Plagiarism, Intertextuality and Emergent Authorship in University Students’ Academic Writing Celia Helen Thompson, University of Melbourne Although most universities have now developed websites which offer advice on how to deal with plagiarism, the information provided tends to focus on the mechanics of referencing in academic text construction and on universal notions of concepts such as ‘academic honesty.’1 Little or no attention is given to providing guidance on questions concerning the politics of text/knowledge creation and emergent authorship; issues surrounding what might constitute common knowledge or writer identity are also commonly not considered, yet all of these factors are fundamental to the processes involved in the construction of academic writing. In this paper I present two case studies selected from a larger research project, that examined the ways in which students from a range of linguistic and disciplinary backgrounds used the words and ideas of the authors of their source texts in their research-based assignments. I discuss interviews with, and the written assignments of, Kirsty and Georgia, two student writers whose first languages are Norwegian and Cantonese, respectively.2 I also explore the interview comments of Rodney and Celine, the academic staff members responsible for assessing the students’ writing. Drawing on Kristeva’s writing on intertextuality and the subject-in-process-and-on-trial (1986; 1996), and the work of Penrose and Geisler on the construction of knowledge 1 See for example: Duke University Libraries: Citing sources [online resources]. 2 The names of all research participants have been changed. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, January 2009. ‘The Space Between: Languages, Translations and Cultures’: Special Issue edited by Vera Mackie, Ikuko Nakane, and Emi Otsuji. ISSN: 1449-2490: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/portal. PORTAL is published under the auspices of UTSePress, Sydney, Australia. Thompson Plagiarism, Intertextuality, and Emergent Authorship (1994), my analysis reveals that Kirsty and Georgia are highly aware of the political and opaque nature of textual relations. In addition, they are confused by the prevailing notion of authorship as unified and autonomous, since it fails to conceptualise subjectivity and writer identity as sociohistorically constructed and multi-voiced. I also demonstrate the need to move away from a reductionist theory of text/knowledge construction that frames textual ownership only in terms of ‘academic honesty.’ Finally, in order to gain a deeper understanding of how textual construction and ownership relates to student development, writer identity and the politics of emergent- authorship, I explore the value of discussing plagiarism and the creation of text/knowledge as dialogical (see Bakhtin 1981; 1984; 1986). As has been argued elsewhere (Thompson & Pennycook 2008a), it is only by understanding how students enter into dialogue with their source texts, as well as with their lecturers, that we can assist students in their struggle to claim ownership over the text/knowledge they produce for the academy. ‘I didn’t reference this because … I’d read it in so many places’ Kirsty was born in Norway, speaks English as an additional language and was in her early twenties at the time of her interview. She had been studying Modern History at a major Australian university for seven months as part of a year-long student exchange scheme and was in her second semester. She had studied English for six years and had already undertaken two years of university study in Norway, where she majored in Anthropology, before arriving in Australia. The assignment she submitted for this research was for a first year subject in Modern European History and was the first she had completed in Australia. The title of her essay was: ‘Were social movements such as civil rights and feminism a product of the Long Boom?’ The 4,000 word assignment was completed at the end of Kirsty’s first semester of study in Australia and comprised the only assessment for the subject. In her interview, Kirsty commented on the importance of attribution, suggesting that a failure to reference work that had been published ‘is like stealing someone else’s thoughts and ideas and make them your own,’ although she also felt that this might be considered less important at undergraduate level. Nevertheless, Kirsty stated with some certainty that she believed that students, or she herself, sometimes used sources without referring to the ‘original’ author. She proposed two reasons for this: first, it was possible PORTAL, vol. 6, no. 1, January 2009. 2 Thompson Plagiarism, Intertextuality, and Emergent Authorship to forget the source of a text; second, the author of the source text might already have been referred to ‘too many times.’ She added: ‘Most students from time to time forget to refer everything 100% right,’ or are unsure how to reference appropriately. It is evident that there is some confusion for Kirsty over exactly how to write while, as she put it, ‘having your own voice’ and being ‘coloured from your own perspective’ yet, at the same time, ‘not referencing to yourself.’ Kirsty attempts to confront the dilemma of how to create a sense of authorial presence and textual ownership in her writing without the formal trappings of the referencing conventions associated with authorship. She felt that as a student-writer she struggled to ‘get (her) voice in’ and lacked the authority to make unsupported claims in her writing: ‘You can’t just write a page about what you think and feel about things without references to other people as well.’ Kirsty stated that she often became confused about exactly where the language she used in her assignments originated, saying that it was easier to ‘make it your own words’ if the author used ‘difficult words’ compared with authors who might use ‘simple and good sentences.’ In the case of the latter, it was more difficult ‘to make it your sentence.’ In such instances, said Kirsty, ‘sometimes I maybe write every word. Cheat.’ Thus ‘writ(ing) every word’ for Kirsty may also be a survival strategy, like that reported for students in several other studies into academic writing (Angélil-Carter 2000; Currie 1998; Howard 1999). Although this portrayal of herself as a ‘cheat’ conflicts with Kirsty’s comments above about the need to reference work that has been published, it highlights the kind of struggle that characterises her efforts to engage with the processes of academic text/knowledge production. Kirsty added: ‘I think I reference more now than I did,’ thus indicating the developmental nature of academic text construction and emergent-authorship. Kirsty explained that the main argument of her assignment (‘that the economic development in Western countries was the predominant factor in the rise of feminism in the late 1960s’), ‘came out of the research,’ although she felt that she had simultaneously had the idea from the start, then ‘read quite a lot about it and quite a lot of books supported that view.’ Kirsty added that she knew she had to ‘argue something’ and that it was easy to justify this claim. In the second paragraph of her essay (see Figure 1), she stated: PORTAL, vol. 6, no. 1, January 2009. 3 Thompson Plagiarism, Intertextuality, and Emergent Authorship Kirsty (p. 1, paragraph 2) This essay will argue that the economic development in Western countries was the predominant factor in the rise of feminism in the late 1960s and that.* Social movements cannot be seen in isolation from their historical context; the economic boom created a social environment where women had to define their new role. Feminism was a response to this new position. (*Kirsty’s marker noted on her essay that this sentence was incomplete) Figure 1: Kirsty’s Assignment Extract 13 Kirsty described the background to three of the propositions that she made in the above paragraph. Firstly, that ‘Social movements cannot be seen in isolation from their historical context,’ was a point that her History lecturer used to make and she had included it in her essay because she ‘just thought it looked good.’ The following two propositions: ‘the economic boom created a social environment where women had to define their new role’ and ‘Feminism was a response to this new position,’ originated she said, from the reading she undertook for the essay. Kirsty had therefore not felt it necessary to reference any of these propositions because she had encountered them in the course of her classes and also throughout her readings; they had become, she said ‘a common knowledge.’ She added: ‘You’re not trying to cheat, but maybe you don’t know how to reference it, or maybe you thought already you’d referenced it somewhere else and you don’t have to do it again. It’s quite a hard thing.’ The three sentences in Figure 1 earned Kirsty two ticks as signs of commendation from Rodney, her marker. Kirsty discussed other instances of ‘common’ knowledge stating that she had not provided a footnote for the phrase ‘the Marxist theory’ (see Figure 2) because it was from ‘the lecture,’ and would therefore, she believed, require no attribution. Kirsty (p. 8, paragraph 1, extract) There were two influential theories behind the movement (the new ideology of feminism); the Marxist analyses and the liberalization approach. The Marxist theory argued that underlying economic structures, created by the upper class, were the major reason for the oppression of women, as well as of other marginal groups. Women had to fight these economic structures to gain equality with men. The liberalization theory was more concerned about civil and political rights. Figure 2: Kirsty’s Assignment Extract 2 She was less clear about whether she should have sourced the expression ‘baby-boom,’ an expression she first introduced on page three of her essay (see Figure 3), then proceeded to use it without punctuation markers on several subsequent occasions: 3 The extracts provided from students’ assignments have not been edited.