1
Comm 441: Foundations in Critical Cultural Methods
Spring 2016
Class Information:
Room PSFA 350
MW 3:30 – 4:45
#20929
Contact information:
George N. Dionisopoulos
Office: Com 241
Office Hours MW 12:30-1:50
dionisop@mail.sdsu.edu
"Words are not merely 'signs'; they are names whose 'attachment' to events, objects, persons,
institutions, status groups, classes, and indeed any great or small collectivity, soon tends to
determine what we do in regard to the bearer of the name." -- Hugh D. Duncan
The overall goal of this class is to give you a foundation in basic critical-rhetorical scholarship
and methodology. To accomplish this we will examine the role that rhetoric plays in the
construction and shaping of symbolic reality. This class is focused on deepening your
understanding of the nomenclature of critical inquiry. Toward that end we will examine the
scholarly practices which fall under the heading of rhetorical criticism: the “analysis,
interpretation, and evaluation of persuasive uses of [symbols]” (Campbell & Burkholder, 1997,
p. 2). Rhetorical criticism is not intended to tell us what an artifact means, but rather to illustrate
some aspect of how it means: that is, how might an engaged audience make sense of this
communication. Thus we begin with what is present and obvious in a rhetorical artifact and then
deconstruct it to make an argument about what is hidden and/or obscure – but meaningful and
important – within a message.
Part of this class will introduce you to the “history” of rhetorical criticism, including how it came
into being, how it matured and changed over the decades, and the various ways it has been practiced
in the past and is practiced today. Toward that end we will examine various methodological
approaches that have been employed in the past, spanning a range of ideological assumptions
about communication and the nature of “humanness”. We cannot cover the entire field, but we
will read examples of rhetorical criticism that can help you to develop your own critical skills by
illustrating how others have worked through many aspects of the process. It is also important to
keep in mind that a method is a tool, and that different tools are designed to do different things.
We want to understand how these tools work so that we can develop a refined ability to select
from among them.
We will also pay particular attention to a variety of analytical skills that are important in critical
inquiry; most specifically, the adoption of a “critical attitude” toward a rhetorical artifact. A great
deal of this class will focus on introducing you to a range of basic terms and concepts that
constitute a kind of vocabulary for criticism. Understanding and employing this vocabulary is an
important step in learning to do rhetorical criticism, and test have a strong focus on the
understanding and application of important terms.
TEXTBOOKS:
Foss, S. K. (2008) Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice.
Heights, IL: Waveland.
4th
edition. Prospect
2
Additional readings posted on Blackboard.
LEARNING OUTCOMES AND GOALS:
-
To gain a sense of and be able to discuss various critical methods employed by scholars in
our field
To develop and be able to articulate a coherent definition of “rhetoric”, “rhetor”, “rhetorical
situation”, “rhetorical artifact”, and “rhetorical criticism”
To read, evaluate, compare, and discuss a wide range of critical rhetorical projects.
To gain a sense of and be able to discuss various trends in contemporary rhetorical criticism.
To understand the manner in which rhetorical criticism is conducted and what kind of
knowledge it produces.
To demonstrate an understanding of the process of critical investigation
To comprehend and discuss the role of rhetorical criticism as a communication research
method.
GRADING AND ASSIGNMENTS
Course grades:
Your grade in this class will be based on the total number of points accumulated during the
semester. I will use the following criteria for determining grades:
A = 90%+
A- = 88.5
B+ = 87
B = 80%
C or Pass = 70%
D = 60%
An Incomplete will only be given with written documentation from a physician.
Points are awarded on the following:
Midterm Examination:
Cumulative Final Examination
Group Presentation
Meta-Critic Analyses
100
150
50
25
Descriptive analysis
25
Proposal
50
Quizzes/Homework – depends on how many
Exams and Quizzes:
We will have a midterm examination and a cumulative final exam. The exams will test the
assigned reading and information presented in class lecture/discussion. You will need a Scantron
882 Test form and a number two pencil to complete the objective portion of each exam. I will
not provide them. Exams will not be returned in class, but you can make an appointment to view
your exam. All exams are destroyed the semester following the end of the course. Periodic
quizzes will be given during the semester and cannot be made up or taken at any other time than
