Ownership and Authorship

Adler-Kassner, Linda.  “Ownership Revisited: An Exploration in Progressive Era and Expressivist Composition”.  College Composition and Communication.  49.2 (May 1998), pp. 208-233.

This week I read “Ownership Revisited: An Exploration in Progressive Era and Expressivist Composition” by Linda Adler-Kassner.  When I began reading this article, I incorrectly believed that ownership referred to intellectual property, and thus plagiarism. I found out that ownership in this sense refers to students perceiving their writing as belonging to them because they created it, as opposed to students perceiving their writing as being dictated by the teacher.  Although the concept of ownership may not be related to the concept of intellectual property, it is related to the concept of authorship discussed by Ritter and Valentine in the other articles I have reviewed.  I believe it is important to foster the concept of ownership in the classroom to help students understand why plagiarism is frowned upon in academia. 

Alder-Kassner discusses three different conceptualizations of ownership.  Those who advanced the idea of ownership in the progressive era at the turn of the 19^th and 20^th century, believed that students should write for the democracy in order to foster a sense of community, or a group of people who shared the same values (210).  In the mid-20^th century, Expressivist scholarship was a more important concept.  Though it was informed by the Progressive Era, advocates of Expressivist scholarship believed that composition ownership was an insular experience fostered within the individual (221).  Alder-Kassner claims that scholarship is currently moving beyond these two concepts of ownership, especially in the realms of “portfolio assessment” and “service learning based composition courses”.  Portfolio assessment courses foster a sense of ownership by encouraging students to master a variety of “literacies”, ensuring many opportunities for relating to the compositions they write (225).  As long as the Service learning based courses reflect the student’s values, they are also a good way of fostering a sense of ownership.  If the student believes in the cause they are working for, they may eventually begin to work for the cause of the sake of the cause instead of to fulfill course goals (228).  Both of these classroom concepts incorporate “student identity and multiple discourses” in order to foster a sense of ownership (230).  

As I stated earlier, I believe that a feeling of ownership is similar to a sense of authorship.  If a teacher encourages a sense of ownership in the classroom, it may become easier for students to understand authorship in terms of something that is created as opposed to something that is purchased.  However, it might be good to explicitly teach the concept of ownership in the classroom because I do not think that the concept of ownership is developing, rather I think there are many different ways for students to feel ownership for their work.  Perhaps having them write a personal essay describing their personal concept of ownership would be a good way of introducing this idea, and thus the idea of authorship and plagiarism to the class.

Educating Students about University Plagairism Policies

Price, Margaret.  “Beyond “Gotcha!”: Situating Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy.”  College Composition and Communication.  54.1. (Sept. 2002) pp. 88-115.

While Ritter and Valentine address more theoretical notions of student authorship and identity in the context of plagiarism, Price in her “Beyond “Gotcha!”: Situating Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy” dissects the plagiarism policies of several universities and discusses ways the policy can be changed and pedagogical practices can be improved in plagiarism and citation education.

Price begins the article by discussing ambiguous and uncertain meanings within the language of plagiarism policies.   She explains that the term “common knowledge” in reference to information that doesn’t need to be cited is undefined and often changes over time (92).  The phrase “your own work”, usually used to stress the importance of originality in student’s texts, is equally ambiguous across cultural and contexts (94). Like Ritter and Valentine, Price also discusses the student’s uncertain identity as an author (93-93), and finally points out the ridiculousness of policies which claim that once students are aware of the policy they cannot claim ignorance of it, even if they are not fully educated in forms of citation relevant to their discipline (102-103).  Price claims that the solution to the problem of the citation policy is to explain both in the University policy, and through the teacher, that citation rules are actually ambiguous and constantly changing (106); and to make sure students in composition classes have extensive practice with citation (107). 

While I understand where Price is coming from in this sense, I also think that it is necessary for schools’ official plagiarism policy to retain the form of a strict, absolute contract. We discussed in class how some students and their parents view the university as a business, and including loopholes in formal university policy that claim that plagiarism isn’t absolute may give truly dishonest students a tool for combating legitimate plagiarism charges.   What is most important, as Price claims in her article, is to have students practice citation methods, not just during one or two class periods, but throughout the semester.  Price describes using worksheets and exercises to help students understand citation methods better, and I think that in my class, in addition to doing worksheets like those described, I might give my students the option of turning in the rough draft of their paper a week before it’s due with examples of their method of citation highlighted (similar to the example Price attributes to Mike Mattison on page 109) to double check their ability to do so.  While College Composition should not necessarily serve other departments, I think that it is important to make sure students do not fail any of their classes, due to lack of information about citations and plagiarism.

Using the Rhetoric of Plagairism and Forgery to Help Students find Value in their own Writing

Robillard, Amy and Ron Fortune.  “Toward a New Content for Writing Courses: Literary Forgery, Plagiarism, and the Production of Belief.”  Journal of Composition Theory.  27.1/2 (2007) pp. 185-210.

In their article “Toward a New Content for Writing Courses: Literary Forgery, Plagiarism, and the Production of Belief”, Amy Robillard and Ron Fortune discuss plagiarism and forgery as a legitimate form of writing in order to raise awareness of the motives a student may have to plagiarize, and even (to an extent) how the student may benefit from plagiarizing.  Robillard’s article culminates in discussions of  different types of cultural theory which she hopes may help students recognize the worth of their own work.

