|
|
|
Teaching Integrity
John Dichtl
Organization of American Historians
|
ARTICLES ABOUT ACADEMIC HONESTY seem either to begin with an example of egregious deceit in American schools or to claim that dishonesty is worse than ever. A common refrain is that students have never had such opportunities to dissemble (e.g., thanks to the Internet) or motives for untruthfulness (e.g., greater pressure to get into the right college or graduate program). What could be more shocking in this regard than recent news from the University of California that admissions officers there think it necessary to begin spot-checking applications for students' lies about special achievements and experiences?1 Or that, according to the Duke University Center for Academic Integrity, "instances of unpermitted collaboration" at medium or large state universities have grown from eleven percent of students in 1963 to forty-nine percent in 1993. The Center's studies for the past three years reveal that seventy-four percent of high schoolers admit to "one or more instances of serious test cheating" and more than seventy-five percent of college students admit to "some cheating. "More than half of the high school students said they had" engaged in some level of plagiarism on written assignments using the Internet."2 |
1
|
|
However great may be the forces influencing students to lie or cheat, educators, at all levels and in all settings, must push back by holding students accountable and by teaching about integrity. Whatever else may be said about the scope of the problem and its causes, history teachers are especially well equipped to help students understand clearly the standards of academic honesty and to foster a sense of community that counters the forces of dishonesty. The discipline of history is based on veracity and trust, and those who teach it can assist students in developing their own integrity. |
2
|
|
A persuasive study ten years ago concluded that the factor most influential in cases of academic dishonesty was peer behavior. The researchers, Donald McCabe and Linda Klebe Trevino, conducted a sample survey of more than 6,000 students at thirty-one colleges and universities and examined the relative influence of factors such as honor codes, how clearly students understood their school's academic integrity policies, the certainty of being reported, the severity of punishment, and how honest their peers seemed to be. The studies suggested dishonesty is learned from peers and that cheating establishes a "climate" in which "the non-cheater feels left at a disadvantage." Honor codes seem to help, but only if the administration and faculty ensure that the students have "a shared understanding and acceptance of" the institution's academic integrity policies.3 |
3
|
|
A growing number of institutions hold their students to comprehensive honor codes which not only outline expectations and definitions of proper and improper actions, but spell out the price of infraction. When students clearly understand and take to heart their institution's expectations about integrity, they are better armed to evaluate and confront their peers' behavior. This kind of open understanding comes primarily from frequent and unambiguous discussion, as well as direct action when dishonesty emerges. The Center for Academic Integrity claims far too many faculty are reluctant to confront suspected cheaters, and students believe cheating is more likely in those classrooms where it is known teachers are likely to ignore it.4 Faculty who identify dishonest students but who are not supported by their administrators eventually may become reluctant enforcers of integrity. With or without formal sanction in the form of an honor code, teachers also need to raise the issue of academic honesty with their institution's administration. It might even be productive to invite an administrator to participate in a brief and informal classroom discussion about academic honesty. That would grab the students' attention. |
4
|
|
In other words, by clearly defining expectations before cheating or plagiarism happen, and taking prompt and appropriate action when they do, teachers can reduce dishonesty. We can explain academic dishonesty in syllabi, remind students about the school's honor code if it has one, specifically define terms such as plagiarism and "original research," and otherwise elaborate upon the conventions of scholarship.5 This can begin on the first day of class in going over the course goals and requirements, be repeated inside and outside the classroom, and be expanded outward to include conversations about the work of professional historians in compiling and interpreting evidence, and properly attributing sources. Teachers can make students aware of the central role of truth (with verification) and trust in historical scholarship. General readers, students, and scholars at least initially trust that the history they are reading is properly researched, attributed, and presented. Historical material should be able to stand up to critical examination and efforts to verify, but no reader can continually check all that he or she imbibes. As they ponder these matters, explore their own experiences, and add their own insights, individual students, in effect, construct their own part of the class's or school's "social contract" that defines standards of behavior for all.6 |
5
|
|
Unlike other exercises in the history classroom that stimulate students to internalize and connect with the material, standardized tests can invite perceptions that cultivate dishonesty. An AP History exam, for example, can invite an atmosphere in which the class perceives itself in competition against the test makers and the thousands of other classrooms and students taking the exam. This embedded sense of "we" versus "they" is commonly found at schools with high levels of academic dishonesty.7 Teacher guidance in readying for the standardized test may compound the problem. Emphasizing strategy about how best and most efficiently to prepare for tests rather than the historical content and skills involved, can reinforce the message that this is an impersonal test being imposed from without in which "we" are pitted against multitudes of "they." Any sense that others "out there" may cheat, will justify in students' minds both that as a class and as individuals they might be disadvantaged. In addition, those who cheat on standardized exams can rationalize their transgression as being directed not against their own teacher or school but against the large, abstract, and bureaucratic essence of the test itself. |
