Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis, by Brian Martin body { margin-top : 2em ; margin-left : 20% ; margin-right : 20% ; margin-bottom : 2em ; } H1,H2,H3,H4 { font-family : "Tahoma", sans-serif ; }.style1 {font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif}Plagiarism: a misplacedemphasisPublished in Journal ofInformation Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1994, pp. 36-47, withminor editorial changes. Brian MartinGo to BrianMartin's publications on fraud and plagiarismBrianMartin's publicationsBrianMartin's websiteemail: bmartin@uow.edu.au AbstractPlagiarism is conventionally seenas a serious breach of scholarly ethics, being a theft of credit forideas in a competitive intellectual marketplace. This emphasisoverlooks the vast amount of institutionalized plagiarism, includingghostwriting and attribution of authorship to bureaucratic elites.There is a case for reducing the stigma for competitive plagiarismwhile exposing and challenging the institutionalizedvarieties. The problem as normally conceivedAmong intellectuals, plagiarism isnormally treated as a grievous sin. In higher education, which isboth the central training ground and a key employer of intellectuals,students are warned of the seriousness of the offence. Some teachershave developed laborious or sophisticated means of detecting it. Theauthors of one paper on the subject recommend reading essays fourtimes as part of the process of rooting out plagiarism (Bjaaland andLederman, 1973). Meanwhile, computer scientists have studied complexalgorithms for assessing likely cases (Faidhi and Robinson, 1987). Analternative is to prevent plagiarism by designing assessmentprocedures appropriately, for example by getting students to usetheir own experiences in creative writing (Carroll, 1982). Academicscan set a good example by giving appropriate credit for sources usedin preparing their lectures and notes (Alexander, 1988). At theinstitutional level, plagiarism is normally addressed through formalpolicies, including penalties for transgressions (Thomley, 1989).Another approach is to introduce an honor system in which studentspledge to not cheat and to report cheating by other students (Fass,1986). The problem of plagiarism can also lead to reconsideration ofeducational philosophy (Malloch, 1976).In spite of the seriousness withwhich student plagiarism is treated by academics, their collectiveefforts seem to be inadequate to the size of the problem (Baird,1980; Connell, 1981; Galles, 1987; Stavisky, 1973; but see Karlins,Michaels, and Podlogar, 1988). Undoubtedly no more than a smallfraction of student plagiarism is ever detected and, of that which isdetected, serious penalties are imposed on only a minority ofoffenders. It is safe to say that if rules against cheating were ableto be strictly and effectively enforced, failure rates wouldskyrocket. But this is unlikely. The introduction of word processingand computer networks makes plagiarism easier to execute and evenharder to detect. Computer sampling of music recordings andincorporation of samples (copied portions) in other music is alreadyan established practice, with associated problems of credit andcopyright (Keyt, 1988).At this point it may be useful tomake a few distinctions (Martin, 1984:183-184). The most obvious andprovable plagiarism occurs when someone copies phrases or passagesout of a published work without using quotation marks, withoutacknowledging the source, or both. This can be called word-for-wordplagiarism. When some of the words are changed, but not enough, theresult can be called paraphrasing plagiarism. This is considered moreserious when the original source is not cited. A more subtleplagiarism occurs when a person gives references to original sources,and perhaps quotes them, but never looks them up, having obtainedboth from a secondary source -- which is not cited (Bensman,1988:456-457). This can be called plagiarism of secondary sources.Often it can be detected through minor errors in punctuation orcitation which are copied from the secondary source. More elusive yetis the use of structure of the argument in a source without dueacknowledgment of the source. This includes cases in which theplagiarizer does look up the primary sources but does not acknowledgea systematic dependence on the citations in the secondary source.This can be called plagiarism of the form of a source. More generalthan this is plagiarism of ideas, in which an original thought fromanother is used but without any dependence on the words or form ofthe source. Finally there is the blunt case of putting one's name tosomeone else's work, which might be called plagiarism ofauthorship.Most of the plagiarism byuniversity students that is challenged by their teachers isword-for-word plagiarism, simply because it is