Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6TFR8f25697; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <v03007802b788fa51372c@[192.168.1.13]> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: David Reinking <dreinkin@coe.uga.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:1948] Re: plagiarism, intellectual property, and X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: O Content-Length: 5937 Lines: 112 Chris and others following this discussion, You raise an important point about the investment of academia in conventional ideas about plagiarism and intellectual property. The "chips" in the academic game are vita lines, and the blue chips are print publications. Those who play the game successfully have figured out many of the subtleties that promote success and in some cases financial gain. A good analysis of how the academic game in a print culture is played can be found in chpt 9 of Kaufer and Carley (1993). I haven't struggled through Bakhtin first hand, but it sounds like he is making the point Mark Twain made when he said "originality is the art of concealing your sources." I think it's too bad that more academics aren't leading the way to break down the restrictions on the flow of information created by commercial publication, which was more natural and necessary in the print world. I've argued that we need to re discover the roots of a scholarly ethic that is based on the generation and free dissemination of useful knowledge uncontaminated by personal gain, especially financial gain other than the salaries are paid to be scholars (Reinking, 1996) . For example, I think scholars should look for opportunities to make their work available free on the internet. Because that is not feasible for many reasons right now, I think they (or their institutions, see Okerson for a research librarian's point of view and suggestions) should attempt to negotiate to retain the copyright on their own work (this is standard practice in most of the rest of the world). I think too that they should donate royalties for their scholarly work that is sold (increasingly a euphemism for limiting the dissemination of their work). For example, many authors/editors who are members of the National Reading Conference have donated royalties to that organization (in one case this amounted to more than $10,000. But, for those who find this too hard a pill to swallow, let me reiterate something I think I said in a previous message: I have no qualms about charging fees for personal appearances or for consulting on specific problems or issues related to commercial enterprises. That said, I think it's interesting to note that the flood of information today has already made conventional print publication in journals too slow for many academics, especially in the hard sciences (e.g., see Stix, 1994). For example, perhaps a dozen scholars world wide might be studying the reaction of a particular enzyme critical in the activation of the AIDS virus. In such instances, and especially where distinct humanitarian interests are at stake, they may each be conducting integrated experiments with the results found by one team/lab on one day being communicated immediately to another team/lab where their experiments are then altered the next day. I think your example of not feeling compulsion to attribute a joke to your brother is a good one that illustrates my point that definitions of plagiarism are arbitrary and thus subject to change. Jokes are public domain in the purest sense. And, the funniness of the joke is not completely embedded in its language, but in choosing just when and how to tell it, so much of its "originality" depends on the user not the originator. Even if I'm truly the originator of a joke, it would be foolish to expect that everyone who uses it will cite me. Besides, the point is to make people laugh (think if you're a scholar?), and I could take some personal satisfaction everytime I heard someone tell it that I played a role in making people happy. And, human nature being what it is, I suppose it would feel good to know that at least a few people would know the joke originated with me, even if most people did not. Another example, or maybe an analogy: few blues writers/singers make much money, but they keep singing the blues (can you sing the blues if you're rich?) and they are often quite magnanimous about telling people what other blues writers/singers have influenced their work--there is a real sense of community that overrides selfish gain. Your example of using email discussion in your class is a good example, I think, not only of newer conceptions of literacy but also the potential of digital texts to transform instruction--even at the university where conventional models of "sage-on-a-stage" teaching are most firmly entrenched. I've had similar experiences and have noticed the increased engagement and reflectiveness promoted by email discussions among students, although there are some potential downsides too (e.g., reinforcement of stereotypes and biases). By the way, for anyone reading this or any of my previous posts, feel free to use any of my text in your own publications. Attribution would be nice, but not necessary. That's a pretty liberating offer to make, but then again, I'm a full professor . . . David Kaufer. D. S., & Carley, K. M. (1993). Communication at a distance: The influence of print on sociocultural organization and change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Okerson, A. (1991). With feathers: Effects of copyright and ownership on scholarly publishing. College and Research Libraries, 52(5), 425-438. Reinking, D. (1996). Reclaiming a scholarly ethic: Deconstructing "intellectual property" in a post-typographic world. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research into practice (pp. 461-470) Forty-fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Stix, G. (1994). The speed of write. Scientific American, 271(6), 106-111. ********************* David Reinking Professor and Department Head Editor: Journal of Literacy Research University of Georgia Department of Reading Education 309 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 Voice:706-542-4623 FAX: 706-542-3817 *********************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:31:21 EST