4/5/08
Professional Patchwriting Pays
Like annaluna, I too am a patchwriter. In fact, I am a professional patchwriter. As a grant writer, I am expected to patchwrite using the language provided by the very funders who read my proposals. In my field, it is imperative that proposals reflect the language used in funders' Request for Proposals (RFPs). In fact, it is standard practice to lift the funders' language out of the RFP (without citation) in order to demonstrate that a project is meeting the funders' purpose and goals. Grant evaluators look for that language as a sign of understanding and common mission. Furthermore, the ability and willingness to patchwrite is a signal of a grant writer's experience and expertise--a badge of the elite (or Howard's "liberal culture ideology"), if you will. In effect, I get paid to patchwrite and my employer benefits through awarded grant funds. I know this is institutional authorship rather than individual authorship, but I'm curious if any of the comp instructors in our class are willing to tell your students they can do this for a living?
Reading Response - Howard
Standing in the Shadow of Giants begins with Rebecca More Howard’s crusade against plagiarism in the ‘80s. The specific form of plagiarism she has focused on is patchwriting which she defines as “copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one synonym for another” (xvii). To her surprise, however, she found that most students she discussed this form of plagiarism with did not know that what they were doing was plagiarism. Howard ultimately questioned the transgression herself until she came to the conclusion that patchwriting is “the heart of writing” (7). Building on Quintilian’s theory and the work of Roland Barthes, Howard says that all writing is to some extent collaborative and built on the works of earlier writers. There is no individual author in the sense that patchwriting is a "writer-text collaboration based on mimesis" (34). Here she also looks at the works of Foucault and Woodmansee to examine our modern conception of the author.
One of the key quotes from the second part of Standing in the Shadow of Giants is "the autonomous, originary author derives from economic and technological change and participates in maintaining hierarchical social relations that are potentially threatened by those changes” (57). It is this idea of authorship that makes patchwriting seem negative or criminal and prohibits "a positive pedagogy for patchwriting." She goes on to describe how this idea of authorship is, in fact, new and cites some of the reading we did earlier in the semester on authorship. Howard also gives us "four properties" of authorship: "autonomy, originality, proprietorship, and morality" (58).
Morality, of course, refers to our need to trust the author has created his own text and not stolen anyone else's work. Proprietorship is the heart of copyright law--it is the basis for intellectual property: that the author owns that idea or work as much as she might own a plot of land. To own that work, however, it must be original. Originality is probably the most debatable among the four properties Howard gives us. The definition or intent is obvious, but determining to what level a work must be original is difficult to do. Howard summarizes autonomy as the idea that "the writer, from the Cartesian point of view, can act autonomously to apprehend and express ideas that are unmediated by social discourse" (80). We've seen the implications of these properties of modern authorship throughout the course in the rhetoric of copyright infringement cases and the arguments by the RIAA and the MPAA, the chief proprietors.
There are problems with plagiarism and how it is regulated and defined in the classroom. Howard talks about how on exams students are expected to (and rewarded for) answer questions based on ideas taught in class that, in terms of proprietorship belong to a different authors, without actually citing them. Even the guidelines used to define plagiarism vary from institution to institution and are considered "a local affair" (21). In many cases, plagiarism is unintentional. In these cases, Howard advocates "[teaching] citation conventions" (110). Intentional plagiarism should be punished. But, as Howard says, in patchwriting, intentional plagiarism is not always the case. Sometimes it is used by writers to help them better "understand what they are reading" and in this case can be used as "a positive learning strategy" (110, 111).
One of the key quotes from the second part of Standing in the Shadow of Giants is "the autonomous, originary author derives from economic and technological change and participates in maintaining hierarchical social relations that are potentially threatened by those changes” (57). It is this idea of authorship that makes patchwriting seem negative or criminal and prohibits "a positive pedagogy for patchwriting." She goes on to describe how this idea of authorship is, in fact, new and cites some of the reading we did earlier in the semester on authorship. Howard also gives us "four properties" of authorship: "autonomy, originality, proprietorship, and morality" (58).
Morality, of course, refers to our need to trust the author has created his own text and not stolen anyone else's work. Proprietorship is the heart of copyright law--it is the basis for intellectual property: that the author owns that idea or work as much as she might own a plot of land. To own that work, however, it must be original. Originality is probably the most debatable among the four properties Howard gives us. The definition or intent is obvious, but determining to what level a work must be original is difficult to do. Howard summarizes autonomy as the idea that "the writer, from the Cartesian point of view, can act autonomously to apprehend and express ideas that are unmediated by social discourse" (80). We've seen the implications of these properties of modern authorship throughout the course in the rhetoric of copyright infringement cases and the arguments by the RIAA and the MPAA, the chief proprietors.
There are problems with plagiarism and how it is regulated and defined in the classroom. Howard talks about how on exams students are expected to (and rewarded for) answer questions based on ideas taught in class that, in terms of proprietorship belong to a different authors, without actually citing them. Even the guidelines used to define plagiarism vary from institution to institution and are considered "a local affair" (21). In many cases, plagiarism is unintentional. In these cases, Howard advocates "[teaching] citation conventions" (110). Intentional plagiarism should be punished. But, as Howard says, in patchwriting, intentional plagiarism is not always the case. Sometimes it is used by writers to help them better "understand what they are reading" and in this case can be used as "a positive learning strategy" (110, 111).
