The Concept of Plagiarism - Research Paper Example

Plagiarism number Plagiarism Plagiarism is a serious offence in the world of academic and non-academic work that leads to grave consequences that may include expulsion from any organization that the person guilty of the offence is a part of. Defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as an attempt “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another’s production) without crediting the source” and also as the act of committing “literary theft” (Merriam-Webster). While it is a widespread practice among students and also academicians, what precisely constitutes the practice of plagiarism constitutes a debate that is open-ended and open to subjective interpretation. People may differ as to what constitutes the act of plagiarism but there is a general consensus on the undesirability of it in the academic world. The need to acknowledge the work of the person from whom an idea or a passage of words originated is accepted as a fair one by the academic and non-academic fraternity, most of all, to protect their own interests. Writers like Judy Anderson talk of the exclusivity that writers need as the cause for plagiarism being recognized as a crime. This need for exclusivity is intrinsically linked to the idea of intellectual property and the need that writers feel to protect their creations, which may stem from reasons that may be economic or ethical. This crime is directed against this need for exclusivity that writers feel (Anderson, ix). This is tied in with the idea that the work of art is similar to the offspring of the author and any attempt to appropriate the content created by the author is similar to an attempt to violate the maternal instinct of the author. This authorial-maternal instinct, while it destabilizes notions of masculinity and femininity and the instinct of the mother that is conventionally considered to be characteristic of only women, is something that is common to most writers, big and small. These writers are able to bring out the point from the perspective of both the writer and the reader. While the writer feels as if he or she is being deprived of his right of exclusive ownership, the reader of a modern world is likely to feel that the text that he or she reads is recreated or even created by him, in the context of the erasure of the author in the process of providing a text with meaning. This theory, which was propounded by the French literary critic, Roland Barthes, places the onus of processing the meaning of a text, on the reader of the text and not the writer. This, while bringing the reader and the text into the limelight, erases the writer from the scene. The writer ceases to have a relationship with the text and the mother-child relationship between the writer and text which he created, is ruptured. This leads to what Barthes refers to as the “death of the author” (Barthes). The death of the author is thus, a concept that is critical to a modern understanding of the act of plagiarism, since it helps one to contextualize the reader, the writer and the text. These ideas of post-structuralism have revolutionized the ways and manners in which the world has looked at the phenomenon of plagiarism, since the issue of ownership of the text has been put under the scanner. In such a situation, where nobody, including the author, is able to claim ownership, the issue of theft, does not occur. However, the need for exclusivity that the author feels proceeds not only from the philosophical views regarding the place of the trio including the writer, the author and the text, but also from practical considerations that stem from the fact that the process of writing and reading is a part of an industry in the modern world, where the idea of property remains strong with a competition for space within the market translating into a fierce protection over the rights over one’s property (Stearns, 5). With different publishing houses fighting to increase their shares in the market, it is a difficult proposition for the philosophical considerations to take precedence while one formulates a definition of plagiarism, even though they have their place within the debate. The need for these two elements to co-exist within the same framework is necessary for one to arrive at a definition of the term. While maintaining the right of the reader to modify the text and its interpretations, it is also necessary to provide the writer with the right to create actual textual changes within the script of the work that he creates. This compromise, if effected, can be the first step towards a fuller and more meaningful definition of plagiarism and may enable one to prevent cases of plagiarism, in the presence of a more or less universal framework. This definition, while retaining the characteristics of the present one, should also factor in the economic and philosophical concerns of the modern world, where relations between the text, the reader and the author, are in a state of continuous flux. The formation of this definition, however, requires a strong and vigorous debate within the academic world and should not be resolved merely through legal disputes. Such a debate also needs to take into account the different historical definitions of plagiarism. Judy Anderson suggests the origins of the idea of plagiarism to lie with the Greeks, where the borrowing of passages from an author by another writer was considered to be extremely shameful and dishonest. This would lead to the