|
Introduction | What is plagiarism | Avoiding Plagiarism | Examples
|
Plagiarism is a serious academic offence. Each year a number of cases of plagiarism are brought to the attention of the Deans and the Presidents Office. Depending on the severity of the offence, students found guilty of plagiarism may lose credit for the assignment in question, be awarded a mark of zero in the course, or face suspension from the University. Most cases which pass through the Deans office result in at least a temporary suspension from the University (permanently noted on the students transcript) and a mark of zero.
Complete plagiarism
Near-Complete plagiarism
Patchwork plagiarism
Lazy plagiarism
Self plagiarism
Most simply, plagiarism is intellectual theft. Any use of another authors research, ideas, or language without proper attribution may be considered plagiarism. Because such definitions include many shades of accidental or intentional plagiarism, these need to be described more fully.
This is the most obvious
case: a student submits, as his or her own work, an essay
that has been written by someone else. Usually the original
source is a published journal article or book chapter. The
use of unpublished work, including the work of another
student, is just as serious. In such cases,
plagiarism cannot be "avoided" by paraphrasing the
original or acknowledging its use in footnotes. The work
is the property of another author and should not be used.
See Example
#1
A student may also lift
portions of another text and use them in his or her own
work. For example, a student might add her or his own
conclusions or introduction to an essay. Or a student might
scatter his or her own comments through a text taken
substantially from another source. These practices are
unacceptable. Even with some attribution, the bulk of the
work has been done by another. See
Example
#1
In many cases, a student will lift ideas, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs from a variety of sources and "stitch" them together into an essay. These situations often seem difficult to assess. Most essays, after all, are attempts to bring together a range of sources and arguments. But the line between plagiarism and original work is not difficult to draw. See Example #2
Lazy plagiarism crops up in many student essays, and is usually the result of sloppy note-taking or research shortcuts. Examples include:
inadvertent use of
anothers language, usually when the student fails to
distinguish between direct quotes and general observations
when taking notes. In such cases, the presence of a footnote
does not excuse the use of anothers language without
quotation marks. use of footnotes or
material quoted in other sources as if they were the results
of your research. sloppy or inadequate
footnoting which leaves out sources or page
references.
Although it may not be the students intention to deceive, it is often difficult for instructors to distinguish between purposeful and accidental plagiarism. See Example #3
The
use of an essay written for one course to satisfy the
requirements of another course is plagiarism. Students
should not use, adapt, or update an essay written for
another purpose. This
is not intended to discourage students from pursuing
specific interests. If you want to use a previously
completed essay as a starting point for new research, you
should receive the instructors approval and provide
her or him with a copy of the original essay. If you want to
use substantially similar essays to satisfy the requirements
of two related courses, you should get approval from all the
instructors concerned.
research
writing
footnoting
editing
It is not hard to draw the distinction between original and thoroughly plagiarized work. But the "grey areas" between these extremes are more vexing. Students should avoid any hint of dishonesty by maintaining good research habits and paying attention to a few basic rules of writing and documentation.
Most written assignments begin with the collection of research notes -- a combination of ideas or quotes from other sources, and the students own ideas. Whether you keep notes on index cards, in a loose-leaf binder, or on old envelopes in a desk drawer, it is important to record and organize them in such a way that vital information is not lost.
Keep careful and
complete track of sources. Accurately copy the author,
title, and other information about the source publication,
including the number(s) of the page(s) from which
notes or quotes were taken. Distinguish carefully
between your ideas and the ideas of others. This is a simple
question of intellectual honesty. If you use anothers
conclusions, acknowledge them. If you come to the same
conclusions as another on your own, you should still
acknowledge the agreement. Distinguish carefully
between your own words and those of others. If necessary,
highlight or use coloured index cards for directly quoted
material.