4/4/08
The McLean Suit
I took a look at Rebecca Moore Howard's blog. She was an expert witness in the McLean suit brought by two students against Turnitin. I agree with lynn168's post and also wonder how anyone can ethically and effectively use SafeAssign or Turnitin? Teachers would be casting students as would-be criminals rather than inexperienced writers. It seems these programs police plagiarism, but are also hobbling the learning process, the "writer-text collaborative experience" as Howard describes.
How can these programs effectively catch a student cheating by using percentages? Using a virtual vault to house thousands of student papers and anteing up rhetorical coincidences through percentages to establish guilt seems ominous. Here's another blog I checked out in reference to the McLean suit. It is a virtual community of responses to the case.
Also, in affirmative response to erenghard's post, I don't get page 11 of Howard's book. I don't understand how the plagiarized paragraph is plagiarism. I showed the page in question to my professor that I G.A. for and she couldn't see it either. Anyone have a clue?
How can these programs effectively catch a student cheating by using percentages? Using a virtual vault to house thousands of student papers and anteing up rhetorical coincidences through percentages to establish guilt seems ominous. Here's another blog I checked out in reference to the McLean suit. It is a virtual community of responses to the case.
Also, in affirmative response to erenghard's post, I don't get page 11 of Howard's book. I don't understand how the plagiarized paragraph is plagiarism. I showed the page in question to my professor that I G.A. for and she couldn't see it either. Anyone have a clue?
4/3/08
NIU Teaches Us about Academic Integrity
Here is a link to teach students and faculty about academic integrity. http://www.niu.edu/ai/students/
4/2/08
Confession
Hi. My name is Annaluna2369 and I am a “patchwriter.” (cue the laugh track)
So, reading the first bit of Howard’s book, I was surprised that I, Ms. Integrity, would be branded a cheater, a criminal, a…plagiarist! While reading, I frantically tried to recall every piece of writing I have ever done – did I unknowingly do the unspeakable?
I was particularly interested in the passage on page 7 of Howard’s book in the section on patchwriting as learning,
“…students’ patchwriting is often a move toward membership in a discourse community, a means of learning unfamiliar language and ideas. Far from indicating a lack of respect for a source text, their patchwriting is a gesture of reverence.”
And
“…To join this conversation, the patchwriter employs the language of the target community.”
For someone like me, who is struggling to assimilate into grad school, first year, I have this anxiety about contributing original work to the collective pool, when I’m still trying to learn how to swim. I don't mean copying and pasting Foucault into a paper, but how do I write something new? How do I join the conversation?
Now, I wonder (I’m changing topics). Can someone expand a little on “liberal culture ideology” and “social-democratic rhetoric”? I could Google it, but it would be great to hear from others what they know about it and, especially for those who are teaching right now, how it applies in your classroom.
So, reading the first bit of Howard’s book, I was surprised that I, Ms. Integrity, would be branded a cheater, a criminal, a…plagiarist! While reading, I frantically tried to recall every piece of writing I have ever done – did I unknowingly do the unspeakable?
I was particularly interested in the passage on page 7 of Howard’s book in the section on patchwriting as learning,
“…students’ patchwriting is often a move toward membership in a discourse community, a means of learning unfamiliar language and ideas. Far from indicating a lack of respect for a source text, their patchwriting is a gesture of reverence.”
And
“…To join this conversation, the patchwriter employs the language of the target community.”
For someone like me, who is struggling to assimilate into grad school, first year, I have this anxiety about contributing original work to the collective pool, when I’m still trying to learn how to swim. I don't mean copying and pasting Foucault into a paper, but how do I write something new? How do I join the conversation?
Now, I wonder (I’m changing topics). Can someone expand a little on “liberal culture ideology” and “social-democratic rhetoric”? I could Google it, but it would be great to hear from others what they know about it and, especially for those who are teaching right now, how it applies in your classroom.
4/1/08
NIU Copyright Climate
As we were talking last night about universities being likely sites for change in the copyright debate, I decided to look further into the "climate" on our campus regarding copyright issues. Here are a couple of recent events that might be of interest:
NIU compliance with the RIAA. In 2007, the RIAA sent pre-litigation letters to more than 25 students who were sharing (not just downloading, but also uploading) copyrighted music files. Here is the standard procedure if a student is caught violating copyright laws (taken from the Copyright and File Sharing Facts page on the ITS website:
NIU adoption of SafeAssign as a plagiarism detection tool. It is a searchable database, much like Turnitin.com, that is built into the Blackboard system. Of note is the "Originality Report" produced for instructors, offering an analysis of a student's paper: see Sample Originality Report. Do you use this tool in your classes? I'm wondering how this tool has been presented to instructors, especially to those teaching first-year composition.
NIU compliance with the RIAA. In 2007, the RIAA sent pre-litigation letters to more than 25 students who were sharing (not just downloading, but also uploading) copyrighted music files. Here is the standard procedure if a student is caught violating copyright laws (taken from the Copyright and File Sharing Facts page on the ITS website:
- "Per the DMCA requirements, the network connection for the device identified is disabled immediately.
- An e-mail notifies you of the alleged violation or notice.
- You must visit the Restech Helpdesk to disable the alleged violating software.
- You must meet with the NIU Abuse Investigator and sign documentation acknowledging your understanding of NIU's Acceptable Use Policy and the Student Code of Conduct."
NIU adoption of SafeAssign as a plagiarism detection tool. It is a searchable database, much like Turnitin.com, that is built into the Blackboard system. Of note is the "Originality Report" produced for instructors, offering an analysis of a student's paper: see Sample Originality Report. Do you use this tool in your classes? I'm wondering how this tool has been presented to instructors, especially to those teaching first-year composition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)