easiest to detect andprove. One of the most serious types, plagiarism of authorship --which occurs when a student gets someone else to write an essay --can be extremely difficult to detect and prove. This creates asuspicion that most of the concern is about the least seriouscases.Undoubtedly, much of theword-for-word plagiarism by students is inadvertent. They simply donot know or understand proper acknowledgement practice. Sometimesthey are taught in high school to copy from sources withoutacknowledgement (Dant, 1986; Schab, 1972) and the problem persists inhigher education. Students are apprentices, and some of them learnthe scholarly trade slowly.Academic institutions have thepower to fail and even expel student plagiarizers, even if this poweris seldom exercised (Mawdsley, 1986; Reams, 1987). But colleagues area different matter. Plagiarism among practicing intellectuals iswidely considered to be completely unacceptable, but doing somethingabout it is another matter. As in the case of students, word-for-wordplagiarism is easiest to prove, and it might be expected that mostblatant plagiarizers would be weeded out through their studentcareers. There are some dramatic cases in which word-for-wordplagiarizers have been exposed and penalized, but there plenty ofcontrary cases in which plagiarizers have fashioned successfulcareers (Broad and Wade, 1982; Mallon, 1989; Spender,1989:140-194).For example, Martin Luther King,Jr.'s plagiarism seemed to provide no hindrance to his career as apreacher and leader of a social movement, but the subsequent exposureof the plagiarism caused anguished reconsideration among scholarssympathetic to King's role in the civil rights movement (Thelen,1991). This case illustrates both the ease with which plagiarizerscan escape detection or penalty and the enormous impact on a person'sreputation of exposure of plagiarism (in this case,posthumously).As for those who plagiarize ideas,it is virtually impossible to take action. Among many academics andscientists, there is a great fear that one's ideas will be stolen byunscrupulous competitors. This often results in an unwillingness toshare ideas.The standard view on plagiarism,subscribed to by most intellectuals, is that plagiarism is a seriousoffence against scholarship and should be condemned and penalized. Itis strongly discouraged among students. It is thought to be rareamong scholars. The revisionist picture, subscribed to especially bythose who have studied plagiarism, is that it is much more commonamong both students and scholars than usually recognized and henceinfrequently punished. Both the standard and revisionist views agreeon the seriousness of plagiarism and the need to be vigilant againstit. They also agree that the problem of plagiarism is largely due toinexperienced or errant individuals -- on the psychology ofplagiarists, see Shaw's (1982) insightful account -- and thatpenalties and policies should be designed to encourage individuals toavoid plagiarism.The argument in this paper is thatboth the standard and revisionist pictures are inadequate becausethey deal only with a particular type of plagiarism in the scholasticworld, where credit for ideas is of great significance because it isthe currency for status and advancement. Institutionalized plagiarismIn a number of socialcircumstances, plagiarism is such a pervasive and accepted practicethat it is seldom considered worthy of concern or mention. A fewexamples are given here before turning to the significance of thistype of plagiarism.Ghostwriting is commonplace in thepopular press (Posner, 1988). When a politician, famous sportsfigure, business executive, or movie star gives a speech or writes abook or newspaper column, frequently the actual writing is done bysomeone else. Sometimes, in books, this is acknowledged, as in thecase of The Autobiography of Malcolm X written by "Malcolm Xwith the assistance of Alex Haley" (X, 1965). The "with" in suchcases precedes the person who did the writing. (Haley was lateraccused of plagiarism over his book Roots; the question ofauthorship is seldom a simple one!) But in many cases the writer islisted only in small print on an acknowledgments page, or not at all.Ghostwriting is a type of plagiarism of authorship: a failure toappropriately acknowledge contributions. The weirdest developmentalong this line is the use of ghostwriters by famous journalists whoare too busy to write their own columns (Posner, 1988).In scientific research, thephenomenon of "honorary authorship" is commonplace. In typical cases,a supervisor or laboratory director, who has done little or none ofthe research, is listed as co-author of a research paper (LaFollette,1992:91-107). For some academic textbooks, the official authors arechosen for their market value, but do relatively little work. Theactual