when it is done in class.
3
Group Presentation = 50 points
Each group will be assigned a critical method to present to the class. Each group is responsible
for at least one hour of class time. This time can be divided into lecture and activity, but at least
40 minutes must be lecture. Criteria for evaluation will include length, content, creativity,
effectiveness, organization, delivery, cohesiveness and energy. Presentations should be dynamic
and engaging. Grading is on a 50 point scale and everyone in the group gets the same grade. (see
attached grading rubric)
 Groups must create a Power Point presentation to go along with the lecture portion of the
presentation. The PP should be simple yet effective. It should complement the
presentation, not replace it. It should be organized with a clear introduction and
conclusion.
 An important element of an oral presentation is a preview detailing for the audience what
you will cover and how you will cover it. That lays out the organizational structure of the
presentation and makes it easier for the audience to track your ideas.
 Each group will be required to prepare and distribute “study guide” for the material
covered in the presentation. Study guides should list and define the main concepts that
were covered in the chapter. It should not simply answer the questions submitted.
 Because the class is structured heavily around the concept of participant discussion, each
group will create and distribute three thought-provoking discussion questions that can be
used to guide class participation during the presentation. Discussion questions pertaining
to the reading should focus on (1) the main argument of the essay (the reasoning pattern
offered, the data that was used as evidentiary support, justifications); 2) what did we learn
about "how discourse works in the real world"; and 3) what did the author[s] say
concerning the implications of this work in contributing to our understanding of the
process[es] of human symbolic behavior. (In point of fact, any study that explains only
the event under examination is a pretty worthless endeavor.)
 Groups will write and submit three multiple choice test questions covering the material
from their chapter. Each question should be keyed and should be accompanied with a
brief “debriefing” explaining of the concept or idea it focuses on and why that is
important. Failure to debrief (justify) the question will negatively affect the group grade.
Test questions will be handed in by the end of class on the night of your presentation and
will be evaluated on intelligence and clarity.
 Groups may assume that the class has read the assigned chapters and essays. Thus,
simply representing this material will not result in a good evaluation. It is important to
relay the information from the text and you can and should devote part of your
presentation to the week’s assigned readings, but it is also important that you expand our
understanding beyond this material. You need to examine additional material concerning
the methodological perspective of your group. Such supplemental materials can be found
in rhetorical criticism textbooks and in additional essays that employ this perspective.
Each chapter in the book lists additional examples of criticisms that you can and should
examine for your report. In your report you need to tell us what kinds of questions this
method encourages and what it can tell us about communication.
 Groups must hand in a list of References used to create the presentation. It should follow
the APA Style format and should be submitted in hard copy the night of the presentation.
4
Meta-Critical Analyses = 25 points
Part of the “critical attitude” is to learn to read criticism like a rhetorical scholar. Rhetorical
criticism is a research method, the goal of which is to teach us something about communication.
Five times during the semester – not including the week your group presents – you need to pick
one article from the weekly reading and write a one- two page (hard limit – penalty incurred for
going over page limits) analysis focusing on it and post it to Turnitin. Possible readings for this
assignment are designated in this syllabus by an asterisk (*) at the beginning of the listing. You
cannot submit more than one of these each week. Meta-critical postings for the week’s readings
are due at 3:00 on the first class day of the week.
This analysis should focus on what the article can teach us about communication. Be ready to
talk about the “conclusion” or “claim” of the article as well as the argumentative/reasoning
structure which supports it. What did you learn about “how discourse works in the world” – what
did the author[s] say concerning the implications of this work in contributing to our
understanding of the process[es] of human symbolic behavior? What is the “scholarly dialogue”
the article claims to advance. (In point of fact, any study that explains only the artifact under
