Plagiarism needs more attention<\/p>\n
By Ignas Keleden<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles exploring academic life in
\nIndonesia taking a clue from the recent case of alleged
\nplagiarism by a student of a respected university.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The recent alleged case of academic plagiarism
\nat the Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University deserves more
\nattention than it has been given.<\/p>\n
Apart from the violation of academic ethics, the case cannot
\nbe attributed only to the accused but to the whole academic
\ncommunity.<\/p>\n
Plagiarism has at least three aspects. First, it can be seen
\nas a structural problem, second, as a cultural problem, and
\nthird, as an individual problem.<\/p>\n
The structural problem refers to the whole structure of
\nacademic relations, which enable or prevent such a case from
\noccurring. The cultural problem refers to the introduction and
\nimplementation of academic convention in general and the
\nconvention of writing a scientific work in particular. The
\nindividual problem hints at the personal situation of the
\nsuspect.<\/p>\n
Press reports say that Drs. Suyono M.S., a graduate student,
\nwrote a master's degree thesis about political socialization, as
\nconducted at secondary schools in Indonesia. An undergraduate
\nstudent of a private university in Surabaya, Dra. Siswati,
\nlearned of this thesis from a report in a Gadjah Mada University
\nperiodical and noticed that the title of the work looked similar
\nwith that of her own.<\/p>\n
After a close examination, both Siswati and her supervisor,
\nDr. Ramlan Soerbakti, found more similarities in the research
\nquestion chosen, the methodology applied, as well as the main
\nfindings of the study. Many sentences are even quite identical.<\/p>\n
Soerbakti then sent a letter to the Gadjah Mada University's
\ndepartment of political science. The university responded by
\nsetting up a committee to investigate the case.<\/p>\n
Another interesting fact is that Suyono, when asked by the
\npress, said he knew nothing about the undergraduate's thesis in
\nSurabaya. This implies that, given some major similarities
\nbetween the two works, they must be a mere coincidence.<\/p>\n
Evidently the case has a structural linkage. Students who want
\nto write their theses are required to have an overview of
\nprevious works done on the subject.<\/p>\n
This review serves two purposes. On the one hand, it is aimed
\nat providing the state of the art in the study and research of a
\nparticular subject matter. Such a survey usually consists of a
\nbibliographic review, or overview, which shows that other studies
\nof the same subject should be known, appreciated, or criticized.
\nAcademic work is based on academic tradition, and one cannot
\nstart writing a thesis on a certain subject as if he is the first
\nto give attention to such a problem area.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, with such a background knowledge of what
\nhas been done before, a student can delineate his research
\nquestion in such a way that both the findings he will attain, or
\nthe perspective he is going to use, and the methodology he wants
\nto apply, might give another contribution to all the works which
\nhave been done before.<\/p>\n
The contribution can be seen both in terms of content and
\nmethod. Content wise, it might be a positive addition to previous
\nfindings, or it might partly or totally reject the previous
\nfindings, or give a new interpretation to the previous findings.
\nWith regard to method, it can introduce a new method to deal with
\nthe research problem, or show weaknesses of the previous methods
\nused.<\/p>\n
The highest level of achievement is attained if one is able to
\nlift up a level of discourse, in which the study conducted and
\nthe subject investigated are treated in a totally new way, which
\nopens a totally new world of investigation and demonstrates a
\ntotally new way of looking at things. In that case, one
\ncontributes to the foundation of a new level of discourse,
\nresulting in the so-called paradigm shift.<\/p>\n
However, the above requirement can be satisfactorily met if
\nthere is a good center of academic information. In the early
\n1970s the Indonesian Institute of Sciences in Jakarta published a
\nbulletin entitled Index of Indonesian Learned Periodicals,
\ncontaining the most important scientific publications in
\nIndonesian periodicals and magazines. This index was published
\nonce a year.<\/p>\n
If a student is required to have an overview of the related
\nstudies which have been done in their field of study, it follows
\nthat there must be an information center which collects the most
\nimportant research conducted within a year.<\/p>\n
This sort of information center, or good library, is lacking
\nin most of the universities. This situation has developed to the
\nextent that information about the research and studies of other
\nmembers of academic communities in Indonesia can be obtained only
\nthrough personal relations, not through institutional relations.<\/p>\n
In order for such a center of scientific information to exist,
\ntwo conditions must be fulfilled. First, the studies conducted by
\nIndonesian scholars and students should be regularly published.
