BlogU

  • PLAGIARISM, HIGH AND LOW

    By UD November 21, 2009 9:19 am

    Two recent instances of professorial plagiarism - New Zealand novelist Witi Ihimaera and, allegedly, Ohio State University mathematician Azita Manouchehri - have UD thinking once more about this odd and endless practice of stealing other people's words and work.

    Students, professors, journalists, scientists -- everyone, it sometimes seems, who puts pinkie to keyboard, feels tempted to block and highlight and copy and paste. You read something you like, something you can use, and you find it hard to resist sweeping it up and dropping it down into your manuscript or mission statement.

    Serious plagiarists have been at it forever; it's a way of life. No one should have been surprised when a writer whom Ihimaera plagiarized years ago came forward in light of the latest revelation to complain that Ihimaera hasn't learned a thing since he apologized to him for stealing from a history he wrote.

    Technological change has made it pretty easy for plagiarists - especially serial plagiarists, like Ihimaera - to be discovered today. The woman (a book reviewer and editor) who discovered Ihimaera's latest plagiarism sensed something wrong with the writing in his just-released novel. She scored her first plagiarism find merely by Googling the book's obscure subject matter. She then began feeding phrases from the novel into Google Books.

    Of course you need a sensitive reader, like this woman, to notice something's wrong; without that initial discomfort, the phrases wouldn't get sent through. But assuming a reader with an eye for scrambled styles, a plagiarist today stands a good chance of detection.

    ************************************

    Plagiarism of the sort Ihimaera commits has always been a pretty high-risk activity. When you spend years weaving a large and varied theft-garment, holes get noticed.

    The legitimate author may still be alive, and if she happens to find her stitching pulled out and patched into someone else's page, she's going to be pissed. Even if the author's dead (plagiarists of course prefer the dead), and even if the author's obscure (plagiarists prefer the obscure), some fan in Oxford Mississippi or Beaver Oregon may recognize her favorite writer's patterns.

    And there's the common reader. Much magazine and newspaper plagiarism gets pegged by subscribers who inform clueless editors that they've been publishing pre-owned prose.

    Plagiarism is no respecter of genre. Speeches, letters, novels, poems, plays, short stories, histories, grant proposals, dissertations, newspaper and magazine articles -- all get taken. UD's covered plagiarism stories involving each of these writing forms.

    But plagiarism does fall into two broad categories: haughty and pathetic.

    Harvard Law School professors commit haughty plagiarism; Harvard Overseers like Doris Kearns Goodwin do too. Haughties plagiarize because they rarely write their own books anymore. They're too busy. Ateliers of students and ghostwriters do the work, and the haughties might not even lower themselves to check it. Their job is to stamp a bankable name on the book's cover and take credit for what's in it. Which includes - sucks for them - taking credit when what's in it was plagiarized by one of their employees.

    Ihimaera's is the more common form of plagiarism, the form whose pathos lies in its motives. The pathetic plagiarist seethes with self-doubt. She's not lazy and arrogant like the haughties; she's afraid. Never very sure of her capacities, she gets shakier and shakier with each success. Her plagiarism is a desperate, dead of night stab at her betters.

    *****************************

    The institutional response to plagiarism is one of many odd things about this odd practice. Universities, publishing houses - they almost always stonewall, deny, prevaricate, and generally fuss about for months before accepting the inevitable. No one likes pulping a book; no one likes admitting that the people on campus who wrote the anti-plagiarism codes for students are plagiarists.

    In keeping with their high status, plagiarizing haughties are rarely punished. They blame the theft on the servants and soldier on.

    Pathetics tend to get it right in the kisser.

    Their midnight mischief dragged to the light of day, they can only stand there and apologize. Ihimaera says he's going to buy back the entire first run of the book. His university and publishing house are still, as of this writing, in the fuss and prevaricate mode. But nothing can stop what's been set in motion - the revelation of Ihimaera as a career plagiarist. His reputation has been trashed, along with the reputation of the university that continues to defend him.

    Especially in high-tech surveillance times, pathetic plagiarism calls not merely for condemnation but for compassion. When, knowing how easily you can be caught, you still plagiarize, something's wrong with you. When you know someone like the historian you plagiarized years ago is still out there, and you still plagiarize, something's wrong.

