Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ethics of Teaching Rhetorical Intertextuality

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three approaches to intertextual writing are available to college instructors: mechanical, ethical, and rhetorical. The mechanical approach, a staple of writing instruction, teaches the use of citation styles such as MLA or APA; methods of citing sources; and the conventions of quotation. The ethical approach is primarily concerned with the character of individual writers and their adherence to community standards categorized as “academic integrity.” The great majority of source-based writing instruction attends to one or both of these approaches. A third approach, rhetorical intertextuality, is overshadowed by the ethical concerns that currently permeate educational institutions. Rhetorical intertextuality does promote textual ethics, but in a positive way, through instruction in building meaning in a target text through collaboration with source texts. Rhetorical intertextuality brings the source texts themselves to life (rather than merely mining them for information) and aims to engage the audience in a conversation with target text and source texts. Drawing on Citation Project data, we advocate instruction in intertextual writing that hails students as authors, not transgressors. Rhetorical intertextuality can provide a positive frame for college instruction in intertextual writing, one that facilitates deep engagement with texts; intellectual approaches to paraphrasing and summarizing; and an emphasis on the rhetorical choices that writers make as they encounter and respond to the ideas of others. The objective of such instruction is a dialogic interface between writer, audience, and sources—a conversation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See CitationProject.net for information about Citation Project studies, research methods, findings, and analysis.

  2. Although the methods are different, the coding categories used in both distant language coding (drawn from Franco Moretti’s distant reading) and human coding (which uses close reading strategies) require very specific definitions, which often include word counts and percentages to ensure consistency. The Citation Project uses human coding, combining close reading with double-coding and regular calibration sessions. To ensure consistency and replicability, the definitions used by coders include the percentages listed here. Citation Project researchers do not endorse the application of percentages to determine originality or to assess student writing in educational contexts. While they may be a useful as a general guide for students who are learning the nuances of mechanical intertextuality, percentages and word counts should be employed as part of close reading, not distant reading by software programs.

References

  • Adam, L., Anderson, V., & Spronken-Smith, R. (2017). ‘It’s not fair’: Policy discourses and students’ understandings of plagiarism in a New Zealand university. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0025-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Library Association (ALA). (1989). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. Final Report. American Library Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

  • Alvarez, B., & Dimmock, N. (2007). Faculty expectations of student research. In N. Foster & S. Gibbons (Eds.), Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester (pp. 1–7). Association of College and Research Libraries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell-Starnes, K. (2016). Preliminary paths to information literacy: Introducing research in core courses. In B. J. D’Angelo, S. Jamieson, B. Maid & J. R. Walker (Eds.), Information literacy: Research and collaboration across disciplines. U.P. of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2016.0834.2.07

  • Borg, E. (2019) How Does Intertextuality Inform Plagiarism? In D. Pecorari & P. Shaw (Eds.), Student plagiarism in higher education: Reflections on teaching practice. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166148

  • Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8

  • Bretag, T. (2016) Educational Integrity in Australia. In T. Bretag (Ed), Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_2

  • Canzonetta, J. (2018) Can we Use Plagiarism Detection Services Responsibly? In D. Pecorari & P. Shaw (Eds.), Student plagiarism in higher education: Reflections on teaching practice. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166148

  • Canzonetta, J., Fidaoui, D., & Markins J. (2019). When Digital Meets Information Literacy: What we can learn from following the research processes of individual students. Annual Convention of the Modern Language Association (MLA), Chicago, January 4. Available at http://www.citationproject.net/studies/sats/

  • Carlson, J. (2006). An examination of undergraduate student citation behavior. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(1), 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christophersen, P., & Hambrey, M. J. (2006). Is the Greenland Ice Sheet in a state of collapse? Geology Today, 22(3), 98–103. Citation Project website: http://citationproject.net

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Digest. (2005). The Science of Climate Change, Global Warming Causes and Trends, International Debates 3(7), 198–199 & 224.

  • Davis, P. (2002). The effect of the web on undergraduate citation behavior: A 2000 update. College & Research Libraries, 63(1), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. (2003). Effects of the web on undergraduate citation behavior: Guiding student scholarship in a networked age. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(1), 41–51.

  • Davis, P., & Cohen, S. (2001). The effect of the web on undergraduate citation behavior 1996–1999. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(4), 309–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deffner, E. (2007). Gambling Isn’t a Game—It’s An Addiction. Listen, 61(4). n.p.

  • Delgado, R. (1984). The Imperial Scholar: Reflections on a Review of Civil Rights Literature. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/3311882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, S. E., Crossman, K., Behjat, L., Yates, R. M., Fear, E., & Trifkovic, M. (2020). An Institutional Self-Study of Text-Matching Software in a Canadian Graduate-Level Engineering Program. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09367-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eodice, M., Geller, A. E., & Lerner, M. (2017). The Meaningful Writing Project: Learning, Teaching, and Writing in Higher Education. Louisville, CO: Utah State UP.

