Resources
Attribution, Citations, and Plagiarism
Resources
Attribution, Citations, and Plagiarism
CONTENT
1.0 Attribution
2.0 Citations
3.0 Plagiarism
3.1 Avoiding Plagiarism
3.2 Alternate Expectations
3.3 Style Guides
3.4 Avoiding Mistakes
3.5 Examples
1.0 ATTRIBUTION
Students are members of the academic community. As such, students are subject to the prevailing expectations of that community that have developed over centuries. One of those prevailing academic expectations is that no member will take credit for work that he or she didn't do and, by corollary, that each member will give credit clearly to others for work that they did. Giving credit to others is called attribution.
2.0 CITATIONS
A citation is a reference to a source. A police citation (or "ticket") is a document that references the source (i.e., the person) who violated a law. The police offer says, "I'm giving you a citation. I'm citing you for breaking the law. I'm referencing you in this ticket as having broken this law, and this citation will be recorded at the police station."
In the academic community, a citation (or bibliographic citation) is a reference by an author that a particular person or group of people contributed something useful to that author's work. Thus, the purpose of bibliographic citations is to satisfy the academic community's expectation for clear attribution (i.e., giving credit to others).
I find that many members of the academic community do not know what plagiarism is. Many of the people who have been in the academic community the longest are able to say, "I may not be able to define plagiarism, but I know it when I see it." Well, maybe so, but a definition helps. I've heard many instructors say, "Don't be dishonest and take credit for work that you didn't do!" They say, "That's plagiarism, and you can be expelled from school for that!" They say, "Make sure that you follow the citation style guide (e.g., MLA or APA) exactly to avoid plagiarism!"
I was an English major in college, and personally I never found that kind of admonition useful. It's like my preacher saying when I was young, "If you commit adultery or fornication, you'll go to hell!" Well, it was clear to me that I didn't want to do those things--whatever they were--but I was less clear what exactly I was not supposed to do. When I asked for more information, I was told, "If you think it might be bad, don't do it." Definitions are useful. They distinguish one thing from another thing. So, what is plagiarism? How do you know if you are guilty of plagiarism?
3.0 PLAGIARISM
3.1 Avoiding Plagiarism
Presenters (e.g., writers and speakers) are guilty of plagiarism if they fail to distinguish clearly their work from others’ work or do not establish clearly—by statement or argument—that alternate expectations apply.
The simplest way for presenters to avoid plagiarism is to distinguish clearly their work from others’ work. Unconventional approaches are sufficient as long as presenters clearly distinguish their work from others’ work. For instance, students could underline in yellow crayon all words taken from others’ work and underline in red crayon all ideas that came from other people. If these marks distinguish clearly the presenter’s work from others’ work, that would be enough to avoid plagiarism.
Keep in mind that work is any product that results from the mental or physical activity of any person. Work includes photographs, data, graphs, wording, ideas, pictures, arguments, outlines, organization of ideas, maps, analytical techniques, sculptures, and much more.
Presenters can also avoid plagiarism by managing others’ expectations about the originality of their work. For instance, a student could put a note on a term paper clearly saying that no effort was made to distinguish the student’s work from others’ work. This would be enough to avoid plagiarism. You cannot be guilty of plagiarism if alternate expectations regarding the originality of your work clearly apply. For the purposes of identifying plagiarism, such statements of originality by presenters take precedence over other statements, for example, in course syllabi, academic policies, or journal instructions to authors.
Presenters can also avoid plagiarism if they argue successfully that a valid but unstated customary exception exempts them from distinguishing their work from others’ work. For instance, economists regularly use calculus in their work, but they do not usually distinguish their work from that of Newton and Leibniz who created calculus. Likewise, most presenters do not cite the style manual or publisher’s instructions that they use to prepare their citations. In both cases, the custom is not to do so. Because customs are imprecise, unwritten, subject to interpretation, and depend on context, presenters who believe a customary exception allows them to use another’s work without attribution should be prepared to justify this belief (e.g., with a statement from a knowledgeable practitioner). This evidence will be useful if a dispute arises later about whether a customary exception reasonably exists.
