Johnson-Eilola and Selber (2007) "Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage"

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan, and Stewart Selber. "Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage." Computers and Composition 24.4 (2007): 375-403.

Summary

In their article titled, “Plagiarism, originality, assemblance,” published in Communication and Composition in 2007, authors Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber propose a new approach to composition instruction, one that complicates traditional views of plagiarism and originality. They construct their argument by first criticizing the common practice in composition instruction where assessment of student writing is based on students’ ability to produce original ideas as inspired by their reading of other texts—projects where students are asked to illustrate their new and unique perspectives, using sources in their arguments or analyses only as secondary background information or supporting evidence. The authors criticize this traditional method for maintaining hierarchical assessment practices, where exceedingly more value is placed on the students’ unique contributions and originality, rather than the student’s practices of consulting, framing, modeling, and/or quoting texts during the composition process.

It is suggested that the traditional approach assumes that students’ ideas and writing are the intellectual property of students and not the product of social, cultural, and historical contexts—contexts where writing is inherently shaped by discursive practices and the intertextual nature of texts. The authors demonstrate that traditional practices, therefore, reinforce notions of the “lone, creative genius” and ultimately weaken other scholars’ recent attempts for reimagining complicated concepts such as plagiarism, authority, and creativity (Howard, 2000; Porter, 2006; Price, 2002; and Spigelman, 2000 are cited as examples). The authors further explain that placing such value on student originality is counterproductive since it results in students being more likely to plagiarize: if teachers value most students’ unique creativity, students may be more inclined to hide their borrowing and appropriation of texts in order to appear as the original authors of ideas or sentences.

In response to their criticism of the traditional approach, Johnson-Eilola and Selber argue that instructors should design projects where students problem-solve through “assemblance”—a practice where writers borrow, remix, and reformulate texts into new texts. Instead of instructors valuing most a students’ unique originality and fresh contributions, this approach recognizes that all writing is an assemblance of ideas, words, and discursive practices and that students can find creativity in reconstructing this information in new ways. Since the authors claim that such borrowing and sharing of practices have been accepted and widely adopted in other disciplines and contexts, they support their argument for this new approach with examples of “remix” and “assemblage” found in web design, music, films, and architecture.

Ultimately, their examples work to illustrate a number of qualities apparent in this new approach: how originality is accomplished through assemblance of other texts, discourses, and formats; how authors and creators borrowed are still cited or otherwise acknowledged when remixed; how assemblance requires substantial rhetorical sophistication and should not be viewed as mindless copying and pasting; how plagiarism likely decreases with approaches such as assemblance since writers are less inclined to hide their borrowing of sources; and how common creativity is promoted through the remixing of others’ ideas and texts. While it is not their goal to have remixing practices replace all approaches to teaching composition, the authors ask that instructors at the very least include new practices in hopes of deconstructing hierarchies that limit the value of remix, collage, and assemblance in composition.

CCR 720: Valentine (2006) "Plagiarism as Literacy Practice"

Valentine, Kathryn. "Plagiarism as Literacy Practice: Recognizing and Rethinking Ethical Binaries." College Composition and Communication 58.1 (Sept. 2006): 89-109.

Summary:

After demonstrating that plagiarism is often viewed through cultural binaries of honest/dishonest, wrong/right, moral/immoral, high writing/low writing, work/non-work, Valentine argues that composition instructors and university administrators should recognize that plagiarism is much more complicated. She views plagiarism as a literacy practice of academic discourse, one where individuals’ identities are shaped through the conventions of that community. She claims that novices and international students will not understand and effectively practice western rules of plagiarism until they can understand plagiarism as a complicated performance of honesty, one infused with social interaction, textual practices, and cultural values.

Methods and Methodologies:

· She frames her investigation with theories of literacy practices within academic discourses, citing numerous researchers (Barton and Hamilton, Buranen, Howard, Price, Bauman, Gee) to support her analysis of viewing plagiarism as socially and culturally located as a literacy practice.

· She defines plagiarism through binaries (see above)

· She draws on anecdotal evidence of one international students’ experience being accused and punished for plagiarizing. While her methodological approach isn’t really covered (like when and how interviews occurred), she does discuss her involvement with the case.

· She cites one anonymous students’ practice of not quoting in order to avoid plagiarism charges (100).

Quotable Quotes:

· “Plagiarism becomes plagiarism as part of a practice that involves participants’ values, attitudes, and feelings as well as their social relationships to each other and to the institutions in which they work” (89).

· “Within the ethical discourse that informs plagiarism, identity categories are fixed: students may only occupy one—and only one—of two categories: honest or dishonest. This regulating of available identity categories is particularly evident in the treatment of unintentional plagiarism” (95).

· “Students’ opportunities to practice citation and the performance of honesty are closed down when their improper citation is read as a sign of dishonesty, rather than as a sign of an authentic beginner engaged in the work of acquiring a new discourse” (97).

· “Plagiarism policies and many administrators and teachers involved with plagiarism cases often don’t recognize plagiarism as connected to a discourse, as taking on an identity that can’t be taught or acquired just through textual features and teaching of those features or conventions. Because of misunderstandings of citation and plagiarism and because of misrepresentations of students, administrators and teachers often misread what students know and understand about plagiarism, what they need to learn about citation, and the space they need to be given to practice performing the identity that will allow them to get being a student “right,” especially in regard to plagiarism” (105).