examination is a pretty limited endeavor.) What is the most interesting or important point being
made about human symbolic behavior? What do you believe was the key argument of the
author[s]: To put it more bluntly – what is the “so what” of the article; how are you smarter
about communication after reading the article than you were before you read it? You need to
distill the substance of the article into a brief critical profile. In so doing, you are enacting the
role of a “meta-critic”: deciding which of the original critic’s ideas are crucial, and how best to
demonstrate and critique the claims being advanced. It is vitally important that you cite and
reference evidentiary support from the article. Do not assert – illustrate! The goal of this
assignment is to demonstrate that you have engaged the readings like a scholar.
Writing Assignments
A Word About Professionalism in Writing
I spend a great deal of time and effort in grading student papers so as to provide you with
maximum feedback that can, in turn, help you to improve your writing. Because of this, it is
most discouraging when the occasional student hands in a paper that has many errors in syntax,
grammar, and/or spelling. Most often, papers replete with these types of errors have been hastily
written and proofread—or not proofread at all. For these reasons, my policy is as follows: If I
determine that your paper has an excessive number of errors in syntax, grammar, and/or spelling,
I will stop reading and return your paper to you with a grade of zero. I will put the post “FEAR”
– “Fix Errors and Resubmit” – at the point in your essay where I stopped reading. At that point
your paper will be considered one day late, incurring the penalty specified in the assignment.
You will have 24 hours to correct the essay and resubmit it. Your essay will be considered
another day late for each 24 hour period that passes before resubmission. If the revision still
contains a significant number of mechanical errors I will stop reading it and the process will
begin again.
When you write you create an image of yourself on the paper. You want that image to be
professional and accomplished. You owe it to yourself to produce work that reflects well on its
author. All page limits on all assignments are hard and enforced.
5
Rhetorical Artifact for the Semester
You will need to come up with a rhetorical element you want to study. This artifact has to have
enough material about it to allow you to establish a good research foundation for your analysis.
You can work in groups of up to three but everyone in the group gets the same grade. Make
certain only one person in the group is designated to turn the paper in to turnitin.
Descriptive Analysis (25 points)
A “descriptive analysis” does not employ outside research, nor is in really a rhetorical criticism.
It is an intense focus on the object of analysis. Campbell and Burkholder call it the first task a
critic must perform in “preparing to write a piece of criticism” (p. 17), and the second chapter of
their book details seven different concerns you should use to “get intimate” with your artifact.
Your essay should have a brief introduction including a preview statement and then go on to
address these concerns. Each claim/insight you offer must have evidentiary support drawn
explicitly from the artifact. You need to show me the evidence in your essay. Do not assert –
illustrate! The text of this essay should be 3-6 pages long not including References and title page,
using 12 point font and one inch margins. The descriptive analysis is due to turnitin by 7:00 on
February 17, 2016. Late papers will not be accepted.
Proposal (50 points)
A proposal or prospectus functions as a kind of “preview” for a larger and more extensive
analysis of the artifact. A great many of the scholarly essays presented at profession
communication conferences are accepted for presentation on the basis of a proposal rather than a
completed paper. Your proposal should be 5-10 pages not including References and title page,
using 12 point font and one inch margins. After a brief “attention-getting” introduction, the
balance of the proposal should be in three distinct and clearly labeled sections. The first is a brief
presentation of the artifact and a discussion of its “rhetorical situation”. That is, you need to
situate the artifact as a response to whatever exigency led to its creation. Why was this rhetorical
artifact created, and what was the rhetorical problem[s] facing the rhetor? This section should
provide whatever background is necessary for understanding your work, including the sociopolitical conditions in which the text was created and the specifics of the situation in which it
was presented. This element of the proposal should be three-four pages in length and should
draw heavily from your research done in the media. At a minimum you will need to cite 10
