- Diferențe
culturale în prezent ale fenomenului plagiatului (compilare din articole)
- Istoria
culturală a fenomenului (compilare din articole)
- Aspecte instituționale ale fenomenului în contextual civilizației europene - nord-atlantice
Diferențe culturale în prezent ale
fenomenului plagiatului
- compilație
Akbar and Picard
(2020):
·
Because of their own breaches and lack of
understanding of academic integrity, academics are unable to communicate
institutional expectations or contribute to building an institutional culture
of academic integrity
·
Visible and enacted policy is particularly important
to empower and protect subordinates to act when their seniors behave in ways
that lack academic integrity
·
consistency in detection and punishment for staff and
student academic integrity breaches has become challenging in many universities
in the Muslim world due to a culture of nepotism and cronyism
·
The vicious cycle of nepotism (called Wasta culture in
Saudi Arabia), cronyism and corruption are observable across institutional
practices from admission processes, final assessment of student learning, to
trading of degrees and certificates
·
Some of these faculty were labeled strict and
killer-lecturer as they tried to transfer the principles and practices related
to academic integrity over from the International universities they graduated
from to the local context.
·
Equating academic integrity culture with western
ideologies can result in a reaction against associated expectations
·
it is the methods of religious and traditional
learning that are heavily reliant on memorization, repetition and exam-oriented
assessment themselves that undermine critical thinking, creativity and
originality and lead to breaches of academic integrity
·
It is not culturally accepted to change sacred texts
and the statements of Islamic scholars. This practice poses challenges for
students to adapt the concept of paraphrasing, synthesising and conventions of
academic writing promoted by Western concepts
·
traditional teacher-centred classrooms encourage
copying and imitating teachers as the centre of knowledge, leading to a lack of
critical thinking
·
This prevalence of plagiarism materials in culturally
valued sources can promote the misconception that plagiarism is acceptable
among students
·
Collectivism found in some Muslim countries, for
instance, obscures the concept of intellectual property. Some Muslim scholars tend
not to object if they are not accredited through citation because of their
perception that their academic works belongs to society in general, because
knowledge is God-given and therefore belongs to the public not individuals
·
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier a culture of power
misuse dubbed wasta in Arabic can lead to nepotism. This practice can widen
opportunities for rule infringement throughout the institutional levels if this
culture is practiced in the entire management of tertiary education. Although
goal-oriented education resulting in a degree and certificate is rewarded, this
is not the case with process-oriented education focussing on skills and
knowledge development
·
nanny culture, which refers to house servants doing
homework for the children of their employers, regularly occurs in middle to
high class society and parental pressures among middle-low economic background
parents who have not had the experience of university or higher level study themselves,
undermine student ability for independent learning and tempt them to cheat, and
become involved in contract cheating in their higher studies
England 2008:
· Common knowledge –
dynamic (link in references)
Bloch 2007:
·
Many Western educators believe that Chinese students
neither understand Western concepts nor feel that such plagiarism is an
unacceptable practice. And sometimes this view is true, especially when we define
plagiarism in absolute terms.
·
While China has a long tradition of literacy, the
importance it places on collectivism is often seen as dichotomous to the
Western concept of individualism. It is often assumed that this collectivistic
nature devalues the Romantic concept of authorship prevalent in the West
·
Scholars have shown that current ideas and practices
related to intellectual property and plagiarism are socially constructed and
therefore can change as social and economic factors change.
·
Liang Shiqiu, a Western-educated Chinese academic,
comments ironically about that Chinese perspective on the relationship between
imitation, originality, and plagiarism:
o Copying from a
book is called “Plagiarism”;
o Writing a book
based on ten is called “Reference”;
o Writing a book
based on a hundred is called “Creation.”
Ghazinoory et al.
(2011):
·
The Western support of Saddam Hussein war of
aggression against Iran created intense anti-West sentiments among many Iranians.
One of the manifestations of these negative feelings was a breakdown of communications
between Iranian universities and the universities of many western countries.
·
Consequently, little by little for the new generation
of academicians and students, international academic norms became unfamiliar Since
Islam appreciate science diffusion as a value, many Islamic theologians used to
believe that when something scientific is created, it belongs to the society,
no limitation should be placed on its publication, because it can be more
useful when it is in the public domain and according to their beliefs their own
scientific efforts were mostly aimed at helping mankind instead of financial
gain (see for e.g. Tahrir al-Wasilah by Ayatollah Khomeini) though It doesn’t
mean that they think plagiarism is justifiable. It’s not surprising that gradually
Iran’s academicians began to pay less attention to the intellectual property rights.
Istoria culturală a fenomenului - compilație
Green 2002:
·
The Construction of Authorship and the History of
Plagiarism (chapter) My claim, of course, is not that the Roman, Mishnaic,
eighteenth century, and modern day conceptions of plagiarism are identical. Rather,
I merely want to suggest that the idea of plagiarism is much older than is
often assumed and to question the assumption that the obligation to attribute
one’s sources necessarily presupposes either a strong notion of “authorship”
and “originality” or the existence of a legal regime of the sort that was first
developed in the eighteenth century.