Importantly, instructors usually expect students to do more than merely avoid plagiarism. For instance, instructors usually expect students to name clearly where work others did can be found and who specifically did the other work (i.e., provide accurate citations). And, instructors usually expect students to give attribution in particular ways following, for instance, a conventional style manual. Style manuals describe how specialized symbols (e.g., quotation marks and parenthetical references) can make attribution clear, consistent, and unobtrusive. Presenters that use these specialized symbols bear the added responsibility of using them correctly and as expected. Beware.
In short, to avoid plagiarism, presenters must be clear what work is theirs and what work is from others or, if not, they must either provide a statement of originality that clearly excuses them from that requirement or they must be able to argue successfully that a customary practice does not require them to provide clear attribution.
3.2 Alternate Expectations
As noted, presenters that don't satisfy the default expectation can avoid plagiarism if they fully manage others’ expectations about the originality of their work. For instance, a student could put a note on a term paper clearly saying that no effort was made to distinguish the student’s work from others’ work. This would be enough to avoid plagiarism. Instead of assuming that the default expectations apply, you can avoid plagiarism if you clearly establish alternate expectations.
As the presenter, you have complete control over what listeners, readers, and observers expect. For example, students that use this text are expected to use analytical techniques, organization, and some wording verbatim from this text but without clearly differentiating their work from the work done by me--the author--of this text. To do this, the text requires that you add the following footnote to the end of the first paragraph of your analysis (i.e., your purpose statement):
This analysis generally follows the standard scholarly expectations regarding originality. The author, for instance, clearly identifies and distinguishes all work (e.g., data, images, and ideas) taken wholly or in part from any external source. The only exception is that the author adapts without further attribution some specific analytical techniques, organization, and wording prescribed by Roger Brown’s online textbook, Technical Communication in Economics, accessed on _____[1]_____ at https://a.triplesilver.com. Also, in preparing this report, the author used _____[2]_____ to assist with editorial layout, design, and authorship.
In the first blank [1], insert the date that you first accessed the online textbook (e.g., "September 21, 2023"). In the second blank [2], you must insert the name(s) and in parentheses the version(s) of the editorial layout, design, and/or authorship tool(s) that you used (e.g., Microsoft Word, Google Docs, ChatGPT or other large language models, etc.). For example, you might write, "In preparing this report, the author used Microsoft Word (2021) and ChatGPT (2023) to assist with editorial layout, design, and authorship."
If you received helpful editorial contributions with the grammar, spelling, and/or formatting of your work from a classmate or other reviewer, you need to expand the above footnote to include recognition of the specific individuals and their specific stylistic contributions:
This analysis generally follows the standard scholarly expectations regarding originality. The author, for instance, clearly identifies and distinguishes all work (e.g., data, images, and ideas) taken wholly or in part from any external source. The only exception is that the author adapts without further attribution some specific analytical techniques, organization, and wording prescribed by Roger Brown’s online textbook, Technical Communication in Economics, accessed on _____[1]_____ at https://a.triplesilver.com. Also, in preparing this report, the author used _____[2]_____ to assist with editorial layout, design, and authorship. The author also acknowledges minor helpful contributions from _____[3]_____ who improved earlier drafts of this report with their helpful suggestions, including help with grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors. Any remaining mistakes are the responsibility of the author.
In the third blank [3], insert the name(s) of the person(s) who provided you with basic assistance.
This footnote tell readers that you (as author of your paper) do not distinguish your work from any of the work found in this (Brown's) online text, but you do distinguish clearly your work from everyone else's work. This footnote is your effort to establish clear expectations that are different than the default expectation (i.e., that you will clearly distinguish all your work from all others' work, including mine). This footnote clarifies what software tools you used to author your report so readers are clear. With this footnote, no one can rightly accuse you of stealing or claiming credit for my work (i.e., plagiarism). You can't be guilty of stealing something (e.g., intellectual theft or plagiarism) from someone else (e.g., me) or a language composition app (e.g., ChatGPT) if you state up front and clearly, "Hey everyone, everything that you see here is NOT mine; some things you see here may be work that I got from Roger Brown or another source." The idea is that if someone wants to know what part of your paper is yours and what part is copied from this text, the person will have to ask you and/or compare your paper and this text on their own.