author being met with sarcasm and taunts by fellow authors. An act of plagiarism, if caught, in the Greek world, as well as in later feudal societies, meant the loss of reputation for the offender, but nothing more. However, the social codes of these societies were different from the ones that are followed in modern times and the writers of these ages felt the loss of their authorial reputations to be a great one. However, with the breakdown of the feudal setup and the establishment of capitalist economies around the world, money has gained precedence over reputation, with money often being closely associated with the latter. This also went hand in hand with the establishment of the publication industry. Apart from this, the system of patronage withered away and the writers had to support their own families through their own writing. This meant that they would have to sell their works as commodities. Works of creativity, unlike other commodities, once out in the market, can be replicated and sold and ideas can be borrowed and in certain cases, stolen consciously. This was precisely what happened during the Augustan age in England when the publication industry was in its initial stages. Theft of another writer’s works was rampant and without any laws to regulate this kind of plagiarism, the writers themselves had to find a means of tackling the menace. Their response to this problem manifested itself in the form of satires that were directed against those that they felt were involved in the act of plagiarism. This was however, a system that could not sustain itself in the absence of any power outside the writers’ fraternity. Without a system of laws that regulates the give and take of the marketplace of books, the publication industry would not be able to survive and flourish. The laws for plagiarism came into being in such a scenario, bringing the concept of intellectual property into the forefront (Anderson, 5-9). The need for writing to evolve into a profession that was to occupy the writer throughout his lifetime as a means of procuring his livelihood came through during the evolution of writing into an industry. Most of the allegations of plagiarism and theft have occurred since the entry of the professional writer onto the literary scene. Hence, plagiarism as a punishable act has a basis, in modern times, in the economic basis of writing as it exists in today’s world. This does not, however, mean that plagiarism does not have roots in the writer’s need for exclusive rights over his intellectual property. This can be seen in the dishonor that would be heaped upon a writer in ancient Greece if he or she was found to be guilty of borrowing ideas from another writer. Within student communities, the issue of plagiarism can be a very tricky issue. As Peter Ashworth, Philip Bannister and Pauline Thorne mention in the article that they co-authored, student plagiarism is often initiated and sustained by positive values that are inculcated in them, such as friendship and unity, which are employed in order to justify the act of plagiarism, which may then continue under the garb of doing a favor for one’s friend, or being a part of a collective in which beach member works for the other. These notions, while they are employed at the wrong time and at the wrong place, their positive nature in isolation cannot be denied. These writers point to an increase in the interaction with classroom authorities and teacher for the students as a possible solution to the problem of plagiarism. They also feel that greater education regarding the menace of plagiarism needs to be provided to the students, since their research among students indicated that most of them are unaware as to the precise manner in which they may unknowingly commit the act of plagiarism (Ashworth). The need for awareness regarding the problem is, as with most problems, the road to achieving a solution to the problem itself. Authors like Jude Carroll talk of selective assessment of plagiarism. She talks of the possibility of providing certain works with the clean chit while implicating others of plagiarism. There needs to be certain parameters that are established while doing so, which must remain the same for every paper under examination. While the idea of selecting certain plagiarized texts and declaring only a few of them as plagiarized is a new one and is debatable, Carroll’s idea does throw up interesting new possibilities that one may never have thought of before (Carroll). One may tie this up with the earlier idea that was at times associated with the act of plagiarism, the metaphor of alchemy. Alchemy as a science, in simplistic terms, was the attempt to change base metals into their precious counterparts, mainly gold. Similarly, critics have argued that if the inferior writings of a person can be taken up and modified to become a better one, the act may not be looked upon as an inferior one. By transforming a work that is base into one that may become precious for the world, the writer is not performing an act of plagiarism, seems to be the assertion that these critics make. However, there are complications within this process too. The charge of not being able to fulfill the process of intellectual alchemy may lead the author to also be faced with the charges of plagiarism. This may include situations where, as Bill Marsh puts it, the author may be accused to trying to make people believe that a certain piece of writing is ‘gold’, while others may recognize it as only it’s