Haitch 2016:
·
More professors and institutions want to move from a
detect-and-punish to an educate-and-prevent model for dealing with plagiarism.
·
Plagiarism has a cultural history tied to concepts of
individual creativity, but its future may look quite different in an era with
increased communal sharing of ideas and images.
·
Rudiments of the concept of plagiarism appear to have
existed in Jewish tradition since before the first century. Pirkei Avot (,
Chapters of the Fathers), a Mishnaic tract compiled between 500 and 300 B.C.E.,
seems to imply a positive norm of attribution: “The person who reports
something in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world”
(Green 2002, 178). This statement does not tell us all the reasons attribution
was given, or often withheld, in antiquity.
·
Plagiarus means kidnapper or plunderer, in Latin,
because in antiquity plagiarii were pirates who sometimes stole children. As plagiarism
is considered intellectual theft some commentators have likened it to stealing
the brain child of another. (East 2010, 70; cf. Robinson 2000, 32) It is worth
asking whether this antiquity-referencing description is itself becoming anti quated.
At least some brain children today are being birthed and raised communally, in
an environment of Wikipedia or open-source software development.
·
Some centuries later, the label was reclaimed for the first
time in English by Bishop Richard Montagu, in 1621.
·
According to one theory, the modern understanding of
plagiarism did not truly take shape until the eighteenth century, when there
was a new emphasis on authorship and originality. Before then, the process of
education was different, in that imitation was deemed virtuous. Just as
children today learn to memorize letters, then arrangements of letters (words),
so students of classical oratory and writing were taught to memorize
arrangements of words or even entire passages that they could use to piece
together their speeches or writings. The opening and closing of a formal letter
today is a vestige of this practice, but handbooks in the Middle Ages contained
much longer formulae. Aristotle, Virgil, Shakespeare, Montaigne, and even later
writers such as Dryden and Coleridge lifted passages from earlier works. By
today’s standards, they were plagiarists; by theirs, they were paying homage
and writing according to the custom of their day.
·
In the eighteenth century, however, there were two
developments. First, art and litera ture became more connected to notions of
individual, autonomous genius. Simultaneously, the law of copyright became more
refine to protect the economic interests of publishers, booksellers, and
authors. In short, during the eighteenth century originality became a more important
cultural value, and the concept of property became attached to words and ideas.
These two developments fueled each other (Green 2002, 176-7). Finally, in the
early twentieth century, organizations such as the American Psychological
Association (APA) moved to standardize citation in academic writing, to help
ensure individuals received credit for their work
Aspecte instituționale ale fenomenului
în contextual civilizației europene - nord-atlantice
Dougherty 2021:
·
identifies three impediments to institutional reform [to
control plagiarism in USA]. They are: (1) a misplaced desire to preserve
personal and institutional reputations; (2) a failure to recognize that attribution
in academic writing admits of degrees; and (3) a disproportionate emphasis on
the so called “intention to plagiarize.”
Iordache 2023,
transition country (available here):
· organizational
maturity, research-education system maturity, diversifying the foundations of
academic integrity for the resilience of the research and education process.
· Hypotheses:
the
deontological foundation of knowledge production integrity is a cultural trait
of the Judeo-Greek-Roman-Christian culture, the eudaimonic foundation is
unhistorical (crosscultural), the utilitarian foundation is modern.
References
Akbar, A., Picard, M.,
2020. Academic integrity in the Muslim world: a conceptual map of challenges ofculture. International Journal for Educational Integrity 16.
Bloch, J., 2007.
Plagiarism across cultures: Is there a difference? Indonesian JELT: IndonesianJournal of English Language Teaching 3, 1-13.
Dougherty, M.V., 2020.
Plagiarism in the Sacred Sciences. Philosophy and Theology 32, 27-61.
Dougherty, M.V.,
Hochschild, J.P., 2022. Magisterial Authority and Theological Authorship: TheHarm of Plagiarism in the Practice of Theology. Horizons 48, 404-455.
England, A., 2008. The dynamic nature of common knowledge. Originality, imitation, and plagiarism:Teaching writing in the digital age, 104-113.
Ghazinoory, S.,
Ghazinoori, S., Azadegan-Mehr, M., 2011. Iranian academia: evolution afterrevolution and plagiarism as a disorder. Sci Eng Ethics 17, 213-216.
Green, S.P., 2002.
Plagiarism, norms, and the limits of theft law: Some observations on the use ofcriminal sanctions in enforcing intellectual property rights. Hastings LJ 54,
167.
Haitch, R., 2016. Stealing or Sharing?Cross‐Cultural Issues of Plagiarism in an Open‐Source Era. Teaching Theology
& Religion 19, 264-275.