3.3 Style Guides
You might now wonder how all this could true. Is it really true that all you have to do to avoid plagiarism is to establish and then follow any sort of expectations regarding the originality of your work. The answer is, yes as long as those expectations are clear. If you're following the default expectations, then you don't even need to restate those expectations because they are already clear by virtue of being the default expectations. That is all that is required to avoid plagiarism.
But, what about APA and MLA format? That's a lot more specific, right?
Style guides describe how to use specialized symbols (e.g., quotation marks) to identify others' work by name, date, and source (e.g., from a book or journal) in ways that are clear, unobtrusive, and consistent. Let that sink in. Read it again. Style guides include those from the APA (American Psychological Society) and the MLA (Modern Language Association). Style guides describe agreed upon or conventional ways that the users of these guides can accomplish four goals.
First, style guides describe specific ways that presenters can distinguish clearly what work is theirs and what work is not theirs which is the only requirement to avoid plagiarism. Second, style guides describe specific ways that presenters can identify clearly who are the originators of work that isn't the work of the presenter (e.g., by providing clear attribution using citations). Third, style guides describe specific ways that presenters can provide clear attribution that is less distracting to readers or listeners (i.e., unobtrusive attribution). Fourth, style guides describe specific ways that presenters can provide clear attribution in ways that are consistent within a single work (e.g., in a single article) or a work that is part of a collection (e.g., in all articles in a journal).
Goal 1: Distinguish Original Versus Others' Work
Style guides provide specific ways for presenters to identify what work is theirs and what work is not theirs. That is all that is required to avoid plagiarism.
Goal 2: Provide Clear Attribution
Attribution means to give credit to someone (else) for that (other) person's work. Attribution requires identifying clearly who the original creator of the work is. Attribution includes not only distinguishing one's own work from others' work, but identifying clearly the name of the person or organization that did the other work. All style guides aim to make such attribution statements (e.g., references and citations) clear.
Goal 3: Provide Unobtrusive Attribution
Presenters should aim to provide clear attribution in ways that distract audiences as little as possible. Some style guides suggest the use of footnotes. Others call for parenthetical references (e.g., author's last name followed by the publication year) with a "Works Cited" page. Whatever the prescription, the goal is the same, to provide attribution with as little interruption or distraction to readers or listeners as possible. Red and yellow crayon may provide clear attribution, but red and yellow crayon marks are distracting and intrusive. Style guides provide instructions about how to make attribution less distracting and less intrusive.
Goal 4: Provide Consistent Attribution
Presenters should be consistent in how they provide attribution within any single document. For example, references to all personal interviews should have the same format. But consistency is also useful when there are multiple publications by multiple authors (e.g., in an peer-reviewed academic journal). That's when an editor might require all authors to use the same style guidelines.
Clearly style guides attempt to do more than merely help student to avoid plagiarism. Style guides seek to make attribution not only clear, but also as unobtrusive and consistent as possible. But, if you look through these style guides, you will not find any instructions about using red and yellow crayons. That is because style guides--and the instructors who require students to use them--have more lofty goals than for you simply to avoid plagiarism. Unfortunately, some instructors confuse their requirement to use correctly a particular style guide with the more general academic expectation that presenters avoid plagiarism. As you should realize by now, you do not necessarily have to use a particular style guide correctly--or at all--to avoid plagiarism. But, using a style guide incorrectly can certainly result in plagiarism.
3.4 Avoiding Mistakes
The most confusing part about avoiding plagiarism is when instructors mix up the most important goal (i.e., clearly distinguish one's work from others' work) with style guides' other three goals (i.e., provide clear, unobtrusive, and consistent attribution).
It is true, of course, that instructors want students to do more than merely avoid plagiarism. That makes sense. For instance, instructors usually expect students to name clearly where work others did can be found and who specifically did the other work (e.g., provide accurate citations). And, instructors usually expect students to give attribution in particular ways following, for instance, a conventional style manual.
