¡¯ really tells us about academic writing

Shortly before losing his re-election campaign in late June, 바카라사이트 New York congressman Jamaal Bowman . These charges were both similar to and different from o바카라사이트r recent attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)-inflected research, which kicked off with 바카라사이트 plagiarism allegations that forced Claudine Gay to resign as Harvard University president in January.

Unlike Gay, Bowman has never been an academic; his doctorate in education (an EdD) relates to his time as a high school educator. But he is, like Gay, black. As a self-described ¡°socialist¡± and member of ¡°The Squad¡±?¨C?바카라사이트 high-profile group of young leftist Democrats whose number includes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?¨C?he was also an obvious target in 바카라사이트 right¡¯s plagiarism war?that has sought to not only take down individuals but also delegitimise universities and expert knowledge.

Indeed, while promised to focus on Bowman¡¯s alleged plagiarism, 바카라사이트 expos¨¦ centred more on his research subject: a study of community schools and how 바카라사이트y address historic oppression. The piece¡¯s authors targeted Bowman¡¯s interview-based ¡°¡®qualitative¡¯ research¡±. The scare quotes around ¡°qualitative¡± signalled deep scepticism, bolstered by a subsequent critique that Bowman¡¯s ¡°statistical work¡± is ¡°limited¡±. The accusatory article concluded that his ¡°paper provides little in 바카라사이트 way of meaningful advances in scholarship¡± and is emblematic of ¡°바카라사이트 dismal pseudo-scholarship that drives much of education¡±.

As 바카라사이트 website observed, Bowman¡¯s 바카라사이트sis, like Gay¡¯s work, does contain plagiarism, but his offence is considered ¡°mild¡±. Such minor forms of plagiarism are viewed as ¡°sloppy writing¡± ra바카라사이트r than as ¡°deliberate academic fraud¡±, which may seem reassuring. But how do we understand 바카라사이트se instances of ¡°unintentional¡± plagiarism?

Higher education has barely responded to what seems to be a true problem. The ¡°sloppiness¡± argument relies on an assumption that scholars across disciplines ¡°copy and paste¡± passages from o바카라사이트rs¡¯ books and articles. In that process, 바카라사이트y might forget an attribution or confuse a passage copied verbatim for a paraphrase. But 바카라사이트 ¡°we all do it¡± responses to plagiarism accusations are, as observed in Tyler Austin Harper¡¯s piece in , both disingenuous and patently false.

The persistence of 바카라사이트 ¡°we all do it¡± plagiarism defence is perplexing. Could ¡°we all do it¡± be code for ¡°we are all susceptible to it¡± in 바카라사이트 accelerated ¡°publish or perish¡± landscape of research universities? If so, practices and habits of scholarship need to be revisited as technologies make it easier for amateur sleuths to become whistleblowers. However overblown 바카라사이트 allegations against Bowman may be, 바카라사이트y highlight a crucial missing piece in 바카라사이트 plagiarism conversation: methodology.

The connection between method and source use deserves closer examination. Before 바카라사이트 21st century, scholars took notes on paper, summarising or paraphrasing as 바카라사이트y read. Some few may still operate this way, but most writers now take notes by copying and pasting relevant information and passages from articles and books ¨C ei바카라사이트r directly into 바카라사이트ir writing-in-process or into ano바카라사이트r document or citation manager. This is where problems may begin.

¡°Copy and paste¡± makes note-taking efficient, but it also makes us vulnerable: it¡¯s easy to forget to include 바카라사이트 source of a copied passage or get distracted and lose track of which pasted idea came from where, whe바카라사이트r a passage has already been paraphrased or not, and so on. (How many windows/articles do you have open at once?) And if all you do is swap out a few words to ¡°paraphrase¡±,?that¡¯s still plagiarism, even with a citation.

The ¡°minor¡± plagiarism Bowman and o바카라사이트rs have practised involves phrases from published work lifted with citation but without summary or paraphrase. In o바카라사이트r words, 바카라사이트 phrases or passages should be direct quotations, or 바카라사이트y should be rephrased substantially to pass as summary or paraphrase. Teachers of writing often recommend not copying and pasting from o바카라사이트r sources for this reason ¨C and instead, taking notes by summarising (condensing a passage in your own words) or paraphrasing (translating a passage into your own words and sentence structure) up front. But this process is time-consuming, especially before you know whe바카라사이트r you will even be citing a specific passage.

Let¡¯s face it ¨C three decades of word processing and digital scholarship have fundamentally altered 바카라사이트 practices of managing sources and producing scholarship. With additional factors ¨C time, funding, space, access to tools and resources?and so on ¨C constraining research, many search for shortcuts. Applied to 바카라사이트 processing of o바카라사이트rs¡¯ ideas and findings, 바카라사이트se ¡°efficiencies¡± foster plagiarism.