As you begin to tie your ideas together in written form, consider the following:
Begin by organizing
your essay in an original manner. Avoid mimicking the
pattern or order of argument used by others. Remember: this
is your humble contribution to a debate or a body of
research; it is not (in most case) an attempt to summarize
or paraphrase the work of others. As you weave the ideas
and language of others into your work, make clear choices
about the use of quoted material. In other words,
either quote directly, or state the idea(s) in your
own language. Do not mess around with close paraphrases or
purely cosmetic changes. See Example
#4 Read the first draft
carefully. Is the distinction between your work and the
work of others clear and unambiguous? You might even take an
early draft and highlight all those passages that summarize,
paraphrase, or quote other sources. Is there enough of your
own work left in the essay?
Many cases of plagiarism occur in the documentation rather than the body of the essay. You should have a clear idea of the variety of purposes a footnote (or endnote) may serve, and many different ways you can acknowledge the work of others. For specific cases See Example #5. Also note the following:
Always record
your source of the information; never use or rely on
another authors footnotes. The footnote should
allow the reader to find or check the material being cited.
Provide exact page numbers for direct quotes, and a range of
page numbers for more general points. If you included more
than one source or reference in a footnote, the relevance or
order of the various sources should be clear to the
reader.
Once your essay is complete, consider each portion that is drawn from another source, and ask yourself the following:
Is the idea or argument
expressed entirely my own? Is the general language
or choice of words (including even phrases or rough
paraphrases) my own?
If either answer is "no," the work must be credited to the original author. And if the answer to the second question is "no," the passage should either be quoted directly or rewritten in the students own words and credited directly.
Complete or Near-Complete Plagiarism
Despite minor changes to the text, the passages are substantially unchanged.
In the first case, the plagiarist also lifts the footnote from the original. Note that the use of even very brief passages (such as the "wings of aspiration") constitutes plagiarism. Use of such passages throughout an essay would constitute complete plagiarism; use of such passages occasionally would constitute near-complete plagiarism. [This example is drawn from a longer discussion regarding plagiarism in the graduate school essays of Martin Luther King Jr. Students interested in a well-illustrated discussion of student plagiarism, might want to consult this: "Becoming Martin Luther King -- Plagiarism and Originality: A Round Table," Journal of American History (June 1991, pp. 11-123. The example used below is on p. 25.]
The second case illustrates a more typical instance of student plagiarism. Even the footnote to the original does not excuse the substantial use of the originals language.
It is Eros, not Agape, that loves in proportion to the value of its
object. By the pursuit of value in its object, Platonic love is let up and away
from the world, on wings of aspiration, beyond all transient things and persons to the
realm of the Ideas. Agape, as described in the Gospels and Epistles, is "spontaneous
and uncaused," "indifferent to human merit," and
"creates" value in those upon whom it is bestowed out of pure generosity. It
flows down from God into this transient, sinful world; those whom it touches become
conscious of their own utter unworthiness; they are impelled to forgive and love their
enemies....because the God of grace imparts worth to them by the act of loving them.*
[footnote* is to Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros. (New York, 1932), pp. 52-56] Plagiarized Version As Nygren set out to contrast these two Greek words he finds
that Eros loves in proportion to the value of the object. By the pursuit of value in its
objects. Platonic love is let up and away from the world, on wings of aspiration, beyond
all transient things and persons to the realm of the Ideas. Agape as described in the
Gospels and Epistles, is "spontaneous and uncaused," "indifferent to human
merit," and creates value in those upon whom it is bestowed out of pure generosity.
It flows down from God into the transient, sinful world; those whom it touches become
conscious of their own utter unworthiness; they are impelled to forgive and love their
enemies, because the God of Grace imparts worth to them by the act of loving them.*
[Footnote* is to Nygren, Agape and Eros, pp. 52-56]
Original The strike officially began on May 29, and on June 1 the
manufacturers met publicly to plan their resistance. Their strategies were carried out on
two fronts. They pressured the proprietors into holding out indefinitely by refusing to
send new collars and cuffs to any laundry. Also the manufacturers attempted to undermine
directly the unions efforts to weather the strike. They tried to create a negative
image of the union through the press, which they virtually controlled. They prevented a
few collar manufacturers in other cities from patronizing the unions cooperative
laundry even though it claimed it could provide the same services for 25 percent less.
