APA | MbAlog

I contributed the following to the Walden University Writing Centre Facebook Discussion in response to a question pertaining to citing personal communications. Even if you’re not a Walden University doctoral student, you can appreciate how the Foundations course (first course in all Walden doctoral programmes), RSCH 8100 (introductory Research Theory and Design course), and RSCH 8200 (continuation of research design, aligning quantitative designs with appropriate statistical analyses) develop and refine our academic writing skills.

During the initial three months of Foundations, we struggle to find our academic voice, support arguments with scholarly material, and cite it appropriately. During the second three months, in RSCH 8100,

One thing that I found is that during Foundations, everyone is trying to find their–and their prof’s–comfort zones when it comes to citing personal communications or discussion posts. After Foundations, RSCH 8100, and RSCH 8200 discussions, I found that–perhaps due to the awkward URLs for eCollege posts or focusing more on developing the ideas in a response rather than quoting what material the response refers to–actual discussion post and “personal communications” citations were much more infrequent after nine months of posts and responses. (I still believe that more common discussion forum scripts, such as phpBB or vBulletin–which preserve font and formatting codes–would have facilitated learning and applying APA. Being able to format headers, block quotations, reference lists, and bold/italics would have reinforced their appropriate use.) Just to give you an idea of how awkward some Foundations discussion posts were, here’s a quote from an AMDS 8008 post in October, 2009:

The KAM’s could provide the basis of what the student will like to use on the dissertation but since the dissertation is at least 3 years from now how do you know that the theme is still relevant or even if it still your area of interest (Korrapati, 2009). According to Dr. Korrapati (2009), the KAM will allow you to grow and find what is really what will be your research interest. Reference: Korrapati, R. (2009). Walden residency personal consultation. Jacksonville, Fl.

Progressing through RSCH 8100 (Winter, 2010), I suspect that the same post would instead have presented a reference from our research design text (Creswell, in 8100; Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias–arguably a more useful text once the introductory material is out of the way, in 8200):

Gagnon, Jansen, and Michael (2008) begin their article with a survey of previous research and use these findings, Creswell (2009) suggests, to propose a series of hypotheses: “Use the literature in a quantitative study deductively, as a basis for advancing research questions or hypotheses.” Whereas qualitative designs often use open-ended techniques to collect data to identify emergent themes, this study proposed a priori hypotheses, appropriate variables to test and model them, and structured surveys to collect these data.

By RSCH 8200 (Spring, 2010), I had become more comfortable simply asserting my interpretation of a concept without relying on direct quotations, supported by citation:

In cases of such extremely disparate distributions, even minimum sample sizes for valid analyses may not even exist; thus, disproportionate stratified sampling is occasionally the most appropriate sampling method (Chakrapani & Deal, 1992).

References

Chakrapani, C., & Deal, K. (1992). Marketing Research: Methods and Canadian Practice. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall Canada, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd Edition.Los Angeles: . Sage Publications/MBS, 082008.

Gagnon, M. A., Jansen, K. J., & Michael, J. H. (2008). Employee alignment with strategic change: A study of strategy-supportive behaviour among blue-collar employees. Journal of Managerial Issues. XX(4): 425-43.

The following exerpt was part of a Discussion Assignment for my AMDS 8008: Foundations for Doctoral Study course, Week 6. My own personal contribution appears below the assignment instructions:

Transforming Plagiarism into Writing with Academic Integrity

In order to help you avoid plagiarism in your own writing, it will help to distinguish what constitutes plagiarism by comparing plagiarized writing with source material. In this Discussion, you and your fellow students will detect, appraise, and revise an example of plagiarism.

To prepare for this Discussion:

Review the Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Plagiarism and Academic Integrity handout and media segment.
Read the original passage below, which was excerpted from Crossen, C. (1994). Tainted: The manipulation of fact in America. New York: Touchstone, pp. 166–167.”Doctors, whose first allegiance is supposed to be to their patients, have traditionally stood between drug company researchers and trusting consumers. Yet unless there is evidence of misconduct (the deliberate misrepresentation of something as fact by someone who knows it is not), it is very difficult to discover and virtually impossible to prove that a piece of biomedical research has been tainted by conflict of interest. No study is perfect, and problems arise in the labs of even the most conscientious and honest researchers. Although biomedical research incorporates rigorous scientific rules and is often critically scrutinized by peers, the information can nevertheless be warped—by ending a study because the results are disappointing; changing rules mid-study; not trying to publish negative results; publicizing preliminary results even with final and less positive results in hand; skimming over or even not acknowledging drawbacks; and, especially, casting the results in the best light or, as scientists say, buffing them.”
Next, read the following passage, which was written by a student who wants to use this source in a paper and is trying not to plagiarize. Analyze the student’s work for plagiarism:”Consumers must trust that the research that has gone into the manufacture of new drugs is safe. But it is hard to know if a conflict of interest between doctors, researchers, and the drug company stockholders has tainted the results. Biomedical researchers incorporate strict rules of science into their work, which is examined by peers. Yet the resulting information can be warped for five reasons: ending a study too soon, not publishing negative results, publishing results too early, skimming over or ignoring drawbacks, and ‘buffing’ the results by showing them in the best light (Crossen, 1994, p. 167).”
Decide the extent to which the student has plagiarized the original source. (Hint: He has.)
Choose two sentences from the student’s passage that are plagiarized, and rewrite them in your own words with a standard APA in-text citation to show that you are rephrasing the original sentences. Avoid using any direct quotes.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post for each of the 2 sentences you have selected