writers of such "managed texts" may receive little or nocredit (Coser, Kadushin, and Powell, 1982; Fischer and Lazerson,1977). This is not to mention all the books -- fiction and nonfiction-- that are virtually rewritten by in-house editors before reachingthe public.Another type of ghostwriting ispolitical speechwriting. A few politicians write their own speeches,but most rely on speechwriters, who are seldom acknowledged in anappropriate way. The same situation applies to big-name comedians,few of whom write the bulk of their routines.Another and even more commonmisrepresentation of authorship occurs in bureaucracies, includinggovernment, corporate, church and trade union bureaucracies. Workthat is done by junior workers is commonly signed by higherofficials. The official justification is that the person whose namegoes on a document is organizationally responsible for that work, butthey also are commonly considered to be "responsible" in terms ofgaining credit for doing the work, especially byoutsiders.This phenomenon is so commonplacethat it is seldom mentioned in discussions of either plagiarism orbureaucracy. (For a forthright discussion of cases in universityadministrations, see Moodie (1993).) It is not difficult to confirmthe widespread occurrence of this misattribution of authorship bysimply talking to junior bureaucrats. Typically, they may not worryso very greatly about the formalities of authorship but are likely tobe aggrieved if they do not receive acknowledgment within theorganization for work done. Needless to say, a system whichofficially misattributes formal authorship makes it extremely easyfor superiors to appropriate credit for the work ofsubordinates.From the point of view ofoutsiders, there is widespread misunderstanding of the operation ofthe system. Many people treat the official structures as reflectingthe underlying reality. For example, in parliamentary systems, aminister is an elected parliamentarian in charge of a governmentdepartment. When someone writes a letter to a minister, they receivein reply a letter from the minister which is almost always written bysomeone in the department and seldom seen by the minister at all. Theletter writer seldom thinks of the interaction as having been onewith a junior bureaucrat.This type of plagiarism ofauthorship is built into the structures and operations ofbureaucracies and is hardly ever categorized as plagiarism. Yet itundoubtedly satisfies the usual formal definitions ofplagiarism.The widespread plagiarism inbureaucracies and the ghostwriting prevalent in many fields may becalled "institutionalized plagiarism," which is to be distinguishedfrom the "competitive plagiarism" found in academic and intellectualcircles. In the latter situation, claiming credit for ideas is thebasis for status and advancement in a system conceived to be based onautonomous and individual intellectual production. In this context,plagiarism is breaking the rules of the game, gaining undue credit ina competitive intellectual endeavor.Institutionalized plagiarism is afeature of systems of formal hierarchy, in which credit forintellectual work is more a consequence than a cause of unequal powerand position. In bureaucracies, workers are conceived of as cogs in aformal system rather than independent intellectual producers: theirwork contributes to products of the bureaucracy; putting it in thename of bureaucratic elites is the formal procedure by which thisoccurs. Institutionalized plagiarism can also be categorized as anaspect of the systematic misrepresentation that is a feature of massinstitutions, especially the mass media (Mitroff and Bennis,1988).These two types of plagiarism,competitive and institutionalized, can also be called retail andwholesale plagiarism, respectively, by analogy with Chomsky andHerman's (1979) distinction between retail and wholesale terrorism,namely small-scale killing by small groups and large-scale killing bymajor governments. Retail plagiarism typically exploits theintellectual labor of a few people at a time; wholesale plagiarisminvolves the systematic exploitation of large numbers of people as amatter of standard procedure.Most studies of terrorism focus onretail terrorism and ignore or downplay wholesale terrorism.Similarly, most studies of plagiarism focus exclusively on thecompetitive variety and ignore its institutionalized forms. Theexample of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. illustrates this. Biden was a U.S.presidential aspirant who in 1987 was exposed for having plagiarizedthe speeches of some other politicians, such as British Labour Partyleader Neil Kinnock. This caused much moralizing in the media (someof it ghostwritten) and contributed to Biden dropping out of the racefor president. Yet the dependence of almost all leading politicianson