    Do pathetic plagiarists want to be caught? Are they playing a high-risk, borderline psychotic game in which they dare the world to catch them out and destroy them?

Go to comments (12) »
Advertisement

Comments on PLAGIARISM, HIGH AND LOW

  • Posted by Nancy Fruge on November 22, 2009 at 3:00pm EST

  • “Plagiarism is no respecter of genre. Speeches, letters, novels, poems, plays, short stories, histories, grant proposals, dissertations, newspaper and magazine articles -- all get taken.”

    Thank you, UD, for clarifying this.

    UT Southwestern researchers came up with a system for identifying plagiarism in scientific publications. Here is a link to the story in The Dallas Morning News:

    http://tinyurl.com/2a3nqj

    “Dr. Alfred Gilman, Nobel laureate and [former] dean of UT Southwestern Medical School, said he thought journals would use the computer program. But for universities, he said, such searches might be more cost and effort than they are worth.

    ‘There is some level of bad behavior, and that is unfortunate,’ he said. ‘But I think it's pretty low. It would be an awful lot of work for very small gain.”

    Dr. Gilman brings up an interesting question. What is the harm in allowing plagiarism to remain undetected at universities?

  • Was Homer a Plagiarist?
  • Posted by Jack Ramsey , Librarian at Higher Education on November 23, 2009 at 11:30am EST

  • Certainly plagiarism is not something to be taken lightly. But in all the hand-wringing over it, does anyone ever mention that human language and thought is founding upon the gift for mimicry? Could modern plagiarism in some sense be viewed as an extension of this inevitable drive toward copying? Indeed, the works of oral cultures, such as the Homer's epics, are woven with phrases and motifs borrowed from previous poets. It is all understood to be a part of a larger, often 'nameless' oral culture. But our modern drive toward commodifying creative work and viewing it under a general framework of individualism--i.e., the 'genius' author created their work out of the ether--tends to deny the inevitable borrowing, reshaping, or sometimes lifting verbatim that may occur in the creative process.

    Shakespeare plagiarized plots and passages. Hermann Melville plagiarized. Virgil stole everything from Homer, who stole things from...?

    Point: let's try to take a broader view of this before we allow Google books and search engines to convince us that everyone is plagiarizing.

  • Posted by Harbinger on November 23, 2009 at 12:30pm EST

  • Nancy Fruge asks “What is the harm in allowing plagiarism to remain undetected at universities?” With all due respect to her report of Dr. Gilman’s learned opinion regarding the extent of plagiarism at universities (“it's pretty low”), isn’t there enough evidence by now to suggest that it’s instead a serious problem? Isn’t it the academy’s duty to inform society of what the facts actually are (rather than anecdotal opinion) now, instead of waiting until universities are so overwhelmed by plagiarism that it’s incurable (like grade inflation seems to have become)?

    SIU’s unintentional plagiarism concept as contrived sophistry?
    http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/11/sius-unintentional-plagiarism-concept.html

    Ohio University Plagiarism
    http://ohiouniversityplagiarism.blogspot.com/

  • plagiarism
  • Posted by Gary Davis on November 23, 2009 at 4:45pm EST

  • "Plagiarism is the root of all culture." - Pete Seeger (note quotation marks and attribution)

  • Posted by Nancy Fruge on November 23, 2009 at 10:30pm EST

  • Harbinger, I am with you on this.

  • Casting Stones from Glass Houses . . .
  • Posted by Earle Holland , Asst. VP for Research Communications at Ohio State University on November 24, 2009 at 8:45am EST

  • It's surprising and depressing that the professor of English who constructs this blog thinks that by simply inserting the word "allegedly" into the first sentence, that allows her to lump these two cases together fairly. While I know little about the Ihimaera case, the blog's description clearly differentiates it from the situation with Azita Manouchehri who, by the way, is a professor of education at Ohio State and not mathematics.

    While the story from the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, which in the blog is hyperlinked to Professor Manouchehri's name, was basically fair and balanced, the blogger links the two cases without any evidence of similarity. In fact, it provides no form of evidence at all supporting claims against this educator.

