Home

Original Reproductions:

Diane Pecorari

Numerous anecdotal accounts exist of apparently plagiarized texts produced under circumstances which defy the label plagiarism in the common sense: i.e., an intentional violation of academic standards through deliberate deception about the origins of a text. In the second-language writing literature, explanations for this phenomenon have centered around cultural differences. Students from cultures which value collective effort, it has been suggested, may not grasp the concept of intellectual property; others may have such respect for the printed word that paraphrasing seems to be an unwarranted liberty. However, observations of cultural differences do not explain why students who are aware of the issues of plagiarism continue to use sources inappropriately, nor the fact that the same sort of source misuse has been documented in the writing of English L1 speakers.

A more powerful explanation has been offered by Rebecca Howard (1995;1999), who has theorized that source-dependent writing may be an inevitable phase in a writer's development. Much as an inexperienced ice skater clings to the wall of the rink, a novice writer tends closely to follow the language of sources before learning to compose autonomously. Howard has coined the term patchwriting to describe this pre-autonomous writing strategy, to distinguish it from (intentionally deceptive) plagiarism. Patchwriting and plagiarism produce similar texts in different ways; however, universities formally recognize only the latter, and address it punitively, not pedagogically.

Although Howard's formulation of patchwriting has resonated with many writing teachers, until now no empirical validation of it has been available. The many accounts of a similar act are anecdotal (e.g., Matalene, 1985; Pennycook, 1996), with two exceptions. Campbell's (1990) study was conducted under experimental circumstances and thus does not address the questions of development which are prominent in Howard's hypothesis, and Angélil-Carter's (2000) work addresses the perceptions and experiences of members of the academic community, but says little about the texts themselves, and their sources.

Thus too little has been known so far about the question of inadvertent plagiarism in general, and, in particular, patchwriting. These are, however, crucial issues for university teachers and administrators. If, as appears to be the case, novice academic writers routinely produce work which can be called plagiaristic, then the many serious implications include the prospect that some students who are accused of, and punished for, plagiarism may be innocent of the act in its intentional and deceptive sense.

This was the background to a research project with the aims of investigating the following questions:

• How widespread is inappropriate source use? Is it a marginal phenomenon or the common occurrence which Howard's analysis would suggest?
• What causes inappropriate source use? The research was designed as a naturalistic inquiry in order to investigate not only the explanations suggested in the literature but to allow evidence from the writers' and their texts to emerge.
• Can support be found for a form of plagiarism which lacks the intention to deceive? Although the most speculative area to address, this is also in many ways the most important from a practical perspective.

To answer those questions, samples were collected from 17 master's dissertations and PhD theses. (All of the writers were non-native speakers of English, not because they are particularly inclined to misuse sources, but because in any language-sensitive question, substantial differences necessarily exist between native and non-native speakers). These texts were compared to their sources to arrive at a description of the relationship between them. Finally, interviews were conducted with nine of the writers and their supervisors.

The textual comparison revealed that all seventeen writing samples contained some features which could be described as plagiarism, although their nature and extent varied greatly. In the case of the most source-dependent text, 95% of the writing sample was found to have come from published sources. Across all the samples, the proportion of language repeated from sources ranged from 30-45%, depending on the measure used. Significantly, though, the inappropriate source use was not detected by the students' advisors. Textual and contextual data indicate that intentional plagiarism is a weak explanation for these source use strategies.

Additional analysis of the data shows that modes of source use, including unattributed repetition from sources, vary across academic disciplines (four areas were included in the study: biology, civil engineering, linguistics and education); and that expertise as a writer appears to exert a great influence upon the tendency to repeat language from sources, thus supporting the patchwriting hypothesis.

Diane.Pecorari@English.su.se

Department of English

University of Stockholm

Department web site http://www.english.su.se/

References

Angélil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen Language? Plagiarism in Writing. London: Longman.

Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others' words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 211-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Howard, R. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English,57: 788-805.

Howard, R.M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Stamford, CT: Ablex

Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English,47, 789-807.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201-230.