media sources that deal directly with your artifact. Citing a dictionary or an encyclopedia to
define an important term will result in an automatic loss of 5 points.
The second section of the proposal discusses the artifact in relation to a particular critical method
you will use to analyze it. You cannot just state the method as in “I will analyze this speech using
method X.” You have to make a clear argument that specifies the questions you will ask about
the artifact and the units of analysis you will use to answer that question. Here you need to
address what a deeper understanding of this artifact can teach us about communication. This
section of your proposal needs to demonstrate your knowledge of relevant literature concerning
critical questions on which you intend to focus. That is, you need to situate the proposed analysis
in an on-going scholarly conversation concerning some aspect of communication. This part of
the prospectus must draw its confirmatory evidence from relevant academic sources: employ and
cite them liberally in this section of the paper. This part of your proposal should three-four pages
6
in length. The final section of your proposal is a brief (about one page) presentation of the
organizational structure of your final paper. Lay out clearly WHAT you will do, HOW you will
do it. The Proposal is due to me via Turnitin.com by 7:00 p. m. on April 20 and late papers will
not be accepted.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
It is expected that students will conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the classroom.
No class February 29, 2016 due to the convention of the Western States Communication
Association.
If you are a student with a disability and believe you will need accommodations for this class, it
is your responsibility to contact Student Disability Services at (619) 594-6473. To avoid any
delay in the receipt of your accommodations, you should contact Student Disability Services as
soon as possible. Please note that accommodations are not retroactive, and that accommodations
based upon disability cannot be provided until you have presented your instructor with an
accommodation letter from Student Disability Services. Your cooperation is appreciated.
According to the policy of the San Diego State Faculty Senate, the instructor is not considered
bound by the specific policies laid out in this syllabus and the instructor retains the right to adjust
the course design as needed during the semester.
The website of the School of Communication can be found at: http://communication.sdsu.edu/
The Academic Dishonesty Policy of the School of Communication is attached at the end of this
document.
Continued enrollment by the student in this class is taken as acceptance of the terms laid out in
this syllabus.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Week 1 – January 20
Course introduction and housekeeping
Look up and be prepared to discuss the following concepts: “case-study method”; validity;
argument; interpellation
Week 2 – January 25-27
Introduction to and Perspectives on Critical Cultural Analysis
A. Foss, chapters 1-2 pp. 3-20.
B. Read text of “Trouble in River City”
Select artifact and determine groups
7
Week 3 – February 1-3
Rhetorical Criticism as Art and Argument
A. Kuypers, (2005), The art of rhetorical criticism, pp. 13-32 in Kuypers (ed.), The art of
rhetorical criticism, New York: Pearson.
B. Brockriede (1974). Rhetorical criticism as argument, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 165174.
C. Campbell & Burkholder, Chapter Two, “Descriptive analysis: The first stage of criticism,” pp.
17- 48.
D. Wander, (1972). The savage child: The image of the Negro in the pro-slavery movement,”
Southern States Communication Journal, 37, 335-360.
E. King, Letter from Birmingham Jail.
Week 4 – February 8-10
Neo-Aristotlean/Traditional Criticism
A. Foss, pp. 21-29.
*B. Hill, (1972). Conventional wisdom – traditional form – The President’s message of
November 3, 1969. Reprinted in Foss, pp. 30-50.
C. Hill, (2005). The “Traditional” perspective,” pp. 56-84 in Kuypers (ed.), The art of rhetorical
criticism, New York: Pearson.
Week 5 – February 15-17
Descriptive analysis due February 17
Presentation: Criticism and the Situation
Situating Critical Analysis
A. Farrell & Young, (2005). The situational perspective, pp. 33-55 in Kuypers (ed.), The art of
rhetorical criticism, New York: Pearson.
B. Bitzer, (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
C. Vatz, (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6, 154-161.
*D. Leff & Utley, (2004). Instrumental and constitutive rhetoric in Martin Luther King Jr.’s
“Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 7, 37-52.
8
Week 6 – February 22-24
Metaphor Criticism
Presentation: Metaphor Criticism
A. Foss, pp. 267-299.
*B. Perry, (1983). Rhetorical functions of the infestation metaphor in Hitler’s rhetoric. Central
