CCR 720: Ercegovac and Richardson (2004) "Academic Dishonesty...in the Digital Age"

Ercegovac, Zorana, and John V. Richardson, Jr. "Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism Included, in the Digital Age: A Literature Review." College and Research Libraries 65.4 (July 2004): 301-318.

Summary:

Ercegovac and Richardson provide a review of five years of literature (1997-2002) on the scholarship published about plagiarism occurring through copying/pasting from internet sources. The authors provide some useful search instructions for studies on plagiarism, including definitions, databases, and websites. They highlight (a) how theorists have defined academic dishonesty (304), (b) how researchers have suggested teachers cope with issues of plagiarism (306), and (c) how the literature is lacking ways to predict academic dishonesty through investigations of moral reasoning (310).

Notes:

· Although the authors attempt to give only a review of literature, there are instances where they make claims regarding what should be taught as well as who are the most important contributors to the scholarship.

· They highlight a few studies that consider students’ individual characteristics as predictors to plagiarism. They suggest that socioeconomic status, age, and sex are indicators (so if you’re an impoverished male under 18, you’re more likely to cheat). This makes me uncomfortable. I don’t see the relevancy in garnering suspicion of certain demographics in instructors. Seems dangerous.

· “Collaboration” is treated negatively and frowned upon. The authors cite collaborative working habits as being influential to plagiarism (311).

· It’s understandable that the authors could not develop discussions of every text they cite, seeing how so many authors are mentioned in their review. Still, noticing how Howard and Pennycook are not fully represented lead me question whether the authors give the most accurate accounts of the literature they cite. Howard, for example, is only mentioned as being responsible for the term “patchwriting” and for suggesting that lots of students do this. Pennycook is mentioned as asking that plagiarism be understood more complexly. Both of these are true. However, both of their major arguments and calls for reimagining our definitions of authorship are missing.