Annotated Bibliography – Plagiarism and Composition
Plagiarism is a large and complex issue that has been a topic of interest and conversation in
the field for as long as there has been a field (College Composition and Communication was
printing articles about responding to plagiarism as early as 1952 for example), and an attempt to
cover the entire topic in twenty sources does not give justice to the complexity of the scholarship
in this field. What I am attempting to highlight here are some of the differences in discourse
between institutions and the field of Composition and Rhetoric, and some of the current research
on plagiarism in the field. Many of these texts were chosen as representative samples of the types
of conversation currently taking place.
Anderson, Virginia. “Interchanges” CCC 60:4 (2009): W122-128. NCTE Web. 3 Oct 2009
This Interchanges explores the tensions between Zwagerman’s “Scarlet P” and Robillard’s “We
won’t get fooled Again” and the way the authors respectively approach the notion of teacher
anger in response to plagiarised texts. Anderson picks up a thread hinted at by both articles, the
notion of the death of the autonomous author, and asks why plagiarism is still considered a
wrong to be righted within the context of the death of the author. Anderson points to different
types of representation, and suggests that leaving out citation is an act of silencing. Anderson
claims that the tension created between attempting to promote a communal authorship is also an
act of erasure, and instructor emotional response is born out of negotiating this tension.
Barks, Debbie and Patricia Watts. “Textual Borrowing Strategies for Graduate-Level ESL
Writers” Linking Literacies Diane Belcher and Alan Hirvela eds. Ann Arbour: University
of Michigan 2001.
Bloch, Joel. “Plagiarism and the ESL Student: From Printed to Electronic Texts” Linking
Literacies Diane Belcher and Alan Hirvela eds. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan 2001.
As plagiarism is increasingly understood as a contextual, cultural construct, much scholarship
has been written recently to address the ways non-American students understand and interact
with plagiarism in the context of the American academy. These two texts address many of the
concerns and theories in plagiarism (eg. text borrowing, patchwritng, dynamic concerns of
authorship) and applies them specifically to L2 students and their relationship to learning a
secondary literacy. Although not necessarily specific to composition, many of these ideas are
relevant when thinking through the pedagogy of plagiarism and how classes are constructed for
students with varied home discourses.
Burnett, Dana D, Lynn Rudolph and Karen O. Clifford eds. Academic Integrity Matters.
Washington: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. 1998.
This text collects essays reflecting on ways to think through plagiarism at the institutional level,
providing insight into how institutional policies are formed. Although not directly relational to
first year composition, this text provides a look at the tensions between institutions and the
students and teachers that operate within them. Although each article tackles a very different
topic and approach, emphasised throughout is the idea that plagiarism is a “problem” that can be
“solved”, typically through a collaborative effort from students, teachers and administrators.
Gallant, Tricia Bertram. Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and
Learning Perspective. San Francisco: ASHE Higher Education Report 33:5. 2008.
This text proposes a shift from the question “how can we stop students from cheating” to “how
can we ensure students are learning?” which creates a student centered shift in pedagogy. While
not dealing specifically with Composition, this text utilizes many of the current theories of
academic honesty and puts them into a larger institutional context, beginning with a history of
academic integrity in the academy and moving towards a “robust explanation” of the facets
involved with academic integrity and how those ideas might play out in the classroom and on the
campus. This text proposes a pedagogical approach to plagiarism that could be followed by the
institution as a whole, recontextualizing and expanding on much of the current research.
Howard, Rebecca Moore. “Plagiarisms, Authorships and the Academic Death Penalty” College
English. 57:7 (1995): 788-806 JSTOR. Web. 3 Oct. 2009.
This article seeks to complicate the notion of plagiarism by suggesting “an enlarged range of
definitions and motivations for plagiarism”, which would “enable pedagogy that is responsive to
contemporary theory” (789). Howard historicises the concept of authorship and it’s current
relationship to technology, before turning to notions of student authorship and the faulty
assumptions of autonomous authorship. Howard points to the flaws in institutional language and
conception of plagiarism that relies on notions of singular authorship that deny and hide the
dialectic nature of learning. Howard calls for a redefinition of plagiarism policies that take into
account student intent and contextual notions of plagiarism. This oft-cited text acts as a
foundation for much of the current scholarship in the field regarding plagiarism.