speechwriters was little remarked. Biden was caught out in the sinof plagiarizing from other politicians (a type of competitiveplagiarism), whereas plagiarizing from speechwriters was treated asacceptable because it was plagiarism of workers in a subordinateposition (institutionalized plagiarism). Indeed, when Bidenplagiarized from Robert Kennedy's speeches, it was actually the wordsof Kennedy's speechwriter Adam Walinsky that both used (Posner,1988:19).A closer examination of thecompetitive and institutionalized types of plagiarism would show manyoverlaps and inconsistencies rather than a uniformly cleardistinction. For example, some heads of university laboratoriesdemand their name on every publication (institutionalized plagiarismin a competitive setting) and some corporate and governmentbureaucracies allow or even foster conventional individualauthorship. Nonetheless, the generalization that most studies ofplagiarism focus on violations of competitive etiquette and downplaymisattributions in hierarchical organizational settings stillapplies.One explanation for thepreoccupation with competitive plagiarism is that those who writeabout plagiarism work in the competitive sector themselves. Anotherexplanation is that this preoccupation serves the interests of thoseelites -- bureaucrats, politicians and others -- who benefit frominstitutionalized plagiarism. As in the case of crime (Collins,1982:86-118), the definition of an offense is a form of politics thatserves particular interest groups. Stigmatizing petty thieves servesto protect the big criminals from scrutiny.Occasionally the double standardbecomes apparent and a preoccupation with plagiarism becomes a threatto elites. For example, the implications for universityadministrations are suggested by this quote: "From a broaderphilosophical perspective, 'ghostwriting' -- a long accepted practicein the political arena -- raises some rather thorny questions. As onestudent in the present study commented, 'If the [university]President can use a ghostwriter, why can't I?' Indeed, the problem ofusing one standard for college students and another standard forpublic officials at the very least imposes a rather perversesituational ethics on the whole idea of literary honesty." (Hawley,1984:35). Generally, though, university presidents can plagiarizefrom speechwriters with impunity. Only when they plagiarize fromscholars (e.g., Piliawsky, 1982:13-15) -- competitive plagiarism --are they likely to be called to task. Does it matter? In correspondence with sociologistDeena Weinstein, I once asked about other scholars who seemed tocover similar ideas to her own but who never cited her work. Shereplied (personal communication, 7 October 1982) by saying "Unless Iam hiding something from myself, I believe that I don't give a hootabout priority. Ideas are not property so they cannot be stolen.But..." (her dots). She went on to describe how other scholars hadhad early access to her ideas. This seems to be a standard dilemma.From the point of view of the abstract "advancement of knowledge," plagiarism is not a particular problem, since the knowledge isdisseminated whoever gets credit for it. But from the point of viewof individual scholars, credit for ideas is vital in career termsand, typically, even more so in terms of self-image.Kroll, in a study of collegefreshmen, found that the arguments against plagiarism considered mostimportant were "fairness to authors and other students, theresponsibility of students to do independent work, and respect forownership rights" (Kroll, 1988:203). Fairness to authors andresponsibility to do independent work are moral arguments. So too isrespect for ownership rights since, for students and most academics,the economic advantages of plagiarism, in terms of gainingfinancially from copyright violation, are negligible. None of thesearguments show that plagiarism is a significant hindrance to the"quest for truth."A pragmatic argument againstplagiarism is that it enables second-rate intellectuals to get ahead(Cranberg, 1992). With greater access to status and funds, they canthus hinder intellectual advance by doing less well than thepresumably superior intellects whose work they may have stolen creditfor. This argument sounds plausible, but it has some flaws. In manycases, plagiarism is carried out by undoubtedly talented andexperienced people, as in the case of D. H. Lawrence plagiarizingfrom various women (Spender, 1989:151-160) or, more prosaically, inthe case of academics who plagiarize from their students.Furthermore, there is no evidence that plagiarizers are less able asadministrators or intellectual leaders than those they plagiarize.Indeed, there is little evidence at all relevant to this argument. Itmay simply be an attractive view because plagiarism is considered tobe