In their article Robillard and Fortune discusses Ritter’s article “The Economics of Authorship”, describing how students may place so little value on authorship that they may feel that purchasing a paper from a paper mill is an acceptable way to succeed in a writing class (203).  Despite dishonest motives, Robillard and Fortune see plagiarism in this case as still being beneficial to the student in a writing process classroom; such a student would still be learning something as they work backward through the writing process to process to recreate other aspects, such as notes, a rough draft, and so on (205).  To them this is comparable to forgery, specifically that by Ireland who, a man who produced works and correspondence by ‘Shakespeare’, as well as a paper trail legitimizing his works in the 18^th century (198).  Ultimately, Robillard and Fortune claim that the best way to help students understand the worth of their writing is by encouraging them to think of their paper’s worth in terms of cultural capital (188), and by contrasting “labor theory of value” (a product has value in relation to how much effort is put into it) vs “exchange theory of value” (a product has as much value as others choose to give it) (206).

While Robillard and Fortune’s article doesn’t give any concrete pedagogical ideas in terms of teaching these concepts to students, I can imagine an exercise which might illustrate these concepts.  I could draw a picture on the board, and then hand out a picture I have photocopied of, say, the Mona Lisa.  Then, I could have the students brainstorm what sort of values each picture gives to me, the creator.  After thinking about this for a while, I can explain to them that the picture I drew gives me more cultural power; producing something mediocre and original (such as their own papers) gives them more cultural power than copying something exceptional because in this way they are creating academic power for themselves by learning how to write well enough to be recognized as a member of their discipline’s community.

Considering the Implications of Plagairism on Student Identity

Valentine, Kathryn.  “Plagiarism as Literacy Practice: Recognizing and Rethinking Ethical Binaries”.  College Composition and Communication.  58.1 (Sept. 2006), pg. 89-109.  

“Plagiarism as Literacy Practice” by Kathryn Valentine emphasizes the point made in Ritter’s “The Economics of Authorship”, that students may not be fully informed about what constitutes plagiarism, and professors should take this under advisement both when instructing students and when whistle blowing.  This article implies that plagiarizing in the American academic community is akin to committing academic suicide; being labeled as a plagiarizer can result in the student being ostracized by academic institutions, publishers, and members of the community (90-91).  It is important that students know the implications plagiarizing has on their identity as well as the mechanics for citations so that they understand why it is important for them not to make mistakes when citing sources.

According to Valentine, students with extensive practice in citing sources may realistically be expected to cite sources automatically, but to students without such a background, it is unfair to rest their academic identity on methodology they have little experience with without explaining the implication not citing has on their reputation (93). The example Valentine gives in her article is of Lin, an international student from China who was given an academic hearing for improperly citing sources in his paper and including little of his own words or opinions.  While this practice was unacceptable by American standards, it was acceptable by Chinese standards. Despite the cultural divide, however, Lin got a permanent warning on his academic record. (99-100) Professors and Instructors need to be aware the plagiarism, especially among international students, or students with a untraditional or educationally underprivileged background, doesn’t necessarily connote a dishonest or deceptive personality (101). Valentine also calls for professors to not only teach the mechanics but also to explicitly describe citations and plagiarism as literacy practices, that is, make sure that students recognize the fact that citations are one part of the academic world that they cannot make mistakes in, and must always be aware of in the context of the field they are writing for (105). 

Both Valentine’s article and Ritter’s article made me more aware of the fact that plagiarism isn’t necessarily general knowledge to all students by the time they start attending their College Composition class. I now realize that I must make sure to make time during the semester to fully explain the methodology of a citation and the affect that failing to cite might have on the student’s academic identity.

The Lure of Paper-Mills to Composition Students

Ritter, Kelly.  “The Economics of Authorship: Online Paper Mills, Student Writers, and First-Year Composition.”  College Composition and Communication. 56.4 ( June 2005), pg. 601-631

A couple of years after finishing my undergraduate degree, I was browsing online for some way to utilize my ability to read and write in a profitable manner, when I stumbled across a paper-mill website. As discussed in “The Economics of Authorship” by Kelly Ritter, these websites sell term papers to students using rhetoric that makes authorship comparable with ownership (615-616).  In our consumer driven society, a student who does not have a firm grasp on what is or is not academically appropriate may believe that by buying a paper they own authorship of the paper.  (617) In my personal experience, the website initially seemed legitimate; on the surface they made a strong enough case for their products, and it was a novel enough idea to me that I was on the fence as to whether or not writing for them would be enabling plagiarism for an hour or two, until I considered the ethical implications of behind grading such a paper.

In her article, Ritter emphasizes the importance of clarifying the meaning of “academic dishonesty” to students.  Academic dishonesty is not a matter of disputed ownership; that is, the monetarily transferable “rights” to use a work, but a matter of authorship, that is, the student’s personal demonstration of the ability, creativity, and originality to write the paper (Ritter 615-616).  Ritter also discusses the value students place on their own work, claiming that assignments that limit student’s originality and creativity may make them question the worth of the works they author (613).  Finally, she addresses the fact that students may privilege “paper mill” papers over their own work because they connect the idea of authorship with the idea of fame, greatness, (613) and “quality”, the latter which is promised by paper mills, for a price (622).   

This article did an excellent job of dissecting possible student perspectives and justifications for using a relatively novel form of plagiarizing, the paper mill. By being aware of the student mindset, teachers of composition can better teach and inform their students about what constitutes plagiarism in an academic community.