Plagiarism policies have ‘chilling effect’ on student speech and research
Vague and overly-broad academic integrity policies hinder learning and infringe on student rights
Sharing writing with peers is an essential part of the writing process. This is true no matter one’s level of ability. Sharing is often the end goal of writing, whether it is an assignment for class, a business letter, blog post, tweet, or academic article submitted for publication. As Paulo Coelho puts it, “Writing means sharing. It’s part of the human condition to want to share things — thoughts, ideas, opinions.”
Sharing one’s writing is no less an essential part of the academic research and writing process. One typical ‘life cycle’ of a published academic paper might be to present it at a conference, then receive questions and feedback from peers which can be used to improve the paper for publication. A paper accepted for publication will be read by reviewers and editors who work with the writer to improve arguments, correct errors, clarify logic, and so forth. At any point in this process, the academic writer (a graduate student or professor perhaps) might seek the advice of peers or mentors. The act of reading and offering feedback on the writing of a peer or mentee is itself valuable in honing one’s writing skills.
Despite the importance of collaboration to the academic writing process — sharing and workshopping ideas, giving and receiving early drafts to receive and give feedback — many schools have academic integrity rules that discourage or even forbid students from sharing their writing, research, and ideas with each. Such rules hinder student learning. They also have a ‘chilling effect’ on student speech. In the language of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they infringe on students’ right to freedom of expression.
In Canadian and U.S. law, a chilling effect refers to the stifling of legitimate speech caused by vague or overly-broad laws. Because school academic integrity policies function really as legally-binding documents, and school integrity officers as quasi-judicial officials, I think we may apply the term here.
Few institutions are quite as blunt as the University of Bradford in England: “Sharing written work is plagiarism.”
The University of Melbourne refers to “collusion” as a form of plagiarism:
Collusion happens when more than one student contributes to a piece of work that is submitted as the work of an individual. Individual assessment work should be entirely the work of the student submitting that work.
Working together with other students on a piece of work that will be submitted for individual assessment is not permitted and can result in an accusation of academic misconduct for all the students involved.
It is also not permitted to work together on work in progress, research summaries, or drafts, as these preliminary works may result in similarity of the finished products of the students involved.
Discussing the material and ideas you are learning with your colleagues is beneficial and is encouraged. However, when you start to write down the material that you will use for assessment, make sure this is entirely your own work, and do not share it with other students.
Melbourne’s policy is reasonably clear; certainly clearer than some I’ve read. The bottom line is that students can’t share drafts of their writing. This is presented in the language of copying and cheating, yet there are many legitimate reasons for students to share drafts with each other which this formulation overlooks. Melbourne’s policy does a familiar awkward dance of paying lip-service to collaboration — “discussing materials and ideas… is beneficial and encouraged” — while in practice preventing or effectively discouraging very useful forms of collaboration.
Melbourne’s policy is on par with what I see here in Canada, where I am a college student studying computer science as well as a university professor of English. McGill University in Montreal is one of Canada’s oldest and most prestigious institutions. Their policy surrounding the sharing of student writing is less transparent than that of Melbourne I would say. From McGill’s Sharing Your Work web page:
Peer teaching and peer learning are important and effective study strategies for students. However, giving a completed assignment to a friend is not peer teaching and copying answers is not peer learning. Unintentionally or otherwise, the student who passed on the assignment enabled cheating to occur, and has therefore committed a violation.
It doesn’t really sound like McGill is talking about students sharing writing here, but this is the only language I can see online that applies. McGill’s webpage says that for clarification refer to its Handbook On Student Rights and Responsibilities, but offers a broken link to that document. The issue of sharing drafts of writing is not clearly addressed — the Sharing Your Work page everywhere refers to “completed” assignments.
McGill makes some statements vaguely encouraging of student collaboration:
Peer learning should be encouraged, since it helps students learn to teach. Instructors should explain effective peer teaching strategies such as working in pairs, sharing comments on work, and brainstorming solutions to problems in groups.
One might say that “sharing comments on work” could refer to the exchange of writing drafts, but the impression is that this is an in-class activity and something to be done with the professor’s supervision and permission only. The overwhelming impression given by McGill’s Sharing Your Work academic policy page is that it is an act of academic dishonesty for a student to share a draft of their writing with another student.
What is the purpose of academic policies that discourage the sharing of writing? The official line is that students need to learn to do for themselves, that figuring out the answer yourself is the best way to solve problems. I don’t believe this logic applies to many forms of academic inquiry.