a bad thing: therefore it must have bad effects.A resolution to this problem --the apparent lack of any pragmatic reason to be concerned aboutplagiarism -- begins by observing that the arguments discussed so farin this context all concern competitive plagiarism, which isrelatively rare and highly stigmatized. Very different considerationsapply to institutionalized plagiarism, which is standardprocedure.At least two important argumentscan be leveled against institutionalized plagiarism. First, itreinforces the power and position of elites. By gaining officialcredit for the work of others, the status and authority of elites isenhanced, while giving relatively little status and authority tosubordinates whose work has been given less than its fair share ofcredit. If a president were to introduce a speech by saying, "I'm nowgoing to read a speech written by ...," this would undoubtedly reducethe president's aura and the status of the office. Similarly, if animportant institutional policy were openly acknowledged to be thework of junior employees, it might be asked why they weren't the oneslaunching and explaining the policy.Second, institutionalizedplagiarism reduces the accountability of subordinates, who do nothave to take formal blame for inadequacies in their work. They areless likely to take extreme care with their work when they knowothers will be officially responsible. Of course, those at the tophave greater formal responsibility and officially are accountable forinadequacies. But this accountability has limited scope: bureaucraticelites are typically only held accountable by others at a similarlevel.In structures of unequal power,subordinates and clients seldom have the resources to challenge theelites. Weinstein (1979) characterizes bureaucracies as authoritarianpolitical systems, in which dissent or opposition is stamped out. Inessence, the system is responsive only at the top to pressures ofsimilarly powerful elites; the workers in the bureaucracy areexpected to respond only to bureaucratic elites, not to a wider arrayof concerns.There are other arguments thatcould be made against institutionalized plagiarism, such as that itreduces innovation, causes alienation and represents inefficient useof the talents of the workers. For the purposes here, the argumentsthat institutionalized plagiarism reinforces hierarchies and reducesaccountability are sufficient.The next question is, does itmatter that institutionalized plagiarism is linked to hierarchy andunaccountability? That of course depends on one's assessment of majorsocial institutions, especially state and corporate bureaucracies. Ifthese are seen as functional for the best interests of society, theninstitutionalized plagiarism presumably must be considered valuable;on the other hand, if these institutions are seen as contrary to thebest interests of society, then institutionalized plagiarism isundesirable. Plagiarism in a self-managedsociety Imagine a society in which formalhierarchy has been eliminated: a "self-managed" society (Benello andRoussopoulos, 1971; Burnheim, 1985; Herbst, 1976; Ward, 1982). Thebasis for social organization might include direct decision-making byconsensus or voting in small groups. Decisions that affect people onthe job or in local communities would be made collectively by thosepeople. Higher-order coordination might be organized throughdelegates and federations or through random selection for functionalgroups. The details vary, but certainly in any self-managed society,the state and large corporate or government bureaucracies would bereplaced by more democratic and responsive social forms. In aself-managed society, power is dispersed and decentralized.Furthermore, a self-managed society would not have vast inequalitiesin wealth, since these are typically linked to inequalities of power.Would there be plagiarism in such a society, and what would be doneabout it?It should be obvious that mostinstitutionalized plagiarism would be eliminated along with theinstitutions that fostered it. Within a collective enterprise, suchas designing and building transport systems, what would be therationale for allocating credit? Would credit for ideas even matter?It seems reasonable to suppose that a key consideration would be toallocate credit for the purposes of future work or involvement. Forexample, it would be useful to know who developed or checked an ideaor did some work in order to build on successes and learn fromfailures. This suggests a pragmatic, utilitarian allocation ofcredit. The aim would not be to glorify or advance the individual butto make best use of the skills of each person and achieve maximumbenefit for society within the framework ofself-management.While self-management would reducethe problem of institutionalized plagiarism, the problem ofcompetitive