The Difficult Nuance of Plagiarism

Twelve years ago, I was returning from an overseas conference. As I re-entered the United States, I was hungry, thirsty, sleep-deprived, and jet-lagged. Apparently, I didn’t do a stellar job answering the customs agent’s questions and was selected for additional screening.

As the screener went through my small bag, she asked what I was doing out of the country. I explained that I’m a plagiarism expert and I was speaking at a conference. She looked at me quizzically and asked, “What is the definition of plagiarism?”

I froze for a second. I felt like a mechanic being asked to define a car, and I wondered if she knew just how difficult of a question that is. Gathering myself, I responded, “It’s the taking of another’s words, ideas or other material and presenting it as your own.”

She handed me my bag back and told me to leave. So I did and caught my next flight, unimpeded by the small delay.

Even today, I think about that interaction regularly. While my definition was reasonable and similar to many given to students, it doesn’t capture plagiarism’s nuance. It avoids many of the complexities that lie beneath the surface.

However, those nuances have been fully displayed over the past few months. This has raised questions about whether we need to change the definition of plagiarism or at least find a new way to discuss it.

To that end, I don’t disagree.

A Broad Definition

When someone asks for the definition of plagiarism, they typically get one similar to the one I gave in the customs office or in Merriam-Webster, which reads, “To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another’s production) without crediting the source.”

While it’s a definition that is as simple as it is functional, it is also incredibly broad.

It can include everything from inadequately paraphrasing a single sentence in a paper to wholesale copying the paper from an uncredited third party. It’s everything from a forgotten blockquote to contract cheating.

In short, it can encompass everything from the most minor infraction, likely a simple mistake, to the most serious, deliberate and wholesale fraud.

But that raises another question: What about intent?

Most consider plagiarism a “strict liability” offense, one where intent is unimportant. But is unintentionally misparaphrasing a section the same as deliberately copying and pasting it? Is giving inadequate citation the same as giving no citation and trying to deceive readers?

That raises another complexity, citation standards and norms. Different types of work have different standards. Where one can share memes freely without attribution, one must cite carefully in an academic setting. Does a novelist have the same standard as a lawyer writing a pleading?

Creators operating in various areas need to learn to code-switch regarding attribution. What is flagrant plagiarism in one area is often just normal practice in another. Keeping track of the rules can be difficult as one moves from space to space.

Cultural differences make this more complex. Though plagiarism is almost universally decried as unethical, there are real differences around what requires citation. While almost no one thinks plagiarism is acceptable, citation norms vary between cultures, creating tension.

It’s a complicated mess, and, as we’ve seen lately, it’s only getting more complicated.

Why This Matters

Over the past few months, we have seen a variety of accusations filed against various university administrators connected, directly or indirectly, with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

However, all the allegations have been incredibly different. Some involved poor paraphrasing of previous work, some involved authorship issues (who was listed on the paper), and some involved more deliberate plagiarism.

Still, the only thing they have in common is that they fit under the umbrella of “plagiarism.”

While that is great for headlines, the problem is that if you open the umbrella wide enough, literally every human being alive is a “plagiarist.” At some point, the term loses all meaning. Plagiarism ceases to be a serious infraction when any minor mistake can label someone a plagiarist.

To play off a common expression, if everyone is a plagiarist, then no one is a plagiarist.

Some have recognized this problem and say we need a new word for plagiarism. Namely, we need a new word to separate between those who commit innocent mistakes and those who deliberately commit fraud.

But while that isn’t wholly unreasonable, it shouldn’t be necessary. We don’t need a new word, but we need a way to discuss the nuance of the word we have.

The Devil is in the Details

The problem is simple. Determining whether or not something is plagiarism is usually just the first step of an investigation. If it is, we have to determine how serious it is and what the response should be.

In many ways, the latter steps are more important than the first. That’s where the more serious questions are answered, including what the author’s intent was.

If we limit ourselves to research integrity, there can be a wide range of responses. Some plagiarisms are so minor that they are fully ignored. Others require a correction, which can take various formats. More severe cases require a full retraction.

The same happens in the classroom. Teachers routinely decide to ignore small issues of plagiarism. Some deduct points from the assignment. However, others result in students facing disciplinary action such as failing the assignment, failing the class or even suspension/expulsion.

The problem is that, when dealing with the public at large, that nuance isn’t there. The conversation often ends there once a person is marked as a plagiarist. This is especially true in politically motivated cases; as long as the attack of “plagiarist” has some legitimacy, there’s no desire to look deeper.

That frustrates people like me who care deeply about this topic. Plagiarism is a deeply nuanced subject. Once you strip that nuance out, it ceases to be about academic or research integrity and, instead, becomes about simple attacks.

However, I don’t think this is a problem that a new term for plagiarism would solve. Those who don’t want to explore the complexity of plagiarism aren’t going to do so. A new word or a new term isn’t going to change that.

Bottom Line

Plagiarism is a nuanced and complicated subject. However, any topic that becomes the focus of heated public discussion, particularly political discourse, loses most of its nuance.

That’s unfortunate because there are real issues here. Plagiarism poses serious challenges to research and academic integrity. However, these types of investigations and scandals don’t do anything to address those issues.

We need investigations that are motivated not by political goals but by the hope of improving research integrity. We need to be willing to discuss plagiarism’s nuances rather than hiding behind pejoratives.

Changing the language around plagiarism is a tempting solution, but it won’t matter if people are still unwilling to dive into the nuances of the topic.

Simply put, a new word is meaningless if no one wants to use it.