This Pass or Prepared? is brought to you, courtesy of the Social Science Research Institute Council, from their Workshop on Wednesday, June 14, 2000. Earl Babbie, whose name many of you will recognize from discussions on methods and statistics, has written an essay on plagiarism.

Based on Earl Babbie's essay, answer the following questions:

1. Is plagiarism an issue in methods and statistics?

   One Plausible Answer

   Plagiarism is an issue in all writing and recording, including music. As Prof. Babbie says, "There is nothing wrong with presenting someone else's words and ideas in a term paper or in a published, scholarly work. In fact, any field of thought evolves as people read each other's ideas, learn from and build on those ideas. The key to doing this properly lies in acknowledgement and citation." Babbie, Earl. (1998). Plagiarism [Online]. Available: http://www.csubak.edu/ssric/Modules/Other/plagiarism.htm [2000, June 16].

   There is little incentive for plagiarizing the actual numbers of data. Secondary analysis makes the use of another's data perfectly acceptable, as long as you clearly state that you are doing secondary analysis and identify the data set, giving credit to the original researcher, and identifying where the data can be accessed.

   The major problem with plagiarism in the analysis of data is with interpretation. Many of you know that I encourage copying statistical interpretations until you are sure that you fully understand the concepts and and the statistical assumptions which underlie them. BUT COPYING MEANS THAT YOU MUST USE QUOTATION MARKS. By putting the phrases in quotation marks you are acknowledging the use of another's words.

   I learned from my teacher, Stanford Labovitz, USC, to use this technique with interpretation. I find it forces rigor in interpretation, limiting your language to good models during the learning stage. And with repeated use, you come to recognize how to rephrase in your own words. DO NOT RELY ON COPYING INTERPRETATIONS UNLESS YOUR TEACHER FOLLOWS THIS PRACTICE. But do look carefully at how professionals write their interpretations. Follow Prof. Barrie's examples for rephrasing, if your teacher wants you to work on using your own words from the beginning.

2. Dowdall, Logio, Babbie, and Halley, state in their textbook interpretation that if Lambda is 0.132, for abortion and religious affiliation, then "Knowing a person's religious affilitation, . . . allows us to predict their attitude on abortion 13 percent more accurately." (Adventures in Criminal Justice Research, Pine Forge Press, 1999. At p.231.)

   Suppose that my teacher does not want me to copy the interpretation. If I wrote:

   Lambda is 0.132. That means that using a person's religious affiliation to predict their attitude on abortion would give a 13 percent more accurate prediction.

   would this be acceptable?

   One Plausible Answer

   Not for me, it wouldn't, because I can't see your thinking here. Mostly it's just moving around the words of the text interpretation. I would prefer to have you talk it through in very simple language:

   Lambda is a measure of association, which means that it tells me how much better I can predict one variable by using the other. In the case of predicting acceptance of abortion by using religious affiliation, lambda is 0.132; that means that I could predict the subject's attitude on abortion 13 percent better, if I predict on the basis of religious affiliation, instead of just predicting randomly. (Dowdall, Logio, Babbie, and Halley, Adventures in Criminal Justice Research, Pine Forge Press, 1999. At p.231.)

   This is a judgment call. It's hard to rephrase something this simple and straight forward. I find it helps my students to just talk it through with each other. Note that I still provide the exact reference to Dowdall, et al., so that there is no hint of plagiarism. The idea of how to interpret lambda came from the text. It is not my own original idea. Be sure you include the page number, so that you will be able to find the exact reference later.

   ---

   ---

   Figurine by Rudiger Appel. Notice that you can see three effects in the animation. Either the Variation on the Kandinsky figurine appears to turn in a clockwise direction, or in a counterclockwise direction, or it appears to open and close. Can you see all three effects? Try. Fascinated? Link to Appel's site and then link to the background he provides. Scroll down until you find a link to background.

Copright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata, June 2000. "Fair Use" encouraged.