Ginny,
Sharing knowledge is a longstanding tradition in academia. It has long
been the norm in science, and other disciplines have taken their cues from
science. Although there always have been a few rogues who take credit for
work that is not theirs, I continue to believe that the vast majority of
academic researches abhor such conduct and would not engage in it
themselves. I just hope I'm not naive. I do believe that this is a
fruitful avenue for discussion.
John
At 08:53 AM 10/3/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm weighing in with the "what plagiarism?" school of thought. I've
>never been aware that plagiarism was a problem in the ALSB, and
>anyway it is so easily detectible, especially in an electronic age, that
>it's hard to see how it could be much of a problem.
>
>Peter's thoughts on "sharing" are intriguing. When one presents an
>idea - the thesis of the paper, for example - at an academic
>meeting, it becomes part of the body of knowledge. That does not
>disturb the obligation of all to credit the author with the idea and
>contribution. Perhaps it is the "taking" of ideas that is more
>troublesome than the copying of text and notes. The solution to that
>is to present well-developed ideas that are well on their way to
>widespread dissemination. But this concern does not seem new,
>and the effect of rapid transmission of ideas seems to cut both ways.
>
>The other concern might be that presenting a paper on a subject
>that reflects one's hard-won research efforts gives others writing in
>the subject a short-cut to the sources one has used. But, as Peter
>observes, that's what academia is about, that's why universities
>subsidize the research we do: So that we contribute to the body of
>knowledge and increase human knowledge. If our research efforts
>help other researchers find the best ideas and evidence for ideas
>that they, too, can use, then we're doing what we're supposed to do.
>I guess that from the standpoint of academic self-preservation, it has
>always made sense to try out nascent thoughts on a smaller group
>of trusted people who won't take the idea and run with it before you
>have a chance to get it on paper and into print.
>
>Help me: Is this a set of values and understandings that are widely
>shared? Is this a valuable line of discussion?
>
>Ginny
>
>
>
> Date sent: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:57:31 +0100
>Send reply to: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
> <[log in to unmask]>
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: papers, diskettes
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>What a subtle debate is being developed here - between the sharing
>community that is (no?) the very reason for the existence of the Academy
>and the trembling fear of theft!
>
>I think I'd be more worried about the mindset of anyone who wanted to nick
>my stuff!!!
>
>hey ho
>
>autumn draws on - trousers too.
>
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>___________________
>
>Peter Shears
>Director of Professional Studies
>Department of Accountancy & Law
>Plymouth Business School
>University of Plymouth
>Drake Circus
>Plymouth
>PL4 8AA
>England
>
>Tel 01752 23 28 22 (desk)
>Tel 01752 23 28 55 (message)
>Fax 01752 23 28 53
>
>INTERNET (MIME accepted): [log in to unmask]
>
>PAGER: numbers or up to about 15 words: 04325 382541
>
>
>
>
> Frank Cross
> <[log in to unmask] To:
>[log in to unmask]
> EDU> cc:
> Sent by: "Academy of Subject: Re: papers,
>diskettes
> Legal Studies in
> Business (ALSB)
> Talk"
> <[log in to unmask]
> UOHIO.EDU>
>
>
> 02/10/00 02:04
> Please respond to
> "Academy of Legal
> Studies in Business
> (ALSB) Talk"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Sounds good to me Ginnie.
>
>I'm a little concerned about the plagiarism concern. Unless somebody's
>got actual knowledge of it's occurrence, I don't think the assertion
>should be mentioned. If they do have actual knowledge, I think it's fair
>to provide specifics. I find it highly unlikely that this is a legitimate
>concern.
>
>
>At 06:49 PM 10/2/2000 EST, you wrote:
>>Hi list --
>>
>>Many thanks for all these reactions and ideas.
>>
>>Here's my [as usual] long-winded set of thoughts, which as program
>>chair I guess I'll implement unless between now and then a better
>>idea comes along or the executive committee really doesn't like it.
>>
>>My inclination is continue the requirement that at least some number
>>of hard copies be brought to the paper session because I think
>>some substantial part of our membership expects to touch and feel
>>hard copy when they hear a paper. It is also a sort of a "statute of
>>frauds" - like thing -- maintaining a high quality of papers was a
>>major major concern in the membership survey, and I wonder about
>>the effects of not needing to produce a hard copy at all would have
>>on quality, since we do not require advance submission of the paper
>>in most cases but referee from the abstract.
>>
>>The rest of my inclination -- at least as a first departure from
>>tradition -- is to let the paper presenter decide how to handle extra
>>copies beyond X required number of hard copies (5? 10?). The
>>presenter could keep bringing 25 hard copies or bring X hard
>>copies + 25 - X diskette versions. Maybe someday we'll be able to
>>install airports and just zap them to the audience's laptops as we
>>speak, so to speak. [aside: Our son has installed an airport in our
>>house; the DSL line will be installed Thursday; wireless high speed
>>internet service from anywhere in the house and the yard, including
>>under the magnolias. Does everybody else already have this and I
>>am just behind the times, as usual, or is this cool ???]
>>
>>A table for sale of papers idea would be attractive if we had the
>>person power to do it. It would make it a little harder to obtain a copy
>>of a paper one has seen presented. And, alas, we might be throwing
>>out more paper than we do now.
>>
>>The web site poses some issues like the one Royce raised. Having
>>the proceedings on the web would not pose those problems. Maybe
>>it is on the web. Maybe I ought to know. Help, Dan.
>>
>>The common computer scenario raises virus issues, I am told. We
>>had thought that seemed like an excellent solution.
>>
>>I'm a little surprised by the plagiarism concerns, too. Another reason
>>for omitting footnotes (which I have done) is to keep the length and
>>weight reasonable, and footnotes shouldn't be all that important to
>>the casual reader at a meeting. Those concerned about having their
>>footnotes napstered (see, it's a verb now -- I napster, you napster,
>>he napsters, we napster, ya'll napster, they napster) can do text-only
>>electronic versions.
>>
>>Will this model be acceptable to the membership?
>>
>>Ginny
>>
>Frank Cross
>Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
>CBA 5.202
>University of Texas at Austin
>Austin, TX 78712
|