    As anyone who knows about scientific misconduct investigations understands completely, investigations by institutions in this arena must be confirmed by the funding agency when federal resources are involved. The final report from Central Michigan University's investigation in this case was completed early August, 2008, and presumedly forwarded to the National Science Foundation but no concurrence from from NSF has come nearly 15 months later. Until there is an agreement by NSF with CMU's findings, the proper and fair treatment is one of innocence until proven guilty.

    This kind of "rush-to-judgement" is all too easy now, given the myriad of communications tools readily at hand today. But that's all the more reason to take judicious care to insure both the accuracy of the information and rights of the individual. Once we forget that, our "reporting" is nothing more than simple gossip.

  • Witch hunt and allegations
  • Posted by Ken W. Smith , Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Sam Houston State University on November 24, 2009 at 10:45am EST

  • It is inappropriate for reporters (and bloggers) to throw around names and accusations without checking the details. The accusations about Dr. Manouchehri were first made by a mathematician who was denied a promotion and then (as the original charges were spurious) the charges mutated into allegations about the original grant proposal as part of an attempt to prevent Dr. Manouchehri from taking part of the large grant to Ohio State University. The timeline of a series of inquiries (with some insight to motive), along with Dr. Manouchehri's 55 page detailed defense are in the public domain and available at a website maintained by the CMU campus newspaper.

    The NSF grant proposal, submitted on Fastlane by someone other than Dr. Manouchehri, has a number of sloppy mistakes, including deletion of critical references, presumably caused by the writer hurrying to meet a page limit while under a deadline. The short portions (several paragraphs and sentence fragments) allegedly copied by the grant writers include work of colleagues who agreed to sit on the grant's advisory board.

    I am a mathematician who was involved in this grant. I left Central Michigan University at the same time as Dr. Manouchehri, to become department chair at another university. At the time that I left, the grant was in disarray. Mathematicians (who were not math educators) were suspicious of the type of educational research involved in the grant and some math educators, unaccustomed to rigorous research, were intimidated by Dr. Manouchehri's scholarship. The university, unaccustomed to large grants, desperately wanted to hang on to all of this one. In that volatile environment, false accusations were made that were allowed to fester without due process. "Due process" is critical in such a situation; without due process, the administration reached a decision and then tried to find evidence to support their decision.

    After the flurry of angry allegations and series of investigations, the CMU eventually suspended the grant activity until the investigations were complete. Unable to re-start the grant (the primary leader in the grant had left for OSU and other participants declined to participate), the university finally acknowledged to the NSF that it could not spend the money set aside for this grant and so returned that money to the NSF. This is unfortunate, as the original grant idea was an excellent one.

    Someone was sloppy in submitting the grant to the NSF (presumably on Fastlane.) It was not Dr. Manouchehri. To attribute even "carelessness" to her work would be unfair; to accuse her of plagiarism is an extreme injustice.

  • The question of plagiarism.
  • Posted by UD on November 24, 2009 at 3:30pm EST

  • OSU hired a tenured professor while she was under investigation for plagiarism at her previous university.

    It has since then, despite a good bit of press coverage, showed little interest in determining whether her previous university's findings are true.

    It is waiting for some sort of final report / confirmation of misconduct from the NSF, but the NSF says it doesn't have any plans to issue a final report.

    http://www.cm-life.com/2009/11/18/ohio-state-not-taking-action-with-former-professor-for-nsf-grant-plagiarism/

    The assistant vice president does not know whether the professor's previous university has forwarded its finding of guilt to the NSF.

    Has OSU been in contact with Central Michigan University, or with the NSF?

    If the assistant vice president wants to put an end to what he considers gossip, he and his school should inquire into the matter themselves. They have said they do not intend to do this.