---. “Sexuality, Textuality: The Cultural Work of Plagiarism”. College English. 62:4 (2000): 473491. JSTOR. Web. 3 Oct. 2009.
Howard here reflects on the “inherently indefinable” nature of plagiarism, and what that means
for teachers and students who must negotiate the scholarly ramifications of this term. Howard
calls for an abandonment of the term altogether, based on both her previous work and her current
understandings of the ways plagiarism as a metaphor genders the author and the text. She points
to the differences between intentional cheating and the other, unintentional textual practices that
are named plagiarism as part of her call to determine new terminology, metaphors and
institutional response. She proposes “fraud, citation and repetition” (italics in original, 488) as
new terms that can replace plagiarism, separating and fragmenting the heterogeneous concept of
plagiarism.
Kibler, William et al. Academic Integrity and Student Development. Asheville: College
Administration Publications 1988.
I am including this older text to indicate the types of discourse institutions have used and
continue to use when discussing plagiarism in the academy. This text places the onus on the
instructor and institution for avoiding and preventing plagiarism, where the bulk of the text is
given over to prevention strategies and classroom techniques for ensuring students “stay honest”.
This text presents an adversarial relationship between instructor and student, and implies that
students will cheat if the opportunity presents itself, and instructors are responsible for providing
an environment conducive to honesty.
Lathrop, Ann and Kathleen Foss. Guiding Students from Cheating and Plagiarism to Honesty
and Integrity. Westport: Libraries Unlimited. 2005.
---. Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.
2000.
These texts focus on plagiarism in K-12, and provides a look at the kinds of attitudes students
encounter before they enter the collegiate level. Both use discourse involving “honesty” and
“cheating”, viewing plagiarism as an exclusively moral issue that can be addressed and “solved”
by teachers. Their 2005 text provides spaces for students voices to share their interpretations of
and motivations for academic dishonesty, although these voices are contextualized within
institutional standards and ethics. These texts provide examples of worksheets and articles to be
used in the classroom to help students think through citation and ethics that focus on rote
memorization of rules and standards, and have less involvement with understanding citations and
sources as contextual, relational or involved in the process of meaning making.
Pennycook, Alastair. “Borrowing Others’ Words: Text, Ownership, Memory and Plagiarism”.
Negotiating Academic Literacies. Vivian Zamel and Ruth Spack eds. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1998.
Pennycook begins by looking at instances of “plagiarism” in non-American students, who
replicated texts written by others from memory. He uses this outsider perspective to reflect on
traditional Western notions of ownership and authorship, complicating the idea of “borrowing”
and authority and the role of memory in writing. He calls for a renegotiation of the term
plagiarism that allows for flexibility in determining unacceptable borrowing practices and
reminds readers that notions of textual ownership are culturally constructed and situated.
Plagiarism.org. iParadigms, 2009. Web. Oct 3 2009.
This website is the first Google source and represents current institutional viewpoints and
language towards plagiarism in academics. The website addresses students specifically, with
definitions of and facts about plagiarism with a focus on avoiding accidental plagiarism. The site
sponsors “prevention tools” Turnitin, iThenticate and WriteCheck, which it touts as tools for
students and teachers alike as “solutions” to plagiarism. Teaching students about citation is an
afterthought, and the website primarily focuses on precieved ethical missteps and prevention
strategies.
Price, Margaret. “Beyond ‘Gotcha!’: Situating Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy”. College
Composition and Communication. 54:1 (2002): 88-115. Print.
Price emphasises the contextual nature of plagiarism here, and promotes a pedagogy that invites
student voices to join the conversation exploring and understanding the nature of plagiarism.
Price points to the complex ideas of “common knowledge”, “your own work” and “giving
credit”, “authorship” and “intent”: the inherently contextual nature of these concepts fails to
figure into most institutional plagiarism policies. Price situates plagiarism and citation policies
firmly within discourse communities, and advocates for institutional policies that do the same.
She ends the paper with practical pedagogical suggestions and implications, including ways that
the language and discourse surrounding plagiarism could be changed to suit the flexible nature of
the concept. This text takes many of the theoretical implications in Howards “Plagiarism” and
grounds them in pedagogical practice.
