Here’s a common problem in academic writing. You’re writing an introductory section to an article or a chapter, and need to include some basic background information, say, on how a particular institution was organized, or the order in which certain events took place. You find the information you need in a reputable secondary source, where it is written out in two or three nicely clear and economical sentences. So how do you proceed? A good principle of academic writing is to keep direct quotations to a minimum, as they break up the text and make it less readable. This is all the more true for introductory sections, where a great deal of the material is essentially common knowledge. Quote too much and your text becomes an off-putting mosaic of apostrophes (e.g., “the French Revolution, ‘which began with the convocation of the Estates General in 1789,’ and quickly led to ‘violent attacks on the old social order,’ and ‘had important ramifications for international affairs,’” etc. etc. etc.). Save the direct quotations for when you are referencing an important, original idea or discovery and need to give due credit to the author in question. Instead, an acceptable procedure is to paraphrase the author’s language, while adding a footnote to his or her work where appropriate. The problem, though, is that the author may have already found one of the best possible ways to express the information. In paraphrasing, you yourself have to struggle to find language which is both different, and not markedly worse. It’s a tiresome, if unavoidable task. I’d be surprised if any of the academics reading this have not engaged in it from time to time.
I looked at these passages and Id agree with Dan Gordon that the brevity of the passages and the lack of any substantive content to the passages makes this trivial.
Rufo also claims there are data tables in her appendix that are taken from her advisor's work. This demonstrateshow Rufo is in over his head. Its quite likely that as a doc student she worked on the same data set, or perhaps helped compile it or possibky compiled most of it. Sharing sata sets is common in social sciences (and digital humanities work). Usually its indicates by identifying co-authors, and that of course is not impossible in a dissertation. Rufo concedes that she did attribute the data to the original source. So in that case its just not plagiarism.
However I agree that the refusal to address the issue is disappointing. We can expect more from the putative highest ranking academic in the country than just "crisis communications."
As someone who began my academic career with an article on Hannah Crafts’s ‘borrowing’ from Charles Dickens I agree that the why and the explanation are needed now.
I spent 45 years as a newspaper journalist (admittedly, I was a sports writer) and I have always been interested in writing and how writers tell their stories. After reading your story, I have some (admittedly) generalized thoughts.
1. It would appear that those who write academic papers perhaps needed to take a few writing courses.
2. The issue you site in your opening paragraph is interesting, but seems easily solved. To simply copy/paste a few paragraphs IS plagiarism. If those paragraphs are information/fact based, I see no problem in handling it like this: As Sally Smith pointed out regarding (blah, blah, blah), "yada, yada, yada." If quote marks/direct quotations are considered taboo in academic works, then I think that academic works and how they're assessed needs reassessment.
3. Regardless the topic and the information being dispensed, writing that is dry and boring isn't the way to go. The writing doesn't need to be a Seinfeld script, but if the author is interested in keeping his readers' interest, the words need a flow. And I disagree that quotations/quotes impeded flow.
4. I was taught that each paragraph should be limited to one thought/idea/opinion. In newspapers, the rule of thumb was that paragraphs should range from 35 to 50 words. There is an aesthetic aspect. Particularly in this digital/internet age, a paragraph that fills one screen is a huge blob of words.
To that end, Mr. Hall: Your interesting and informative paragraph contained 277 words. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE consider increasing your use of the "enter" key and breaking up some Your story was 1,090 words and contained just eight paragraphs. This is just my opinion, but longer paragraphs don't equate to better writing.
This is absolutely fascinating. You’ve risen above party differences and given your own scholarly assessment. I had arrived at a different place based on my reading of some of the passages, where I thought the repetition of language was trivial. But you have made me reconsider. I’m gonna share this widely.
I looked at these passages and Id agree with Dan Gordon that the brevity of the passages and the lack of any substantive content to the passages makes this trivial.
Rufo also claims there are data tables in her appendix that are taken from her advisor's work. This demonstrateshow Rufo is in over his head. Its quite likely that as a doc student she worked on the same data set, or perhaps helped compile it or possibky compiled most of it. Sharing sata sets is common in social sciences (and digital humanities work). Usually its indicates by identifying co-authors, and that of course is not impossible in a dissertation. Rufo concedes that she did attribute the data to the original source. So in that case its just not plagiarism.
However I agree that the refusal to address the issue is disappointing. We can expect more from the putative highest ranking academic in the country than just "crisis communications."
As someone who began my academic career with an article on Hannah Crafts’s ‘borrowing’ from Charles Dickens I agree that the why and the explanation are needed now.
Sir:
I spent 45 years as a newspaper journalist (admittedly, I was a sports writer) and I have always been interested in writing and how writers tell their stories. After reading your story, I have some (admittedly) generalized thoughts.
1. It would appear that those who write academic papers perhaps needed to take a few writing courses.
2. The issue you site in your opening paragraph is interesting, but seems easily solved. To simply copy/paste a few paragraphs IS plagiarism. If those paragraphs are information/fact based, I see no problem in handling it like this: As Sally Smith pointed out regarding (blah, blah, blah), "yada, yada, yada." If quote marks/direct quotations are considered taboo in academic works, then I think that academic works and how they're assessed needs reassessment.
3. Regardless the topic and the information being dispensed, writing that is dry and boring isn't the way to go. The writing doesn't need to be a Seinfeld script, but if the author is interested in keeping his readers' interest, the words need a flow. And I disagree that quotations/quotes impeded flow.
4. I was taught that each paragraph should be limited to one thought/idea/opinion. In newspapers, the rule of thumb was that paragraphs should range from 35 to 50 words. There is an aesthetic aspect. Particularly in this digital/internet age, a paragraph that fills one screen is a huge blob of words.
To that end, Mr. Hall: Your interesting and informative paragraph contained 277 words. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE consider increasing your use of the "enter" key and breaking up some Your story was 1,090 words and contained just eight paragraphs. This is just my opinion, but longer paragraphs don't equate to better writing.
Best regards.
Always good. Many thanks for the clear and, I’m sure, too familiar analysis.
This is absolutely fascinating. You’ve risen above party differences and given your own scholarly assessment. I had arrived at a different place based on my reading of some of the passages, where I thought the repetition of language was trivial. But you have made me reconsider. I’m gonna share this widely.