counterfeit. The alchemical ferment may also be compared to the intellectual ferment that characterizes the writer’s attempt to change the inferior piece of writing into one that is precious (Marsh, 68-9). This trope of alchemy that is often associated with the act of creation and the debate surrounding it, when juxtaposed with the views that writers like Carroll propound, make the debates surrounding student plagiarism more complex and interesting. Some writers have argued that the act of plagiarism may be recognized as so, only in certain communities. There are views that term plagiarism and the sentiments behind it characteristic to certain cultures. Most of these cultures are usually identified as part of the western civilization (Overview). Writers like Alastair Pennycook emphasize the importance of the cultural differences that are to be taken into account when one enters into a discussion of the practice of plagiarism. The Chinese civilization for instance, differs from American culture in their definition of plagiarism (Pennycook). Marietta Bradinova explains this divergence as the result of different cultural mores. Copying from one’s seniors and ancestors is a method of showing one’s respect for them in these cultures, Bradinova argues. Talking on how these cultural differences complicate an already complex issue, she emphasizes the need for attaining an understanding of how the cultural Other functions in order to accommodate them and their views (Bradinova, 91-2). This is the only way in which they can be integrated into the mainstream. Plagiarism and the beliefs that different cultures associate with it are thus, an indicator of the diversity of the cultures that exist together in the modern world. Any movement forward in the direction of gaining an understanding of plagiarism that is valid at the global level needs to factor in the cultural differences that exist in the understanding of plagiarism. Similar to the students even of western civilizations, whose impulse to plagiarize, on occasions, stems from values that are not negative, students of eastern countries sometimes indulge in this practice while they are unaware of the existence of such a prohibition. This again points to the spread of awareness and changes in the educational system as a means of ensuring a change from the present position where a universal definition of plagiarism is lacking. This results in the chaotic situation that is being experienced at the moment, resulting in a lot of confusion. A need to understand the practice of plagiarism a wholesome way is a great need in the modern world. This need proceeds from the need to protect the rights of the author to his intellectual property, while maintaining the rights of the reader over the text, in the creation of which he or she plays a prominent role. As a result of this changed equation, there needs to be a debate as to create a universal definition of plagiarism, taking into account the historical and philosophical factors related to the practice. This would enable one to create a greater awareness among the students regarding the practice and the need to get rid of it. This requires a consensus that would be possible only if respect is accorded to the different cultures that are a part of the academic world. A recognition of the causes as to why students indulge in the practice and the reasons as to why their education regarding the undesirability of this practice falls short of expectations has to be explored. Both teachers and students have to be made a part of this process of education that seeks to make both parties aware of the different sides to the debate and attempts should be made to incorporate their views on the matter. This shall probably lead to the creation of an academic community that has a clear idea of what constitutes an act of plagiarism, which would be the first step towards preventing members of the community from indulging in it, paving the way for fresh and new ideas in the academia. Works Cited Barthes, Roland. The Death of the Author. Web. Accessed on 8th September, 2011. Merriam Webster Dictionary. Web. Accessed on 6th September, 2011. Anderson, Judy. Plagiarism, copyright violation, and other thefts of intellectual property. North Carolina: McFarland, 1998. Print. Overview and Contradictions. Owl Purdue Online Writing Lab. < http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/> Accessed on 6th September, 2011. Marsh, Bill. Plagiarism: alchemy and remedy in higher education. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Print. Carroll, Jude. A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education. Web. < http://resources.glos.ac.uk/shareddata/dms/2B6BB623BCD42A0397FFFF99E64AB2EE.pdf> Accessed on 10th September, 2011. Stearns, Laurie. “Copy Wrong: Plagiarism, Process, Property and the Law”. Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world. Eds. Buranen, Lise; Roy, Alice Myers. New York: State University of New York Press, 1999. Print. Ashworth, Peter; Bannister, Philip; Thorne, Pauline. Guilty in whose eyes? University students perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Web. Accessed on 8th September, 2011. Pennycook, Alastair. “Borrowing Others’ Words: Text, Ownership, Memory and Plagiarism.” TESOL Quarterly. Web. Accessed on 8th September, 2011. Bradinova, Marietta. Exploring students and university teachers perceptions of plagiarism. Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Web. Accessed on 10th September, 2011. Read More