Ritter, Kelly. “The Economics of Authorship: Online Paper Mills, Student Writers and First Year
Composition” CCC 56:4 (2005) 601-631. Print.
Ritter explores the specifics of online plagiarism and what might entice students to participate in
the purchase of a paper from one of the “online paper mills”. Ritter privileges student voices in
her text in order to emphasize “the important role that students themselves might play” in
scholarship regarding plagiarism. Ritter points to the way students construct their own identities
as authors and their understanding of writing in the academy as part of their justification for
purchasing papers. This paper moves away from the honest/dishonest binary implied by
plagiarism and works to embrace a more holistic understanding of the underlying structures that
motivate students to “cheat”, and how those structures might be shifted or reconfigured for
students.
Robillard, Amy E. “We Won’t Get Fooled Again: On the Absence of Angry Responses to
Plagiarism in Composition Studies”. College English 70:1 (2007): 10-31. Print.
Robillard here shifts the focus from the author to the reader of plagiarized texts (the instructor,
typically) and presents plagiarism as a threat to the identity of the instructor. This leads to
emotional responses, which are at in conflict with the expectations of the academy, which leads
to anxiety on behalf of the instructor. Robillard cites this anxiety as the reason for the prevalence
of prevention strategies like Turnitin. Robillard promotes anger as a reasonable and justifiable
response to student plagiarism and points to several blogs as examples of this anger, and ends
with a call to rethink the role of the reader as we attempt to redefine the roles of the author in
plagiarism.
Scanlon, Patrick M. “Student Online Plagiarism: How do we Respond?” College Teaching. 51:4
(2003): 161-165. JSTOR. Web. 3 Oct 2009.
This article deals with the growing concern and anxiety brought about by the rise of the internet.
Scanlon points out the ways in which growing technologies can excacerbate or promote
plagiarism, but draws the conclusion that far more students and educators assume high levels of
rampant internet plagiarism are occurring than actually are. Scanlon advocates teachers
approaching plagiarism as “educators first”, exploring with students the nature of authorship and
authority in the new technological age (165). Scanlon succinctly addresses much of the
scholarship current to online anxiety and technology.
Valentine, Kathryn. “Plagiarism as Literacy Practice: Recognizing and Rethinking Ethical
Binaries”. College Composition and Communication. 58:1 (2006): 89-109. Print.
Valentine explores the identities constructed for students through plagiarism policies that operate
under an ethical binary (honest v. dishonest) and advocates for a more fluid understanding of
when and why students fail to cite according to disciplinary standards. This article addresses
cases of unintentional plagiarism, where students are unaware of discourse conventions or
cultural expectations. Valentine cites a case of a non-American student who was used to a
different cultural practice regarding plagiarism and was seen as “dishonest” and not “an
authentic beginner engaged in the work of acquiring a new discourse” (97). Valentine advocates
teaching students citation practices as ways of making meaning, going beyond rules and textual
practices.
Whitaker, Elaine. “Peers and Plagiarism: The Role of Student Judicial Boards”. CCC 59:1
(2007) 125-127. Print.
Responding to the tale of Lin, an international student accused of plagiarism in Valentine’s
“Plagiarism as Literacy Practice”, this short Interchanges marries theory with a specific practice
at GCSU, where students form a judicial board to enforce a student-driven honour system
regarding plagiarism. This text, though short, points to the practical ways different institutions
are responding pedagogically to current theories of flexibility and context regarding plagiarism.
Zwagerman, Sean. “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism and the Rhetoric of Academic
Integrity” CCC 59:4 (2008): 676-710. Print.
Zwagerman begins by critically examining the institutional rhetoric surrounding plagiarism,
anecdotally relating his own encounters with plagiarism and his responses. Zwagerman explores
the intensity and emotionality of instructor response to plagiarism and the negative impact that
has on the student, the class and the institution. Zwagerman explores student motivation behind
plagiarism, and points to the changing purpose of the University as the “cultivation of
professional skill” as a factor in how students view grades as a means to a professional end.
Zwagerman calls for educators to “engage the system”, moving away from external alarm
systems like turnitin and towards an engagement with critical pedagogy that sees the classroom
as a place of inquiry and exploration.