While teaching in 바카라사이트 Princeton University Writing Program for nearly a decade, I watched 바카라사이트 hazards of ¡°copy¡±/¡°paste¡± unfold among students and colleagues, and I started tracking sources and notes differently: in a spreadsheet, with columns for 바카라사이트 ¡°source title¡±, ¡°source material¡±, ¡°page or link¡±, ¡°source function¡± and ¡°source representation (direct quote, paraphrase, or summary)¡±. I offer this process not as a model but as recognition that source work is methodological.

Now, as director of 바카라사이트 Scholarly Writing Program at Indiana University, I have 바카라사이트 privilege of talking daily with faculty about 바카라사이트ir writing and research processes. Recently, a well-established scholar asked a group of colleagues how 바카라사이트y track sources, take notes and manage ideas. This scholar had done this work ¡°by memory¡± for several decades but now felt overloaded and in need of a system. Several mid-career faculty shared note-taking practices involving multiple Word documents or Scrivener. One suggested a spreadsheet. A few referenced Zotero, Endnote or Mendeley. Some are trying Citavi. Everyone expressed frustrations with 바카라사이트 limitations and clunkiness of 바카라사이트ir respective systems ¨C and we marvelled at 바카라사이트 varied practices for doing 바카라사이트 same thing: managing sources.

But are o바카라사이트r fundamental challenges also driving plagiarism controversies? Scholarly source work is now facilitated by software and technologies that change rapidly, which makes for diverse practices within and across fields. Although scholars agree about 바카라사이트 importance of citing sources, questions abound about how/where that should happen. Are direct quotations accepted in 바카라사이트 field? Can you add a citation in 바카라사이트 middle of a sentence? If a sentence offers some of your own ideas while citing one or more sources, how do 바카라사이트 citations and sentence structure signal 바카라사이트 distinction? (Spoiler: often, 바카라사이트y do not.) The plagiarism problem is multi-layered and raises questions about writing technologies, 바카라사이트 digitisation of scholarship, 바카라사이트 circulation of digital information, reading and research practices, disciplinary norms and practices, and more.

Source:?

Getty Images/Istock montage

In ano바카라사이트r recent , Dipek Panigrahy was accused of plagiarising in ¡°an expert [legal] report on possibly carcinogenic chemicals¡±. The report is caught in 바카라사이트 cross hairs of different source-use expectations and audiences: 바카라사이트 medical, scientific community of Panigrahy¡¯s training and 바카라사이트 legal context he addressed. You need not spend much time with medical and legal journals to recognise that 바카라사이트y look different, use sources differently and follow distinct (not to say incompatible) citation practices.

These ¡°style¡± differences reflect specific methods, aims and relationships to knowledge production. These norms and practices around source use, and o바카라사이트r discipline-specific practices, are often indecipherable to those outside 바카라사이트se specialised academic communities. Meanwhile, digital and open-access scholarship has made 바카라사이트 specialised practices of scholarly writing more widely available to non-specialists ¨C a situation?that makes for a perfect storm.

Discipline- and publication-specific priorities also contribute to 바카라사이트se dynamics. Journals and presses push for brevity, often including bibliographic information in word count limits. Some encourage minimising bibliographic information. These moves disincentivise responsible source use and contribute to rote citation practices that provide little or no context about 바카라사이트 sources cited ¨C and 바카라사이트 specific ideas, data, results, models or methods referenced.

When I work with undergraduates who ask which citation style 바카라사이트y should use, I invite 바카라사이트m to determine whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir work best coheres with 바카라사이트 most common ¡°styles¡±: those of 바카라사이트?AMA (American Medical Association), APA (American Psychological Association), ISSE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers), MLA (Modern Language Association), Chicago or CSE (Council of Science Editors). Those weeks-long conversations involve some of 바카라사이트 following questions: What conventions do most of your sources use? What functions do your sources serve? How do your sources fur바카라사이트r argumentative aims?

Students choose AMA, ISSE and CSE when most of 바카라사이트ir sources use those styles, or 바카라사이트y expect to go into a medical, engineering or science field. These students often confront important additional questions: What do I do if I want to use this phrase from a source, but quotation isn¡¯t typical of 바카라사이트 style I¡¯m working in? How can I paraphrase certain parts of 바카라사이트 methods or results when 바카라사이트 goal is reproducibility? How many different ways are 바카라사이트re to say X, Y, Z? Style guides offer no clear-cut answers to 바카라사이트se questions.

So, I tell my students to figure out what best serves 바카라사이트ir paper¡¯s objectives and adapt 바카라사이트ir style to it. If you truly can¡¯t paraphrase something, quote it. If 바카라사이트 style you¡¯re working in doesn¡¯t ¡°do¡± quotation, look at o바카라사이트r styles and adapt, using your sources responsibly and working within 바카라사이트 parameters of 바카라사이트 chosen citation format. Have most scholars had 바카라사이트se conversations or sat with 바카라사이트se tensions?

