Plagiarism needs more attention (2)<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
This is the second of two articles exploring academic life in
\nIndonesia vis a vis the recent case of alleged plagiarism at a
\nrespected university.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The question looming large in academic circles
\nis how to treat the subculture of academia given the society in
\nwhich it exists.<\/p>\n
The old belief of philosophical rationalism -- wherever modern
\nscience comes in, the mythological and metaphysical world views
\nwill disappear -- no longer holds true. Despite the rapid
\ndevelopment of the sciences in many non-western countries, old
\nworld views persist.<\/p>\n
Is it possible to treat older cultural values more selectively
\nin order to give more room to the development of an academic
\nsubculture?<\/p>\n
How can we push for more openness, especially in the academic
\nworld, if we are burdened with the traditional obligation to be
\npolite and quiet towards our seniors?<\/p>\n
How can we encourage criticism if standing behind our
\narguments is treated as idle vanity or unnecessary provocation?<\/p>\n
These questions need to be considered if we are to find a
\nsolution or some sort of modus vivendi beneficial to academic
\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n
The choice is limited: either we give preference to the
\nacademic subculture by means of modifying some traditional
\nvalues, or we give preference to our traditional values by means
\nof compromising basic academic values.<\/p>\n
In the first case, we'll have to suffer from some feelings of
\ncultural insecurity. However, we will build our academia on a
\nbasis which is comparable with and acceptable by international
\nstandards. In the second case, we retain our cultural security
\nwhile sacrificing some basic academic values, ending in a sort of
\nscientific syncretism that may be distant from international
\nstandards.<\/p>\n
In our case, the standard-setting which pertains to the
\nwriting of a thesis can be discerned in two related facts. First,
\nthe thesis in Yogyakarta was written for a master's degree,
\nwhereas that in Surabaya was written at the undergraduate level.
\nSecond, the work written at Gadjah Mada University received an A
\ngrade, whereas the undergraduate thesis in Surabaya received a C.<\/p>\n
From these two facts, the whole standard-setting of writing
\nand approving a thesis is brought into bold relief.<\/p>\n
Can we assume that the academic community in Indonesia has
\ncriteria to judge the quality of a work submitted? This question
\nshould be discussed seriously regardless of whether or not the
\nplagiarism did or did not take place.<\/p>\n
Needless to say, the important role of structural as well
\ncultural factors cannot cancel or nullify the individual
\nresponsibility and personal integrity of a student. A thesis is
\nwritten proof that a student is able to work independently and
\nhas intellectual autonomy.<\/p>\n
Of course, there are different levels of autonomy, the highest
\nof which is attained if someone is able to submit a Ph. D thesis
\nor a thesis at the same level. Every piece of academic work is
\nsupposed to be treated as the result of one's own capacity both
\nin terms of intellectual maturation and academic education as
\nwell as personal integrity and moral responsibility.<\/p>\n
As a result, plagiarism is seen as a betrayal of all the
\nvirtues mentioned above.<\/p>\n
First of all, not only does it not recognize or appreciate the
\nwork of other academics, but it denies that the work plagiarized
\nhas been written at all. It is a violation of intellectual
\nproperty rights par excellence.<\/p>\n
Second, it gives recognition to someone who does not deserve
\nit.<\/p>\n
Third, with regard to the plagiarist, it is a blatant
\nviolation of personal integrity and moral responsibility.<\/p>\n
It must be made clear to a student how an academic work should
\nbe written. It goes without saying that in science, work builds
\non works, books on books and knowledge on knowledge. Nobody
\nstarts from zero. However, respect must be paid to academic
\nconventions, which are established to differentiate between the
\nmaterials one makes use of, and those one claims to discover.<\/p>\n
How to make a citation, how to refer to a source, or how to
\nparaphrase an important sentence of another author as well how to
\nacknowledge all the substantial contributions one has received
\nfrom other colleagues are relatively well regulated in academic
\nconventions.<\/p>\n
If those conventions are not familiar to a student, he might
\nplagiarize unwittingly, for example, by forgetting to mention the
\nsource and the author quoted.<\/p>\n
There are at least two sorts of plagiarism: that which is
\ncommitted due to ignorance of academic conventions, and that
\ncommitted in spite of academic conventions. In theological terms,
\nthe former case leads to a sin of omission, and the latter to a
\nsin of commission.<\/p>\n
However, the statement given so far by the graduate student in
\nYogyakarta needs some comment. He has stated that, first, he had
\nno idea of the work written previously in Surabaya and never read
\nit before embarking upon his own thesis. Second, he felt so sorry
\nabout the response of his colleague in Surabaya who brought the
\ncase to the public, without trying to first settle it on a
\npersonal basis.<\/p>\n
We are obliged to leave the first thing to the committee which
\nhas been convened to scrutinize the case. However, the second
\npoint reflects a misleading perception of what plagiarism is all
\nabout.<\/p>\n
Plagiarism is not a matter of a personal relationship between
\ntwo students; rather, it is a matter which involves the whole
\nacademic community and thus a public affair. Assuming that the
\ntwo students have discussed the case in a personal atmosphere, it
\nwill not justify the handling of the case on a merely personal
\nbasis.<\/p>\n
If the case is covered up and not brought to the public, it
\nwill be only more detrimental to the whole academic community
\nbecause it transgresses the two principles formulated by Robert
\nMerton, an American sociologist, namely the principle of academic
\ncommunity and the principle of organized skepticism.<\/p>\n
With regard to the former principle, both achievements and
\nfailures should be made accessible to an academic community. With
\nregard to the second principle, we should enable the whole
\nacademic community to look into the case in order to find out how
\nfar academic conventions are obeyed or violated, and the extent
\nto which basic ethical values are known and followed.<\/p>\n
Public intervention is needed in order to show that Indonesian
\nacademia treats ethical principles of academia seriously. There
\nmight be a long way to go before Indonesian universities can
\nbecome centers of excellence, but a few wrong measures could turn
\nour beloved academia into a center of bad jokes.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist now working at the SPES Foundation
\nResearch Center.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/plagiarism-needs-more-attention-2-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}