The main concept presented in Teaching Intellectual Honesty in a Parodied World is that younger generations might have a warped understanding of what signifies plagiarism because of what they are exposed to. Anderson and Cvetkovic point out that popular culture is constantly being parodied or remade, and cite specific examples of parody ranging from political addresses to Simpsons episodes. They also point to the rise of technology use in teenagers, and describe the “free” culture that accompanies it. Downloadable music files and streaming videos have vastly altered those markets. If children grow up having instant access to free movies and music, it’s possible they might treat research material the same way. One particular passage stuck with me, in which the authors describe the typical method a present-day student would use when constructing an essay:
“Undergraduate
students will usually begin a research project by browsing the Internet for
source material on a topic, often searching Google or Wikipedia. They will next cut and paste the material
they need for their paper into the document on which they are working. It is in the subsequent steps, reworking the
material into their own words, using quotations for exact quotes, and citing
the material that is not their intellectual property, where students typically
run into problems.”
That
Anderson and Cvetkovic are aware of students’ writing strategies only adds
credence to their argument. I personally
use that method for all my research papers, and it’s interesting to draw comparisons
between how I treat source material and how I treat an mp3 file. After downloading, I consider it to be in my
possession, free to do with as I please.
Free to quote or paraphrase or play on repeat. But what students need to remember is that
academia is a different world with different rules. The authors are right on with their argument
that what qualifies as plagiarism in writing is particularly hazy compared to
other media.
For easy
comment prompts, look here:
Do you use the writing technique mentioned above?
Has it led to any confusion or difficult identifying what
may or may not be plagiarism?
Do you feel an obvious parody of another work needs a
citation?
I do not use this writing technique, but can see how it would make it very difficult to determine what is plagiarism and what is not. As you went through and changed what you previously just copied and pasted, it becomes more difficult for you to determine what work is your own and what is not. It would be very easy to forget to cite something, and very easy for a plagiarism program to identify it as plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that a parody always needs the traditional form of citation. If it is obvious what you are parody, or stated or alluded to somewhere in the parody, I think that is enough. I don't believe a separate works cited page would be necessary in these situations
In response to the third prompts, I believe it simply depends on the audience. Obviously, if an uninformed audience is witnessing the parody, if they learn that it is from a source without citation or reference, they will pass it off as plagiarism. However, an audience ready to enjoy a bit of humor with full knowledge of the context of the parody will see no problem without citation. Whether or not this is actually plagiarism in the english literature world however would probably be true: if an english professor or professional were to see/read the parody minus citations, most definitely would it be plagiarism in their eyes. But again, it depends on the reader.
ReplyDelete