6
|
|
A sense of personal involvement in a history classroom and in a larger communal effort of historical research will help students weather the depersonalizing nature of standardized tests and other situations in which dishonesty might arise. History faculty can encourage students to think of themselves as learning not only about the past, but about the process and tools of historical research and interpretation, and to consider themselves new, though inexperienced, participants in an exciting intellectual venture. In learning history and thinking historically, they place themselves within a larger community of historians. A brief classroom discussion about key paragraphs from the American Historical Association's (AHA) "Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct"8 might be an illuminating starting point. A few high-stakes examples of scholarly deception, drawn from recent cases of prominent historians accused of ethical lapses also can generate memorable discussions. |
7
|
|
Students might also profit from considering how professional associations such as the AHA and the Organization of American Historians (OAH) have responded to these several high energy controversies of the past two years in which well-known historians have been accused of lying to students, plagiarizing their colleagues' work, and misrepresenting historical evidence. Just as educators expect honesty from students, students of course must be able to trust the history presented to them in the classroom. The OAH Executive Board's statement on integrity captures this reciprocal relationship and augments the AHA's "Statement" (see Appendix): |
8
|
- Honesty and integrity should undergird the work of all historians. Historians seek truth about the past in an effort to better understand historical developments and how they relate to the present and future.
- When students encounter historians in the precollegiate, community college, and university classroom, there is an implicit trust on the part of the student that the history teacher or professor will convey a truthful representation of the past when s/he is discussing historical themes, events, places, or individuals. The OAH categorically condemns lying as well as falsification and deliberate distortion in the teaching of history. Such mendacity is an ethical violation of the principle of truth on which the historical profession is based.
- Similarly, plagiarism also undermines the search for truth. Stealing another writer's work and offering it as one's own is not only a violation of law that can result in legal action, but it is an attack on the credibility of the historical profession as a whole. The OAH endorses the American Historical Association Statement on Plagiarism, amended in January 2002, and its conclusion that "All historians share responsibility for maintenance of the highest standards of intellectual integrity.... Scholarship flourishes in an atmosphere of openness and candor, which should include the scrutiny and discussion of academic deception.9
| |
|
With time already too scarce to fully cover the historical material in our courses, and with the added demands on some teachers brought by standardized testing, there hardly seems room to fit in discussions about academic honesty, research ethics, and the work of professional historians. Still, as historians and educators, we must try. It is crucial that history teachers clearly define their expectations about honesty and make plain the consequences of cheating and plagiarism. They must try to impart the value of veracity in all aspects of historical work. Students need to know this, they must hear it more than once, and they should feel involved in an ongoing conversation about integrity. As they engage with the study of the past, they can begin to see themselves as part of larger communities—classroom, institutional, and historical—with very high standards. |
9
|
|
Appendix: AHA Statement on Plagiarism
(Adopted May, 1986; amended May 1990, May 1993, May 1995, and January 2002*)
1. Identifying Plagiarism
The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal. The expropriation of another author's text, and the presentation of it as one's own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility of historical inquiry.
In addition to the harm that plagiarism does to the pursuit of truth, can also be an offense against the literary rights of the original author and the property rights of the copyright owner. Detection can therefore result not only in academic sanctions (such as dismissal from a graduate program, termination of a faculty contract, or denial of promotion or tenure) but in legal action as well. As a practical matter, plagiarism between scholars rarely goes to court, in part because legal concepts, such as infringement of copyright, are narrower than ethical standards that guide professional conduct. The real penalty for plagiarism is the abhorrence of the community of scholars.
Plgiarism includes more subtle and perhaps more pernicious abuses than simply expropriating the exact wording of another author without attribution. Plagiarism also includes the limited borrowing, without attribution, of another person's distinctive and significant research findings, hypotheses, theories, rhetorical strategies, or interpretations, or an extended borrowing even with attribution. Of course, historical knowledge is cumulative, and thus in some contexts—such as textbooks, encyclopedia articles, or broad syntheses—the form of attribution, and the permissible extent of dependence on prior scholarship, citation and other forms of attribution will differ from what is expected in more limited monographs. As knowledge is disseminated to a wide public, it loses some of its personal reference. What belongs to whom becomes less distinct. But even in textbooks a historian should acknowledge the sources of recent or distinctive findings and interpretations, those not yet a part of the common understanding of the profession, and should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings of other scholars.
Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without attribution. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others.