The original sentence.

The problem with it.
Your revision with a standard APA in-text citation.

—— CUT HERE ——

Robin Cheung

14 Oct 09 5:10 PM MST

As described in “Types of Plagiarism” (2009), the student seems to fit the “Too Perfect Paraphrase” plagiarist type, although evidently tainted by elements of “Labor of Laziness.” Laziness in paraphrasing Crossen (1994) adds inferences that may or may not be valid, since the new pieces of information introduced during paraphrasing lack citations. The student’s paraphrased work retains the overall structure and tone of Crossen (1994), with cosmetic changes, and cites only one direct quotation, claiming the remainder as original.

One example is the following sentence:

Yet unless there is evidence of misconduct (the deliberate
misrepresentation of something as fact by someone who
knows it is not), it is very difficult to discover and virtually
impossible to prove that a piece of biomedical research has
been tainted by conflict of interest (Crossen, 1994).

The student presents the concept of conflict of interest as a motivator and even uses the same word: “taint”:

But it is hard to know if a conflict of interest between doctors,
researchers, and the drug company stockholders has tainted
the results.

The student has implicated stockholders and doctors in the paraphrase, which does not necessarily follow logically from the original statement; doctors may have no financial stake in the success or failure of a drug being evaluated and stockholders are generally insulated from actual management decisions in corporations by hiring managers to operate the company for the owners, who may not have any managerial or technical expertise in the field. Crossen (1994) implies that physicians play a key role in protecting consumers, who lack medical training, from marketing efforts of drug developers. The student has extended the implication to company stockholders without citing any support.

The student has further lost the original author’s specificity about how the results are often tained by “deliberate misrepresentation of something as fact by someone who knows it is not” (Crossen, 1994).

The student has not critically analyzed the author’s conclusions and simply re-presents them in the same order, sometimes changing or eliminating wording. It is not long before another similar case presents:

Although biomedical research incorporates rigorous scientific
rules and is often critically scrutinized by peers, the information
can nevertheless be warped…. (Crossen, 1994).

The student has used the same piece of information to qualify the same conclusions as the original author, and again has retained the original wording of key concepts, such as “strict rules” pertaining to scientific research and examination by peers: “Biomedical researchers incorporate strict rules of science into their work, which is examined by peers.” Lost in the paraphrase is the author’s acknowledgment that peer review examines not the validity of results but the validity of the methods used to gather and interpret the results (Afifi, 2006) in the previous statement: “No study is perfect, and problems arise in the labs of even the most conscientious and honest researchers” (Crossen, 1994).

While presenting the same conclusions with evidence of critical review of the original information and arguments can be legitimate, the student has shown no evidence of critical analysis; in fact, the student has both eliminated some of the original argument and introduced new facts during rewording without support. While the optimal course of action would be a complete resubmission based on critical analysis of the source, the academic integrity infraction can at least be relieved by reconstructing the offending statements:

Crossen (1994) states that while physicians have traditionally
offered some protection to consumers, who lack medical
expertise, against misrepresentation by drug researchers,
conflict of interest may not be apparent.”

and

While scientific rigor helps maintain integrity in peer-reviewed
research, results are not immune to misrepresentation.

References

Afifi, M. (2006). Reviewing the “Letter-to-editor” section in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000-2004. Retrieved on October 13, 2009 from http://www.who.int/bulletin/bulletin_board/84/letters/en/index.html

Crossen, C. (1994). Tainted: The manipulation of fact in America. New York: Touchstone, pp. 166–167. Retrieved October 13, 2009 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3651760&Survey=1&47=4918616&ClientNodeID=404183&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Types of plagiarism. (2006). Retrieved October 13, 2009 from http://www.who.int/bulletin/bulletin_board/84/letters/en/index.html