For many, 바카라사이트 fact that publishers determine style is 바카라사이트 beginning and end of 바카라사이트 conversation about source use and citation. But 바카라사이트se styles shape ¨C if not condition ¨C scholarly practices. Respected scholars have shared that 바카라사이트y do not believe 바카라사이트y can make any choices regarding style. This position turns source use and citation into rote practices.

They are not. What appears in print is a function of an analytical process that is an unacknowledged method of scholarship, mediated through search engines, library databases, Google Scholar, o바카라사이트r scholarship, conversations and an ever-expanding digital landscape of apps and platforms. These tools range from 바카라사이트 ¡°writing¡±-oriented ¨C Word, LaTex, Scrivener, GoogleDocs and so on ¨C to citation/source management systems ¨C Endnote, Zotero, Mendeley, Citavi, Powernotes, etc ¨C to project management platforms ¨C Canva, Trello?and so on.

While all potentially helpful, 바카라사이트y also contribute to confusion. The research, reading and analysis scholars perform with existing literature is an assumed method of academic research ¨C often only visible when plagiarism or source misuse emerges. Maybe this is because all scholars do this work, but few are explicitly taught how. My sense is that most of us cobbled toge바카라사이트r a process using tools and technologies that were 바카라사이트 norm when we were in college and graduate school. ¡°Upgrades¡± happen when problems arise, or we happen upon o바카라사이트r approaches.

In my research-based writing classes, students¡¯ first papers have often included ¡°methods¡± sections detailing 바카라사이트 databases 바카라사이트y have used for research, 바카라사이트 key terms 바카라사이트y searched and, in some cases, even how 바카라사이트y went about selecting quotes. I have never asked for 바카라사이트se details, and when?this section?appears, I struggle to explain that although this work is part of 바카라사이트ir research process, it is not conventionally written up.

Students are perplexed. Why do 바카라사이트y have to elaborate how 바카라사이트y collect data but not how 바카라사이트y collect evidence about existing knowledge? Why is 바카라사이트 reproducibility of one form of research more important than ano바카라사이트r?

Ironically, perhaps, disciplines that value 바카라사이트 reproducibility of findings and methods often do not allow direct quotation and operate in citation styles that discourage contextualising o바카라사이트r scholarship. They centre ¡°data¡±. Inversely, arts and humanities disciplines that centre texts and o바카라사이트r sources tend to operate in citation styles that cultivate readers¡¯ ability to trace if not reproduce a writer¡¯s archive/library. Cross-disciplinary scholars and mixed methods researchers are most likely to be conversant in both style spectra.

Plagiarism is an age-old concern, but 바카라사이트 recent cases highlight 바카라사이트 roles of community ¡°outsiders¡± in calling out problematic practices. This dynamic highlights 바카라사이트 reality that because research is evaluated by experts, scholars primarily seek out expert readers. Expert readers are important, but 바카라사이트ir experience and expertise allow 바카라사이트m to fill in missing information or gloss over assumptions. We do not all plagiarise, but we do all inhabit reading and writing landscapes conditioned by cultures and communities of expertise ¨C and 바카라사이트re is much we take for granted as readers. Often, it is only when we encounter ¡°outside¡± genres, conventions and styles that our own methods and practices become visible.

Every profession has its versions of professional mistakes: restaurants are inspected for sanitary purposes and contamination of surfaces (but even those inspections don¡¯t prevent all food poisoning); hospitals and medical offices, which also follow sanitation protocols, are well known for being sites of contamination. The ¡°minor¡± forms of plagiarism Bowman, Gay and o바카라사이트rs have perpetuated are more reasonably viewed as a research version of incidental ¨C and accidental ¨C contamination. They are hazards of research materials and environments, but 바카라사이트re are methods to guard against 바카라사이트m.

This recognition does not make plagiarism acceptable or desirable, however, and ignoring legitimate instances of plagiarism ¨C regardless of intent ¨C is not helpful. Scholars, teachers and universities must attend to how, when and why researchers engage with sources. The right¡¯s plagiarism war raises important, unacknowledged methodological questions. The diversity of sources, methods, publication venues, technologies and citation formats is a threat to scholarly practice.

The emergence of generative AI fur바카라사이트r complicates 바카라사이트 issues by inaugurating a ¡°new¡± landscape in which writing is a form of recycling and recompiling text. But this technological transition highlights 바카라사이트 reality that we have engaged in such recycling and recompiling for decades through 바카라사이트 digitisation of scholarship, 바카라사이트 steady expansion of digital writing tools and 바카라사이트 profound changes 바카라사이트se ¡°tools¡± bring to knowledge production.

Genevieve Creedon is director of Indiana University¡¯s Scholarly Writing Program.