Under these circumstances, the collar ironers tactics were much less useful. Plagiarized Version The strike began on May 29, and on June 1 the manufacturers met
publicly to plan their response. They had two strategies. They pressured the proprietors
into holding out indefinitely by refusing to send new collars and cuffs to any laundry,
and they attempted to undermine directly the unions efforts to weather the strike.
They also tried to create a negative image of the union through the newspapers, which they
virtually controlled. They prevented a few collar manufacturers in other cities from using
the unions cooperative laundry even though it could provide the same services for 25
percent less. Under these circumstances, the collar ironers tactics were much less
useful.1
1. Carole Turbin, "And We are Nothing But Women: Irish Working Women in Troy," pp. 225-26 in Women of America. Edited by Mary Beth Norton (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979).
Patchwork Plagiarism
Here two sources are combined to create a new passage. As it stands, the passage is clearly plagiarized. If a footnote were added acknowledging the sources, the substantial use of the language of the original passage would still open the student to charges of plagiarism. An example of an honest and acceptable use of the information derived from these sources is provided at the bottom of the page. Note that the "acceptable version" uses the facts of the original sources, but organizes and expresses them in the students own language.
Originals Source 1: "Despite the strong public opposition, the Reagan
administration continued to install so many North American men, supplies, and facilities
in Honduras that one expert called it "the USS Honduras, a [stationary]
aircraft carrier or sorts." (Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions (New York,
1989), 309.)
Source 2:
"By December 1981, American agents--some CIA, some U.S. Special
Forces--were working through Argentine intermediaries to set up contra safe houses,
training centres, and base camps along the Nicaraguan-Honduran border." (Peter
Kornbluh, "Nicaragua," in Michael Klare (ed), Low Intensity Warfare (New
York, 1983), 139.)
Despite strong public opposition, by December 1981 the Reagan
Administration was working through Argentine intermediaries to install contra safe
houses, training centres, and base camps in Honduras. One expert called Honduras "the
USS Honduras, a stationary aircraft carrier or sorts."
In the early 1980s, the Reagan Administration made increasing use of
Honduras as a base for the contra war. The Administration set up a number of
military and training facilities--some American, some contra, and some housing Argentine
mercenaries--along the border between Nicaragua and Honduras. The country, as one observer
noted, was little more than "a [stationary] aircraft carrier," which he
described as "the USS Honduras."2
2. See Walter Lafeber, Inevitable Revolutions (New York, 1989), p. 307-310 (quote p. 309); and Peter Kornbluh, "Nicaragua," in Michael Klare (ed), Low Intensity Warfare (New York, 1983), 139.
Lazy Plagiarism
In this example, the student may have made a sincere effort to write an original passage, but sloppy research and documentation raise the possibility of plagiarism. Note the characteristic errors: confusion of original and students language, quotation marks in the wrong place, improper or incomplete footnotes.
Originals Source 1: "Despite the strong public opposition, the Reagan
administration continued to install so many North American men, supplies, and facilities
in Honduras that one expert called it "the USS Honduras, a [stationary
aircraft carrier of sorts." (Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions (New York,
1989), 309.)
Source 2:
"By December 1981, American agents--some CIA, some U.S. Special
Forces--were working through Argentine intermediaries to set up contra safe houses,
training centres, and base camps along the Nicaraguan-Honduran border." (Peter
Kornbluh, "Nicaragua," in Michael Klare (ed), Low Intensity Warfare (New
York, 1983), 139.)
Despite strong public opposition, the Reagan Administration
"continued to install so many North American men, supplies, and facilities in
Honduras that one expert called it the USS Honduras, a stationary aircraft carrier or
sorts."3 In December 1981, American agents--some CIA Special Forces--were
working through Argentine intermediaries to set up "contra safe houses, training
centres, and base camps along the Nicaraguan-Honduran border."4
3. Walter Lafeber, Inevitable Revolutions (New York, 1989), p. 309
4. Michael Klare (ed), Low Intensity Warfare (New York, 1983).
Close Paraphrasing
Students anxious about committing plagiarism often ask: "How much do I have to change a sentence to be sure Im not plagiarizing?" A simple answer to this is: If you have to ask, youre probably plagiarizing.