2. Resisting Plagiarism
All who participate in the community of inquiry, as amateurs or as professionals, as students or as established historians, have an obligation to oppose deception. This obligation bears with special weight on the directors of graduate seminars. They are critical in shaping a young historian's perception of the ethics of scholarship. It is therefore incumbent on graduate teachers to seek opportunities for making the seminar also a workshop in scholarly integrity. After leaving graduate school, every historian will have to depend primarily on vigilant self-criticism. Throughout our lives none of us can cease to question the claims our work makes and the sort of credit it grants to others.
But just as important as the self-criticism that guards us from self-deception is the formation of work habits that protect a scholar from plagiarism. The plagiarist's standard defense—that he or she was misled by hastily taken and imperfect notes—is plausible only in the context of a wider tolerance of shoddy work. A basic rule of good note-taking requires every researcher to distinguish scrupulously between exact quotation and paraphrase. A basic rule of good writing warns us against following our own paraphrased notes slavishly. When a historian simply links one paraphrase to the next, even if the sources are cited, a kind of structural misuse takes place; the writer is implicitly claiming a shaping intelligence that actually belonged to the sources. Faced with charges of failing to acknowledge dependence on certain sources, a historian usually pleads that the lapse was inadvertent. This excuse will be easily disposed of if scholars take seriously the injunction to check their manuscripts against the underlying texts prior to publication.
The second line of defense against plagiarism is organized and punitive. Every institution that includes or represents a body of scholars has an obligation to establish procedures designed to clarify and uphold their ethical standards. Every institution that employs historians bears an especially critical responsibility to maintain the integrity and reputation of its staff. This applies to government agencies, corporations, publishing firms, and public service organizations such as museums and libraries, as surely as it does to educational facilities. Usually, it is the employing institution that is expected to investigate charges of plagiarism promptly and impartially and to invoke appropriate sanctions when the charges are sustained. Penalties for scholarly misconduct should vary according to the seriousness of the offense, and the protections of due process should always apply. A persistent pattern of deception may justify public disclosure or even termination of an academic career; some scattered misappropriations may warrant only a formal reprimand.
All historians share responsibility for maintenance of the highest standards of intellectual integrity. When appraising manuscripts for publication, reviewing books, or evaluating peers for placement, promotion, and tenure, scholars must evaluate the honesty and reliability with which the historian uses primary and secondary source materials. Scholarship flourishes in an atmosphere of openness and candor, which should include the scrutiny and discussion of academic deception.
This statement is based on an earlier version prepared by
John Higham (Johns Hopkins University) and
Robert L. Zangrando (University of Akron).
Notes
1. <http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/11/2002111201n.htm>. According to the article, "the university will ask an unspecified number of applicants to provide evidence to support the claims in their admissions essays and lists of activities." The new system will discourage dishonesty and restore a sense of fairness, says the accompanying faculty report: "As the perceived stakes associated with admission to particular campuses rise...potential applicants fear that others will embellish their record and they will be disadvantaged as a result." In such an environment, where students fear they will lose out and are tempted to lie because others seem to be doing so, "the university is obligated to do whatever it can to ensure applicants and the general public that the information...is accurate." Chronicle of Higher Education, daily email edition, (Tuesday, 12 November 2002), <http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/11/2002111201n.htm>.
2. CAI Research, The Center for Academic Integrity, <http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp> (12 November 2002).
3. McCabe, Donald L. and Trevino, Linda Klebe. "Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences," Journal of Higher Education, 64, issue 5 (September–October 1993): 522–538.
4. The Center for Academic Integrity has found in surveys involving 48 different college campuses that academic honor codes effectively reduce cheating, with the incidence being 30%–50% lower at institutions with honor codes versus those without. CAI Research, The Center for Academic Integrity, <http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp> (12 November 2002).
5. The first four of thirteen "possible solutions" offered by Professor Robert Hauptman in the November–December 2002 issue of Academe article (page 44), "Dishonesty in the Academy," all have to do with taking time in and out of class to educate students about academic dishonesty and ethics, as well as the specific conventions of research and rules of scholarship.
6. McCabe and Trevino refer to Lawrence Kohlberg's notion of "just community" in his "High School Democracy and Educating for a Just Society." In Moral Education: A First Generation of Research and Development, edited by Ralph L. Mosher, pp. 20–57. (New York: Praeger, 1980); and, "The Just Community Approach to Moral Education in Theory and Practice." In Moral Education: Theory and Application, edited by Marvin W. Berkowitz and Fritz Oser, pp. 27–88. (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates, 1985).
7. McCabe and Trevino, "Academic Dishonesty," page 535.
8. The statement is available online at <http://www.historians.org/pubs/standard.htm>
9. OAH Executive Board "Statement on Honesty and Integrity," OAH Newsletter, May 2002, p. 14. <http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2002may/execbd-sp02.html>.
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|