\nSecond, there should be one or several institutions which
\nspecialize in documenting, classifying, indexing and, if
\npossible, abstracting such publications.<\/p>\n
If this is not done, we have no reasons to blame our students
\nwho happen to have no idea of what has been done by other
\nscholars. There is also no reason to complain if there happen to
\nbe some studies which are only repetitious in both the theme and
\nmethod, because there are no sources to consult with, which
\nenable a comparison with other related studies conducted before.<\/p>\n
If the Indonesian academia wants to push a higher quality of
\nlearning and research, this can only be done if it is supported
\nby systematic documentation, which, again, is enabled by regular
\npublications made accessible to the members of the academic
\ncommunity.<\/p>\n
It is common knowledge that Indonesian academia is very poor
\nin this regard. If we want to build the academia according to
\nminimum international standards, an information center for
\nresearch findings and a related library should be made available
\nand accessible to university students.<\/p>\n
In fact there is nothing new in what has been said above,
\nsince research is one job which is assigned to the academia by
\nthe Indonesian government. In academic terms, research should be
\nconducted according to the minimum academic criteria, whereby the
\nprerequisites for such criteria should be fulfilled. Otherwise,
\nwe use the label \"research\" to signify other sorts of businesses,
\nthat have very little to do with the academic performance and the
\nprogress of knowledge, which become the very reason why research
\nshould be conducted and promoted at all.<\/p>\n
Besides the structural aspect, research also has its cultural
\naspect, which makes up the so-called academic ethos. When a
\ngraduate student writes a thesis, it is usually done in
\ncooperation with, and under the guidance of a supervisor.
\nTherefore, the thesis can be seen as a result which reflects the
\nindividual academic achievement of a student and the quality of
\nthe supervision provided to them by the supervisor.<\/p>\n
In the case of Suyono, we can proceed from two possibilities:
\neither he wrote the thesis by himself, without reading the thesis
\nfrom Surabaya beforehand, or he has read it and made use of the
\nmaterials of the thesis without attribution, which is required by
\nacademic conventions.<\/p>\n
If the former is the case, then we are faced with the
\ndifficulties posed by many striking similarities between the two
\nworks, as reported by the press so far. How can we account for
\nthe fact that the research question, the methodology applied and
\nthe formulation of research findings are so similar. Besides, it
\nis hard to believe that many identical sentences are merely a
\ncoincidence. However, to do justice to the student, we have to
\nwait for the findings of the committee.<\/p>\n
If the latter is the case, this must have been detected before
\nthe completion of the thesis; during the supervision and
\nperiodical consultations. On such occasions, the supervisor
\nusually raises critical questions about the reasons for taking a
\nparticular research question, why a particular method is used,
\nand how the student has come to the findings and conclusion. If
\nit was plagiarized, we could imagine that the student concerned
\nmust have been in great difficulties when answering the questions
\nabout things he has not produced himself, as well as the
\nscientific procedure he did not go through. In other words,
\ndishonesty must have been uncovered and established.<\/p>\n
This implies that the quality of a thesis reflects not just
\nthe student's individual performance and personal achievement,
\nbut also the quality of academic guidance and consultation
\nprovided by a certain department and the academia in general.<\/p>\n
In such consultations, the supervisor assumes the role of an
\nagent of \"organized skepticism\", namely, the obligation to pay
\nattention to the work of other members of the academic community,
\nby giving their appreciation, comments and criticisms, which put
\nthe work in comparison with other similar works.<\/p>\n
This is a general rule, whose exceptions must not necessarily
\nbe ignored, whereby a very strong and intelligent student can go
\nhis way with self-confidence while persuading their supervisor to
\napprove it.<\/p>\n
The point is, the behavior of students in the learning and
\nwriting of their theses cannot be seen independently from the
\nquestion as to whether and to what extent academic conventions,
\nas a subculture in an academic community, has been encouraged and
\npromoted, or discouraged and neglected within the Indonesian
\nacademia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/plagiarism-needs-more-attention-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}