CCR 720: McCabe (2005) "It Takes a Village"

McCabe, Donald L. "It Takes a Village: Academic Dishonesty and Educational Opportunity." Liberal Education (Summer/Fall 2005). 2 Dec. 2005. < http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sufa05/le-sufa05feature2.cfm>

Summary:

McCabe argues that what makes a difference in academic integrity in schools is their commitment to creating a culture that values academic integrity by “making academic integrity a clear campus priority and placing much of the responsibility for student integrity on the students themselves” (2). He uses surveys of students to argue that there is a large amount of cheating occurring in universities and suggests that it is because faculty and administrators are not actively educating students and are not reassessing their own policies regarding academic integrity. He calls for treating academic dishonesty as educational opportunities where students can learn about the policies and practices for academic integrity.

Methods:

· Data: 1990 survey of student in 31competetive colleges (47% of students in school with no honor code admit to cheating; 24% of students with honor code admit to cheating; comparison to Bowers (1964) survey; 2001 survey on-line (21% admit to cheating on an exam; 51% admit to plagiarism; 4 of 5 plagiarists copy/paste from online). NO methodology is outlined.

· Anecdotal: even though the author calls on his conducted surveys, the data collection and analysis is not described and therefore often seems anecdotal. He also uses anecdotal evidence of his own experiences and the experience of an anonymous person in the intro and conclusion.

Notable Notes:

· McCabe does not provide details of his methods or methodologies. It’s difficult to assess his interpretations seeing how we don’t learn his modes of analysis.

· It’s interesting that he cites a study of his completed with co-author Trevino, yet he takes sole authorship of the survey: “In 1993 (McCabe and Trevino 1996), I surveyed nine medium to large universities” (2). Note the use of first person.

· Since he advocates that in order to help make our students more responsible regarding academic integrity faculty must set standards and consider academic integrity to be an institutional value, he is assuming that teachers don’t already.

· While his data collection and interpretation is unclear, and while it’s challenging to uphold his claims he makes from this data, I find some merit in his argument that we should use plagiarism as educational opportunities since students often do so out of ignorance and time/stress constraints (5). Still, it is hard to blindly accept his arguments that “strong rules” might help foster idealistic values later.

CCR 720: Jaszi and Woodmansee (1996)

Jaszi, Peter, and Martha Woodmansee. "The Ethical Reaches of Authorship." South Atlantic Quarterly 95.4 (Fall 1996): 947-77.

Summary:

The authors critically assess the ways in which copyright law has been grounded in Romantic notions of author as a creative and individual genius. They see the notion that authors’ work should be protected by law as their intellectual property as problematic since (a) we know that our experiences and creative works are collaborative (example of Wordsworth collaborating with sis); and (b) copyright laws do not protect certain cultural works or practices considered “naturally occurring ‘raw materials’ (960), yet they protect companies or “inventors” that borrow cultural-driven images, themes, or herbal medications. For example, they draw attention to how indigenous cultures’ “bioknowledge”—knowledge of botanical and medicinal treatments—is not protected under copyright and has instead been exploited by pharmaceutical companies (with the exception of Shaman Pharmaceuticals and the 1993 “Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples” pp. 968-969). Using historical and modern examples of how copyright privileges a single creator, the authors argue how indigenous cultures and other individuals (like peasants, indigenous people, and women) are not recognized as contributors or collaborators; instead, their cultural knowledge or material products are borrowed and then copyrighted by the borrower. They conclude by arguing that “Rather than refiguring traditional knowledge as the product of solitary, originary genius, we may have to reimagine the familiar subject matter of Western intellectual property as the outcome of collective, collaborative social activity.

Methods:

· Use Wordsworth’s work as an example of collaborative work placed under a single name (950-953)

· Historicize copyright, highlighting how cultural ideologies of author are informed by movements (influenced by Wordsworth’s et al.), arguing that an author is a secular prophet and original genius (953-955).

· Cite copyright law and other legal documents, historicizing major copyright movements and illustrating how these laws extend upon traditional notions of “author” (953-9)

o 1710 Statute of Anne; Copyright Act of 1842; nongovernmental Brussels Congress on Literary and Artistic Property of 1858; International Literary Association 1878; first Act of the Berne Convention, 1886; 1971 Act of the Berne Convention; Annex to the General Agreement n Tarriffs and Trade: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), 1993 (this includes trademards, geographical designations, and patents, but does not include computer software, musical recordings, databases, or cultural stuff like sounds, stories, images);

· Uses examples of African mugs, Native American dream catchers, and Crazy Horse malt liquor as products that have been copyrighted by companies while the cultural influences offer no endorsement or receive any verbal or monetary credit (960-962).

· Uses examples of the exploitation of indigenous knowledge about botanical treatments, showing that companies have appropriated this knowledge for the profitable production of pharmaceutical drugs without acknowledging or monetarily benefiting the indigenous people (964-.

Quotable Quotes:

• “We inevitably draw on the work of others in our creative activities—if not contemporaries working in close proximity, then those working at some temporal remove whom we may or may not acknowledge as ‘influences.’ The laws of copyright encourage us to deny others’ contributions to our creative production by awarding the exclusive right to exploit it economically to ‘author’—understood…as essentially solitary originators” (951, italics in original).
• In reference to an African styled mug made in South Korea: “While the Western models of copyright to which Berne and TRIPs give international reach may provide little or no protection to elements of the traditional culture from which the motif was extracted, the marginal ‘value added’ of the designer of the mug itself would constitute original authorship, justifying a copyright in the result as a so-called derivative work” (960).