This is important. Avoiding plagiarism is not an exercise in inventive paraphrasing. There is no magic number of words that you can add or change to make a passage your own. Original work demands original thought and organization of thoughts. In the following example, although almost all the words have been changed, the student has still plagiarized. An acceptable use of this material is also provided below.
Original Shortly after the two rogues, who pass themselves off as a duke and
a king, invade the raft of Huck and Jim, they decide to raise funds by performing scenes
from Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet and Richard III. That the presentation of
Shakespeare in small Mississippi towns could be conceived of as potentially lucrative
tells us much about the position of Shakespeare in the nineteenth century. (Lawrence
Levine, Highbrow, Lowbrow: The Emergence of a Cultural Hierarchy in America
(Cambridge, 1986), p. 10)
Soon after the two thieves, who pretend they are a king and a duke,
capture Huck and Jims raft, they try to make money by putting on two Shakespeare
plays (Romeo and Juliet and Richard III). Because the production of Shakespeare in
tiny Southern towns is seen as possibly profitable, we learn a lot about the status of
Shakespeare before the twentieth century.
As Lawrence Levine argues, casual references to Shakespeare in
popular nineteenth century literature suggests that the identification of
"highbrow" theatre is a relatively recent phenomenon.5
Note that this version does not merely rephrase or repeat the material from the passage cited above, but expands upon it and places it in the context of the students work.
Varieties of Footnotes
The use of sources can be clarified in a number of ways through careful footnoting. Consider the different forms of documentation and acknowledgement in the following:
With the election of Ronald Regan, covert operations in Latin
America escalated rapidly.6 "The influx of American funds," notes
Peter Kornbluh, determined "the frequency and destructiveness of contra
attachs."7 In the early 1980s, the Regan Administration increasingly used
Honduras as a base for the contra war. The Administration set up a number of
military and training facilities--some American, some contra, and some housing
Argengine mercenaries--along the border between Nicaragua and Honduras. "[T]he USS
Honduras," as one observer noted, was little more than "a [stationary]
aircraft carrier."8 These strategies seemed to represent both a conscious
acceleration of American involvement in the region, and the inertia of past involvements
and failures.9 6. The following paragraph is drawn from Walter Lafeber, Inevitable
Revolutions (New York, 1989), p. 307-310; and Peter Kornbluh, "Nicaragua,"
in Michael Klare (ed), Low Intensity Warfare (New York, 1983), pp. 139-149.
Note: FOOTNOTE 6 provides general background sources.
7. Peter Kornbluh, "Nicaragua," in Michael Klare (ed), Low
Intensity Warfare (New York, 1983), p. 139.
Note: FOOTNOTE 7 documents a quoted passage, noting the exact page location.
8. Observer quoted in Walter Lafeber, Inevitable Revolutions
(New York, 1989), p. 309.
Note: FOOTNOTE 8 documents a secondary quotation.
9. Peter Kornbluh, "Nicaragua," in Michael Klare (ed), Low
Intensity Warfare (New York, 1983), stresses the renewal of counterinsurgency under
Reagan; Walter Lafeber, Inevitable Revolutions, stresses the ongoing
interventionism of the U.S. (New York, 1989), p. 307-310.
Note: FOOTNOTE 9 distinguishes your argument from that of your sources.
Prepared by:
Dr. Colin H. Gordon
(Department of History, UBC)
Professor Peter Simmons
(Presidents Advisory Committee on Student Discipline, UBC)
Dr. Graeme Wynn
(Associate Dean of Arts, UBC)
The Faculty of Arts
The University of British Columbia
Return
to:
[Top
of this page] [Home
Page]
[Introduction]
[Courses]
[First
Year Biology] [Program
Options]
[Outside
Electives]