  • Posted by Earle Holland , Asst. VP for Research Communications at Ohio State University on November 24, 2009 at 4:30pm EST

  • Margaret Soltan raised a number of points that concern her.
    She said, "OSU hired a tenured professor while she was under investigation for plagiarism at her previous university." That is incorrect. OSU made a job offer on June 7, 2007 which was accepted four days later. CMU's "investigation" began in July, 2007.
    She suggests we "showed little interest in determining whether her previous university's findings are true." On the contrary, we have reviewed the available material online, as well as discussing the matter with Dr. Manouchehri.
    Soltan says we are "waiting for some sort of final report/confirmation of misconduct from the NSF, but the NSF says it doesn't have any plans to issue a final report." That is correct but it is not "some kind of report." Federal requirements regarding investigations of alleged scientific misconduct specifically state in cases involving federal support, the agency will review an institution's investigation and, within a short period of time, "will either recommend adoption of the findings in whole or in part or, normally within 30 days, initiate a new investigation. When any satisfactory external investigation or an NSF investigation fails to confirm alleged misconduct­, OIG will notify the subject of the investigation and, if appropriate, those who reported the suspected or alleged misconduct. This notification may include the investigation report." [45 CFR Ch. VI (10-1-02 Edition)] NSF will neither confirm or deny an investigation has taken place but 15 months have passed since CMU concluded its activities.
    She also continues to quote from the CMU student newspaper as the authoritative source, although student newspapers are rarely seen as authoritative sources.
    She also chides us saying that we do "not know whether the professor's previous university has forwarded its finding of guilt to the NSF." Federal law requires that inquiries of alleged scientific misconduct be kept confidential as a protection of the accused. Accordingly, CMU should not provide any infomation about the case, including answering our questions. We were informed by CMU in December, 2007, of the initiation of the investigation -- itself a breach of confidentiality -- but never notified of its conclusions, although we have since had access to relevant documents online.
    Yes, we have been in contact with the NSF regarding this case.
    Soltan's claim that we "have not inquired into the matter" is based on her assumption that we would automatically concur with the conclusions of CMU's "investigation." That assumption is as devoid of fact as was her initial inclusion of Dr. Manouchehri in her original blog entry.

  • plagiarism at cmu
  • Posted by UD on November 24, 2009 at 5:30pm EST

  • I don't think anyone assumes OSU concurs with Central Michigan's conclusion that this professor plagiarized. Indeed it looks likely that OSU does not concur. The question is why it is not coming out and saying that. By all means defend her against the CMU findings. Don't sit around waiting for the NSF to do something that it says it's not going to do.

  • Posted by Earle Holland at Ohio State University on November 25, 2009 at 5:00am EST

  • Soltan, the presumptuous tone of your statements regarding this issue is really astounding. First you publish a self-righteous treatise on plagiarism, linking what appears to be an actual case with Manouchehri's case which is anything but clear. And when in my first comment I point out the inaccuracies and rush-to-judgement you've portrayed, you lay out a series of questions that easily demonstrate a lack of understanding of the processes and rules regarding scientific misconduct investigations. You continue to fail to acknowledge that you have your facts wrong -- after both I and Ken Smith point to numerous inaccuracies in your arguments -- and try to shift responsibility supposedly onto Ohio State to right the wrongs inflicted upon this faculty member. You have done no independent reporting in the case and instead have relied on your own faulty assumptions. Had you not carelessly linked Manouchehri to your original message, we would not be knee-deep in this argument. What separates professional journalists from amateur bloggers is that the former will acknowledge mistakes and attempt to correct them. The honorable thing for you to do is to do likewise and let this drama run its course. As it is, you're just defaming a respected scholar and undermining any credibility you might have had.

  • It just goes to show . . .
  • Posted by an observer , Academic Dean at a small college in the woods on November 25, 2009 at 5:30pm EST

  • . . . how difficult it is for some to admit a mistake. I'm sorry UD, but some legitimate concerns have been raised about the credibility of this blog entry, though there is no attempt on your part to acknowledge even the possibility that you have stepped over the line. You have posed questions which were answered and corroborated, yet your following post continues your "oh yeah" line of reasoning. Instead of insisting on being right, this loyal reader would much prefer a bit more of a humble approach on your part. While it is not acceptable for academics to plagiarize, it is quite alright for us to admit to being wrong on occasion. Actually, that would fit more comfortably than this insistence on being right, even in the face of reasonable evidence (and it would do wonders for legitimacy and/or credibility). Me thinks thou doth protest too much (I think a citation may be needed for this last statement).

Print
© Copyright 2010 Inside Higher Ed