That's all fine, even standard. However, failures to use style guides correctly do not constitute plagiarism as long as presenters clearly distinguish their work from others' work or clearly establish and follow alternate expectations. Too often instructors and academic disciplinary bodies at universities penalize students for failure to meet the additional and more ambitious goals of the style guides even when students have done everything necessary to avoid plagiarism. That's a big mistake for these instructors and these academic disciplinary bodies to make.
Consider an example. Suppose a student turns in a research paper at the end of the semester. Suppose the paper has no citations, no works cited, and no references. Suppose further that the student has lots of ideas and even entire passages from works originally developed by others. And, suppose that the student writes at the top of her paper, "The author of this paper makes no effort to distinguish her work from the work of any other person." Is this student guilty of plagiarism? The answer is no. The student's statement clearly establishes alternate expectations regarding the originality of her work. It's like someone saying, "I am going to tell some jokes tonight, but be aware that I will not distinguish my own jokes from those jokes I took from others." This joke-teller can't be guilty of plagiarism as long as all of his listeners are clear about this. So, what about the student in this example. Did the student do anything wrong? The answer is most likely yes. The student did do something wrong, but the student did not commit plagiarism. The instructor most likely expects students to follow the prescriptions in a particular style guide and since this student did not do that, the student deserves a lower grade as a result. But, a lower grade (even a failing grade) is not because the student plagiarized; it's because the student did not satisfy the assignment expectations. This is an important distinction.
But, students often make a big mistake too. Too often students attempt to distinguish their work from others' work using the subtle and relatively arcane methods prescribed in the style guides (e.g., quotation marks and parenthetical references), and they do it incorrectly. Students try to use these specialized attribution methods when students don't really know how those methods work. You might not get high marks if you use a hand saw to cut down a tree, but that is much better than if you use a chain saw and cut off your hand because you don't know how chainsaws work. Chainsaw users beware! Style guide users beware!
The solution is that students must first of all do what is necessary to avoid plagiarism. That is, they must do what is necessary to distinguish clearly their work from others' work or establish clearly alternate originality expectations. Students should use red and yellow crayons to provide the requisite distinction between their work and others' work if those are the only tools they know how to use correctly. And then, once students have done that, students should then go to their instructors, to their campus writing centers, and to their trusted friends and get help making these distinctions conform to the style guide prescriptions. Students should not use the style guides until they are sure that their use accomplishes the goal of avoiding plagiarism. Style guide users beware!
3.5 Examples
In many but not all situations, so-called "common knowledge" qualifies as a customary exception to the default expectation that presenters distinguish their work clearly from others' work. Common knowledge includes widely known facts, such as historical, geographical, and scientific facts. For example, it is widely known that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, that the current capital city of France is Paris, and that George Washington was born on February 22, 1732.
To the extent that general knowledge facts qualify as customary exceptions to the default expectation, use of such common knowledge does not require attribution by citation or reference. If ever you are unsure whether a customary exception applies, you should consult with your instructor or another knowledgeable source for validation. The validation will be useful evidence for you to have if someone challenges your thinking and alleges that the customary exception does not apply.
In general, any information that is contentious in any way is probably not common knowledge. For example, if new history or archaeological research showed that George Washington might have been born on April 22 rather than February 22, his birthday would no longer be considered common knowledge. There would instead be specific known sources (i.e., scholars with names and opinions) that advocate one view and other specific sources (i.e., other scholars with other names and other opinions) that advocate for the alternate view. Once the facts become contentious, citations are required unless, of course, the presenter clearly establishes alternative expectations. Historical factual claims (i.e., claims about the past) are usually more contentious than factual claims about more recent times.
Statistics and data are not common knowledge because specific persons or groups are responsible for compiling statistics and data. These specific persons or groups are particular (i.e., nameable) sources. And, statistics and data (e.g., estimates of how many stars are in the universe) do not have universal agreement (i.e., they are by nature contentious). Again, contentious information is generally not common knowledge. Claims and statements that are the product of one individual's or one group's thought, research, or analysis are not common knowledge because that information has particular, identifiable sources.