States Speech Journal, 34, 229-235.
*C. Ivie, (1980). Images of savagery in American justifications for war, Communication
Monographs, 47, 279-294.
Week 7- March 2
Narrative Criticism
Presentation: Narrative Criticism
A. Foss, pp. 307-319.
*B. Hollihan & Riley, (1987). The rhetorical power of a compelling story: A critique of a
“Toughlove” parental support group. Communication Quarterly, 35, 13-25. Reprinted in Foss,
pp. 336-346.
*C. Osborn & Bakke, (1998). The melodramas of Memphis: Contending narratives during the
sanitation strike of 1968. Southern States Communication Journal, 220-234.
*D. Osborn, (2004). Rhetorical distance in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. Rhetoric & Public
Affairs, 7, 53-65.
*E. Dionisopoulos, (2010). “To open a door and look inside”: Dead Man Walking as a prima
facie case. WJC, 74, 292-308.
Week 8 – March 7-9
Generative Criticism
Presentation: Generative Criticism
A. Foss, pp. 387-405.
*B. Foss, Waters, & Armada, (2007). Toward a theory of agentic orientation: Rhetoric and
agency in Run Lola Run. Communication Theory, 5, 205-230. Reprinted in Foss, pp. 406-427.
*C. Guerrero & Dionisopoulos, (1990). Enthymematic solutions to the Lockshin defection story:
A case study in the repair of a problematic narrative. Central States Speech Journal, 41,
299-310.
*D. Watson, (2004). The issue is justice: Martin Luther King Jr.’s response to the Birmingham
Clergy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 7, 1-22.
9
*E. Patton, (2004). A transforming response: Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham
Jail. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 7, 53-66.
Week 9 – March 14-16
Fantasy Theme Analysis
A. Foss, pp. 97-104.
*B. Novek, (2005). “Heaven, Hell, and here”: Understanding the impact of incarceration through
a prison newspaper. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22, 281-301. Reprinted in Foss,
105-123.
C. McCormick & Weiss, (2009). The sociopolitical messages of graffiti art, in Foss, pp. 128-134.
Review for midterm.
Week 10 – March 23-25
MIDTERM
The first day will be the subjective portion of the exam and the second will be the objective part.
You can use one piece of paper (both sides) of notes for the exam. You will need a Scantron 882
form and a number two pencil to complete the objective portion of the midterm exam.
Week 11—April 4-6
Generic Criticism
Presentation: Generic Criticism
A. Foss, pp. 137-147.
*B. Johnson, (2004). The rhetoric of Huey P. Newton. Southern Communication Journal, 70, 1530. Reprinted in Foss, pp. 188-204.
*C. Ware & Linkugel, (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of
apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273-283.
*D. Hanson & Dionisopoulos (2012). Eulogy rhetoric as a political coping mechanism. The
aftermath of Proposition 8. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 24-43.
Week 12 – April 11-13
Non-Pentadic Burkean Criticism
Presentation: Burkean analysis other than the Pentad
A. Foss, pp. 63-70.
*B. Reid, (1990). The Hay-Wain: Cluster analysis in visual communication. Journal of
Communication Inquiry, 14, 40-54. Reprinted in Foss, pp. 71-85.
*C. Elliot, (2009). A cluster-analysis of Enron’s Code of Ethics, in Foss, pp. 86-91.
10
*D. Tonn, Endress, & Diamond. (1993). Hunting and heritage on trial in Maine: A dramatistic
debate over tragedy, tradition, and territory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 165-181.
*E. Goehring & Dionisopoulos, (2013). Identification by antithesis: The Turner Diaries as
constitutive rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal, 78, 369-386.
Week 13 – April 18-20
Proposal due April 20
Burkean criticism -- Pentad
Presentation: Burkean critical pentad
A. Foss, pp. 355-365
*B. Ling, (1970). A pentadic analysis of Senator Edward Kennedy’s Address to the people of
Massachusetts July 25, 1969. Central States Speech Journal, 21, 81-86.
*C. Brummett. (1979). A pentadic analysis of ideologies in two gay rights controversies, Central
States Speech Journal, 30, 250-261.
Week 14 – April 25-27
Ideological Criticism
Presentation: Ideological Criticism
A. Foss, pp. 209-224
*B. Dickinson, Ott, & Aoki, (2005). Memory and myth at the Buffalo Bill Museum. Western
Journal of Communication, 69, 85-108. Reprinted in Foss, pp. 225-245.
*C. Smith & Dionisopoulos, (2008). The Abu Ghraib images: “Breaks” in a dichotomous frame.
Western Journal of Communication, 72, 308-328.
*D. Martin & Oshagan, (1997), Disciplining the workforce: The news media frame a General
Motors plant closing,” Communication Research, 24, 669-697.
Week 15 – May 2-4
Turn in Final papers and review for Final
Final Examination
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
1530-1730 (3:30-5:30)
11
Group Presentation Grading Sheet
Communication 441
Topic: _________________________________
Group Names:
Time:
Overall Grade: 50/ (