plagiarism could well persist. Recognition forcontributions to society is likely to remain important to mostpeople, as well as concern about fairness. Although it is possible toimagine a society in which no one cared about credit for ideas, it isalso possible -- and possibly easier -- to imagine "free" societiesin which there is recognition of creativeness, such as applause for amusical composition, even if this did not lead to specialprivileges.So plagiarism might occur but, onthe other hand, it would be less likely to be considered such aserious offence and more likely to be considered an issue ofetiquette (on the development of manners, see Elias, 1978). Sincecredit for ideas would not be important for career advancement andbecause contributions to collective well-being would be consideredhighly, it is even possible that creative workers would decline toclaim full credit for their work, allowing plagiarism to occur bydefault rather than by commission.Supporters of self-managementoften point out the collective nature of social life. No singleperson can make a contribution without relying extensively on theprior and ongoing work of others. Producing goods in a factorydepends on systems of education and transport, prior inventions,markets, etc. Similarly, intellectual creativity always relies andbuilds on upbringing, prior ideas, culture, communications media,audiences and the like. Claims to exclusive credit for originality,as well as to ownership of intellectual property, are characteristicof the system of capitalist individualism. The myth of the autonomouscreator would be much harder to sustain underself-management.Today, even inadvertent plagiarismcan be a matter of extreme embarrassment (Perrin, 1992). Falseallegations of plagiarism can cause severe trauma to the accused(Klass, 1987) and can be used to attack scholars who are opposed forsome other reasons (St. Onge, 1988). On the other hand, plagiarism issuch a serious charge that often the accusers may be attacked as away of warding off valid concerns (Adnavourin, 1988; Mazur,1989:190). One benefit of reduced stigma for competitive plagiarismwould be that these high stakes and damaging consequences ofplagiarism allegations would be reduced.These comments about the role ofplagiarism in a hypothetical self-managed society have relevance forthe assessment of plagiarism today. They imply that plagiarism is an important issue, but not for the reasons usually putforward.By this analysis, competitiveplagiarism is given too much attention and condemned in far tooextreme terms. Given the pervasiveness of plagiarism, it should betreated as a common, often inadvertent problem, rather like speedingon the road or cheating on income taxes. Most cases should be dealtwith as matters of etiquette rather than "theft." Otherwise, thedanger is that plagiarism allegations can be a way of mountingunscrupulous attacks on individuals who are targeted for otherreasons.Contrary to the case ofcompetitive plagiarism, the issue of institutionalized plagiarismdeserves more attention. It serves as a focus on powerinequality and intellectual exploitation. The term "plagiarism" needsto be brought into common use to describe ghostwriting andattribution of authorship to top bureaucrats and officials, as a wayof challenging those practices. In situations of intellectualexploitation, the demand for proper acknowledgment of work can be asubversive one. Since hierarchical and bureaucratized work structuresfoster institutionalized plagiarism, demanding fair credit for workdone exposes and challenges these structures.In summary, concern aboutplagiarism has been diverted from the most serious and pervasiveproblems and channelled into excessive concern about less seriousproblems. This process is clearly one that serves the interests ofthe biggest intellectual exploiters. AcknowledgmentsI thank Randall Collins, AlHiggins, Gavin Moodie and Deena Weinstein for helpful comments on thetext, as well as untold others for creating the cultural context thatmade this work possible.ReferencesAdnavourin, Avi. 1988. "Academicassassination and a three-university plagiarism coverup: the case ofRobert M. Frumkin." Philosophy and Social Action 14(1):15-19.Alexander, James D. 1988. "Lectures: the ethics of borrowing." College Teaching36:21-24.Baird, Jr., John S. 1980. "Currenttrends in college cheating." Psychology in the Schools17:515-522.Benello, C. George, and DimitriosRoussopoulos, eds. 1971. The Case for Participatory Democracy:Some Prospects for a Radical Society. New York:Grossman.Bensman, Joseph. 1988. "Theaesthetics and politics of footnoting." Politics, Culture, andSociety. 1:443-470.Bjaaland, Patricia C., and ArthurLederman. 1973. "The detection of plagiarism." EducationalForum 37:201-206.Broad, William, and Nicholas Wade.1982. Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls ofScience. New York: Simon and Schuster.Burnheim, John. 1985. IsDemocracy Possible? The Alternative to Electoral Politics.London: Polity Press.Carroll, Joyce Armstrong. 1982. "Plagiarism: the unfun game." English Journal71:92-94.Chomsky, Noam, and Edward S.Herman. 1979. The Political Economy of Human Rights. Boston:South End Press.Collins, Randall. 1982. Sociological Insight: An Introduction to Nonobvious Sociology.New York: Oxford University Press.Connell, Christopher. 1981. "Termpaper mills continue to grind." Educational Record62:19-28.Coser, Lewis, Charles Kadushin,and Walter W. Powell. 1982. Books: The Culture and Commerce ofPublishing. New York: Basic Books.Cranberg, Lawrence. 1992. "Theplague of plagiarism persists in modern science." TheScientist 6 (3 February):11, 14.Dant, Doris R. 1986. "Plagiarismin high school: a survey." English Journal75:81-84.Elias, Norbert. 1978. TheCivilizing Process: The History of Manners. Volume 1. Sociogeneticand Psychogenetic Investigations. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.Faidhi, J. A. W., and S. K.Robinson. 1987. "An empirical approach for detecting programsimilarity and plagiarism within a university programmingenvironment." Computers and Education 11:11-19.Fass, Richard A. 1986. "By honorbound: encouraging academic honesty." Educational Record67:32-35.Fischer, Kurt W., and ArlyneLazerson. 1977. "Managing a book versus plagiarizing it." Teachingof Psychology 4:198-199.Galles, Gary M. 1987. "Professorsare woefully ignorant of a well-organized market inimical tolearning: the big business in research papers." Chronicle ofHigher Education 39 (28 October):B1, B3.Hawley, Christopher S. 1984. "Thethieves of academe: plagiarism in the university system."Improving College and University Teaching 32:35-39.Herbst, Ph. G. 1976. Alternatives to Hierarchies. Leiden: MartinusNijhoff.Karlins, Marvin, Charles Michaels,and Susan Podlogar. 1988. "An empirical investigation of actualcheating in a large sample of undergraduates." Research in HigherEducation 29:359-364.Keyt, Aaron. 1988. "An improvedframework for music plagiarism litigation." California LawReview 76:421-464.Klass, Perri. 1987. "Turning mywords against me." New York Times Book Review 5 April:1,45-46.Kroll, Barry M. 1988. "How collegefreshmen view plagiarism." Written Communication5:203-221.LaFollette, Marcel C. 1992. Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct inScientific Publishing. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.Malloch, A. E. 1976. "A dialogueon plagiarism." College English 38:165-174.Mallon, Thomas. 1989. StolenWords: Forays into the Origins and Ravages of Plagiarism. NewYork: Ticknor and Fields.Martin, Brian. 1984. "Plagiarism and responsibility." Journal of Tertiary EducationalAdministration 6:183-190.Mawdsley, Ralph D. 1986. "Plagiarism problems in higher education." Journal of College andUniversity Law 13:65-92.Mazur, Allan. 1989. "Allegationsof dishonesty in research and their treatment by Americanuniversities." Minerva 27:177-194.Mitroff, Ian I., and WarrenBennis. 1989. The Unreality Industry: The Deliberate Manufacturingof Falsehood and What It Is Doing to Our Lives. New York:Carol.Moodie, Gavin. 1993. "Bureaucraticplagiarism." Campus Review (Australia) (25-31 March): 10,19.Perrin, Noel. 1992. "How I becamea plagiarist." American Scholar 61:257-259.Piliawsky, Monte. 1982. Exit13: Oppression and Racism in Academia. Boston: South EndPress.Posner, Ari. 1988. "The culture ofplagiarism." The New Republic, 18 April:19-24.Reams, Jr., Bernard D. 1987. "Revocation of academic degrees by colleges and universities." Journal of College and University Law 14:283-302.Schab, Fred. 1972. "Cheating inhigh school: a comparison of behavior of students in the college prepand general curriculum." Journal of Youth and Adolescence1:251-256.Shaw, Peter. 1982. "Plagiary." American Scholar 51:325-337.Spender, Dale. 1989. TheWriting or the Sex?: Or Why You Don't Have to Read Women's Writing toKnow It's No Good. New York: Pergamon.Stavisky, Leonard Price. 1973. "Term paper 'mills,' academic plagiarism, and state regulation." Political Science Quarterly 88:445-461.St. Onge, K. R. 1988. TheMelancholy Anatomy of Plagiarism. Lanham: University Press ofAmerica.Thelen, David, ed. 1991. "BecomingMartin Luther King, Jr. -- plagiarism and originality: a roundtable." Journal of American History 78:11-123. Thomley, Patsy W. 1989. "In searchof a plagiarism policy." Northern Kentucky Law Review16:501-519.Ward, Colin. 1982. Anarchy inAction. London: Freedom Press.Weinstein, Deena. 1979. Bureaucratic Opposition: Challenging Abuses at the Workplace.New York: Pergamon.X, Malcolm, with the assistance ofAlex Haley. 1965. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York:Grove Press. |
|