Informal Speech Example. Suppose a friend tells a funny joke at a party but does not say that the joke came from someone else. Has your friend plagiarized (i.e., stolen) this joke? Is your friend guilty of plagiarism? Answer: Probably not. In this informal setting, most people would not expect your friend to explain that the joke was created originally by someone else. To the extent that listeners of informal speech do not expect speakers to distinguish their work from others' work (i.e., to the extent that listeners reasonably have alternative expectations than the default expectations regarding originality), these speakers cannot be rightly accused of plagiarism. However, if this friend were accused of plagiarism, it would be the responsibility of the joke-teller to argue successfully ex post (i.e., after the fact) that a customary exception existed (e.g., for informal speech).
Formal Speech Example. Consider two examples dealing with formal speech. In October 2013, Rachel Maddow, an American television host and political commentator, accused Kentucky Senator Rand Paul of plagiarizing several passages of a political speech he delivered at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In his speech, Paul included several passages, virtually verbatim, from the Wikipedia article on the film Gattaca [1]. In a similar situation, during the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary, Hillary Clinton accused then Senator Barack Obama of plagiarizing part of a speech given previously by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick [2]. Did these two politicians (Paul and Obama) plagiarize when they presented text from others' speeches without clearly distinguishing it from their own work?
Most people would say these two political speakers were guilty of plagiarism. But why? Most high-level politicians employ "speech writers" to create speeches for them, right? These politicians almost never give credit in their speeches to their speech writers. Is that plagiarism? Most people would say it isn't. But what is the difference?
The answer depends on what other people (e.g., listeners) can reasonably expect. Remember, it is the job of the presenter to manage expectations of originality clearly. Political speech-making is an area where expectations tend to be ambiguous. To those listeners that expect politicians to distinguish clearly their work from others' work, politicians who don't to this (or who don't establish clearly alternate expectations) are guilty of plagiarism. To those listeners that do not share these expectations, politicians that don't distinguish their work from others' work are not guilty of plagiarism.
To avoid this subjectivity (i.e., it's plagiarism to some people but not to other people), politicians and others need either to satisfy the default expectations (i.e., distinguish clearly their work from others' work) or they need to establish clearly what listeners, readers, and observers should expect regarding the originality of their work. Presenters have the ability to control others' expectations if they state clearly what those alternate expectations should be. There are many ways that presenters could clarify expectations more clearly than they do. Politicians could, for example, put a notice on their websites that explain the originality expectations they want others to have.
Academic Assignment Example. In his thesis assignment that was required for his master's degree from the U.S. Army War College, Montana Senator John Walsh copied large parts of his text verbatim (i.e., word-for-word) from several existing published works. In total, about one-third of Senator Walsh's 19-page paper was plagiarized without any attribution and another half with improper (i.e., unclear) attribution [3].
Does this qualify as plagiarism? The answer: Almost certainly yes. The default expectation is that authors of academic assignments, particularly a standard assignment like a thesis, will clearly distinguish their work from others' work. Since Senator Walsh did not clearly distinguish his work from others' work and because he did not clearly establish alternate expectations, Senator Walsh is rightfully guilty of plagiarism.
-------------------------
[1] Benen, Steve. 2013. "Rand Paul to Be 'More Cautious' in Wake of Plagiarism Scandal." MSNBC November 1. Accessed: 1-27-2021 at https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-be-more-cautious-plagiarism-msna201426.
[2] Zeleny, Jeff. 2008. "Clinton Camp Says Obama Plagiarized in Speech." The New York Times. February 19. Accessed: 1-27-2021 at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19campaign.html.
[3] Martin, Jonathan. 2014. "Senator's Thesis Turns Out to Be Remix of Others' Works, Uncited." The New York Times. July 23. Accessed: 1-27-2021 at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/politics/montana-senator-john-walsh-plagiarized-thesis.html?_r=0. At this link, take a look at the "Interactive Graphic" that color-codes Senator Walsh's entire paper, showing what text was his own work and what text was stolen verbatim from others without clear attribution.