Content

Creativity

Organization -- (a preview helps us to follow your presentation)

Effectiveness

Cohesiveness

Powerpoint

Discussion Questions

Study Guide

Test Questions

Reference List
)
12
THE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY OF THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
Plagiarism is theft of intellectual property. It is one of the highest forms of academic offense
because in academe, it is a scholar’s words, ideas, and creative products that are the primary
measures of identity and achievement. Whether by ignorance, accident, or intent, theft is still
theft, and misrepresentation is still misrepresentation. Therefore, the offense is still serious, and
is treated as such.
Overview:
In any case in which a Professor or Instructor identifies evidence for charging a student with
violation of academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the presumption will be with that
instructor’s determination. However, the faculty/instructor(s) will confer with the director to
substantiate the evidence. Once confirmed, the evidence will be reviewed with the student. If,
following the review with the student, the faculty member and director determine that academic
dishonesty has occurred, the evidence will be submitted to the Office of Student Rights and
Responsibilities. The report “identifies the student who was found responsible, the general nature
of the offense, the action taken, and a recommendation as to whether or not additional action
should be considered by the campus judicial affairs office .” (CSSR Website[1]).
[1] http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/academics1.html
Intellectual Property:
The syllabus, lectures and lecture outlines are personal copyrighted intellectual property of the
instructor, which means that any organized recording for anything other than personal use,
duplication, distribution, or profit is a violation of copyright and fair use laws.
Proper Source Attribution:
Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is done by (a)
providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and (b) clearly designating the
source of the text or information relied upon in an assignment. Text that is identical with another
source but without quotation marks constitutes plagiarism, regardless of whether you included
the original source.
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences:
a. Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed materials (whether
represented by: (i) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (ii) by percentage of
assignment length) without proper attribution, will result in assignment of an “F” in the course,
and a report to Student Rights and Responsibilities.
b. Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks but source citation, or
subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the
assignment. Repeated or serious cases will result in assignment of an “F” in the course, and a
report to Student Rights and Responsibilities.
Self-plagiarism:
Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write on a given topic
across more than one course assignment. In general, there is nothing wrong with double-
13
dipping topics or sources, but there is a problem with double-dipping exact and redundant text.
It is common for scholars to write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is part
of developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a topic. Scholars, however, are
not permitted to repeat exact text across papers or publications except when noted and attributed,
as this wastes precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular
source of original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the original presentation. Any time that
a writer simply ‘cuts-and-pastes’ exact text from former papers into a new paper without proper
attribution, it is a form of self-plagiarism. Consequently, a given paper should never be turned in
to multiple classes. Entire paragraphs, or even sentences, should not be repeated word-for-word
across course assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a new writing
assignment, requiring new composition on the student’s part.
Secondary citations:
Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it can present similar
ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A, which in turn cites source B, but it is
source B’s ideas or content that provide the basis for the claims the student intends to make in
the assignment. For example, assume that there is an article by Jones (2006) in the student’s
hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of an article by Smith (1998). Assume further
that what Smith seems to be saying is very important to the student’s analysis. In such a
situation, the student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if an idea
is important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to locate and cite the
original source for that idea. There are several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors sometimes
commit citation errors, which might be replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors sometimes
make interpretation errors, which might be ignorantly reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of
scholarly activity is made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying on only a few
sources of review, the learning process is short-circuited, and the student’s own research
competencies are diminished, which are integral to any liberal education; (e) By masking the
actual sources of ideas, readers must second guess which sources come from which citations,
making the readers’ own research more difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the information,
the actual source of ideas is misrepresented. Some suggestions that assist with this principle:




When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to, Smith, then find the Smith source and
citation.
When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with Smith than with Jones, then find
the Smith source and citation.
In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones is saying and believes, and is
independently qualified to claim, whether or not Smith would have also said it; in such a case, citing Jones
is sufficient.
Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones, and reproduce the reference list
without actually going to look up what those references report—the only guarantee that claims are valid is
for a student to read the original sources of those claims.
Solicitation for ghost writing:
Any student who solicits any third party to write any portion of an assignment for this class
(whether for pay or not) violates the standards of academic honesty in this course. The penalty
for solicitation (regardless of whether it can be demonstrated the individual solicited wrote any
sections of the assignment) is F in the course.
14
TurnItIn.com
The papers in this course will be submitted electronically in Word (preferably .docx) on the due
dates assigned, and will require verification of submission to Turnitin.com.
“Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject to submission for
textual similarity review to TurnItIn.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers
will be included as source documents in the TurnItIn.com reference database solely for the
purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. You may submit your papers in such a way that
no identifying information about you is included. Another option is that you may request, in
writing, that your papers not be submitted to TurnItIn.com. However, if you choose this option
you will be required to provide documentation to substantiate that the papers are your original
work and do not include any plagiarized material” (source: language suggested by the CSU
General Counsel and approved by the Center for Student’s Rights and Responsibilities at SDSU)
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences





Course failure: Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed materials without
proper attribution, whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (b) by
percentage of assignment length, or solicitation of a ghost writer, will result in assignment of an “F” in the
course in which the infraction occurred, and a report to the Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities
(CSRR2).
Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks, but with
source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the
assignment, and may result in greater penalty, including a report to the CSRR, depending factors noted
below. In this instance, an “F” may mean anything between a zero (0) and 50%, depending on the extent of
infraction.
Exacerbating conditions--Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if fragmentary, is increased with a
greater: (a) number of infractions; (b) distribution of infractions across an assignment; or (c) proportion of
the assignment consisting of infractions.
Exacerbating conditions--Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent to deceive magnifies the
seriousness of the offense and the grounds for official response. Plagiarism, whether ‘by accident’ or ‘by
ignorance,’ still qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’ responsibility to make sure their assignments are
not committing the offense.
Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and only under
exceptional circumstances.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES ALLOWED BASED ON IGNORANCE OF WHAT
CONSTITUTES PLAGIARISM, OR OF WHAT THIS POLICY IS