I also don’t believe that official line is the only or even the primary purpose for such policies. The University of Melbourne’s explanation of academic “collusion” is telling:
Collusion happens when more than one student contributes to a piece of work that is submitted as the work of an individual. Individual assessment work should be entirely the work of the student submitting that work.
Individual assessment. Preventing students from sharing their writing may be bad for learning, but it makes individual assessment much easier. There is a conflict here between the pedagogical function of our post-secondary institutions and their assessment function. This is one example of how assigning grades can actually hurt student learning.
As I have said, there are many legitimate reasons for sharing one’s writing. Perhaps I have written a strong essay and am proud of it. But all writers have blind spots. I wish to share my paper with a smart friend before submitting it to the professor, to see if they can spot any glaring typos, weaknesses, or obvious means of improvement. If my friend plagiarizes my essay, I could receive a zero or even be expelled.
Maybe my paper receives an A+ from the professor. I’m thrilled. The topic is timely, and I want to publish it (on my blog, in a newspaper, in an academic journal). I share my paper with a smart friend to get their advice. If my friend plagiarizes me, steals my intellectual property, am I to blame? What if I publish my paper and a then a fellow student plagiarizes me? Am I also to blame in that case? How long must students wait before they can share their writing with others or publish after it has been assessed by a professor?
If sharing a completed assignment with another student is an academic integrity violation, then by that logic isn’t sharing it with the world via publication a more serious violation? But I own the paper. It is my intellectual property. I can publish it wherever I like. How is publishing a paper substantively different than sharing it informally?
Sharing writing informally is publishing for people alienated from the mechanisms of publishing, as well as an early step in the publishing process. Most student essays will not go on to be published. However, sharing written work informally performs similar work to publishing: getting your insights, arguments, and original research out into the “marketplace of ideas.” Many academic integrity policies may well violate the free speech rights of students by hindering their participation in that marketplace of ideas.
A primary purpose of writing is to participate in the public conversation. Good writing builds on the existing conversation seeking to make a contribution, even if only a small one. Students may not see their academic writing as worthy of participating in the public conversation. Many students are alienated from their own writing in various ways. This is one reason students plagiarize. Rules that prevent students from sharing their writing send a message that students are perhaps correct to feel this way, that student writing is not worthy enough to participate in the public conversation.
Most students have no idea how they could cite another student’s insight — a smart comment made in class, the draft of a paper, an informal conversation — they don’t even conceive that citing these things is possible, and neither do many of their professors. If one student wants to use a fellow student’s good idea and build on it, they think their only option is to steal because they don’t understand the fundamentals of how knowledge is produced and what the purpose of writing is. Rather than addressing this problem, Canadian schools are exacerbating it with their restrictions. It is little wonder we have seen a university dean resign for plagiarizing the convocation speech of a peer. I imagine this dean had little idea of how (perhaps even why!) to cite outside the context of an academic paper.
Canadian post-secondary schools see student writing as an exercise for the purpose of evaluation. It’s not ‘real writing’ or ‘real research’, these institutions are saying with their academic integrity policies. Values like academic freedom and freedom of expression evidently do not apply in the way they do for established academics.
We can question McGill’s claim that “giving a completed assignment to a friend is not peer teaching.” One of the best ways to improve your writing is to see great examples of the genre you’re trying to write. The most relevant example would be the writing of a stronger student in the same course. You would be able to see how a strong student strategically fulfills assignment expectations in a way you would not if reading a 7000-word journal article published by your professor.
Yes, some students share their work for the purpose of enabling plagiarism. The danger is that in crafting rules to combat plagiarism, schools may be preventing the smartest and most diligent students from creating the best work they might do.
If a student writes an excellent piece of work, it is their intellectual duty to share it as widely as possible. As a writer, your job is to get your writing out there. You are not responsible for policing the behaviour of others. A student who wishes to cheat can easily go online and buy a paper. Showing another student your excellent paper “as an example” is actually an extremely effective way to demonstrate good writing practices. That is a valid reason for sharing a good paper. The excellent student has not “enabled cheating to occur” in the words of McGill. They have shared their excellent writing, their own words and arguments, their intellectual property. They can publish those words if they like, or they can share them informally — which is fundamentally the same thing as publishing.
Sharing your writing with peers is not plagiarism. Professors and school administrators are taking away from top students the intellectual tools they need to produce excellent writing and academic research.