  • Feekery, A., Emerson L., & Skyrme, G. (2016). Supporting academics to embed information literacy to enhance students' research and writing process. In B. J. D’Angelo, S. Jamieson, B. Maid & J. R. Walker (Eds.), Information literacy: Research and collaboration across disciplines. U.P. of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2016.0834.2.17

  • Fidaoui, D., Wilson, N. & Jamieson, S. (2018). Listening for structure, watching for process: a study of information literacy from digital research to final paper, and the challenges of developing that study. Georgia International Conference on Information Literacy. September 28. Available http://www.citationproject.net/studies/sats/

  • Foltynek, T., & Glendinning, I. (2015). Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education Across Europe: Results of the Project. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(1), 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garibaldi, J. (2003). MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 6th ed. 2003.

  • Gengler, A. (2007). The Urge to Lose Money. Money, 36(3), 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, D., & Boening, C. (2001). Worries with the web: A look at student use of web resources. College & Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.62.1.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, N. (2008). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, N., & Petrić, B. (2011). Performance in the citing behavior of two student writers. Written Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311424133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, A. (2013). Learning the ropes: How freshmen conduct course research once they enter college. Project Information Literacy Research Report. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2364080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. (2008). Lessons learned: How college students seek information in the digital age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2281478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). Truth be told: how college students evaluate and use information in the digital age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2281485

  • Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). Assigning inquiry: how handouts for research assignments guide today’s college students. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, University of Washington's Information School, July 12, 2010. Web.

  • Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(3), 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M., Serviss, T. C., & Rodrigue, T. K. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing & Pedagogy, https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i2.177

  • Hu, G., & Sun, X. (2017). Institutional policies on plagiarism: The case of eight Chinese universities of foreign languages/international studies. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutcheon, L. (1986). Literary Borrowing and Stealing: Plagiarism, Sources, Influences, and Intertexts. English Studies in Canada, 12, 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Center for Academic Integrity. (2020). Fundamental values of academic integrity. https://www.academicintegrity.org/fundamental-values/. Accessed 8 August 2020.

  • Jamieson, S. (2016). What the citation project tells us about information literacy in college composition. In B. D’Angelo, S. Jamieson, B. Maid, & J. R. Walker (Eds.), Information Literacy: Research and Collaboration across Disciplines. U.P. of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2016.0834.2.06

  • Jamieson, S. (2018). Shouldn’t our expectations of students’ and academics’ intertextuality practices differ? In D. Pecorari & P. Shaw (Eds.), Student plagiarism in higher education: Reflections on teaching practice (pp. 105–122). London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166148

  • Jamieson, S., & Howard, R. M. (2013). Sentence-mining: Uncovering the amount of reading and reading comprehension in college writer’s researched writing. In R. McClure & J. P. Purdy (Eds.), The new digital scholar: Exploring and enriching the research and writing practices of NextGen students (pp. 111–133). Medford, US: Information Today.

  • Jamieson, S., & Howard, R. M. (2019). Rethinking the relationship plagiarism and academic integrity. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education/Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu-2019-v16n2-07

  • Jenkins, P. O. (2002). They’re not just using web sites: A citation study of 116 student papers. College and Research Libraries News. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.63.3.164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keuskamp, D., & Sliuzas, R. (2007). Plagiarism prevention or detection? The contribution of text-matching software to education about academic integrity. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 1(1), A91–A99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinfeld, E. (2017). Just read the assignment: using course documents to analyze research pedagogy. In T. Serviss & S. Jamieson (Eds.), Points of Departure: Rethinking RAD Methods for the Study of Student Writing (pp. 227–244). Louisville, CO: Utah State UP. https://doi.org/10.7330/9781607326250.c008

  • Knight-Davis, S., & Sung, J. (2008). Analysis of citations in undergraduate papers. College & Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.69.5.447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristeva, J. (1980). In Roudiez, L.S (Ed.) Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine New York: Columbia UP.

  • Leverenz, C. S. (1998). Citing cyber sources: a challenge to disciplinary values. Computers and Composition. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(98)90053-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Jamieson, S. (2020). Rhetorical intertextuality: teaching after the citation project and the LILac Project. Georgia International Conference on Information Literacy, Savannah, GA, February 22. Available http://www.citationproject.net/studies/sats/

  • Liu, G. Z., Lin, V., Kou, X., & Wang, H. Y. (2016). Best practices in L2 English source use pedagogy: A thematic review and synthesis of empirical studies. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunsford, A., & West, S. (1996). Intellectual property and composition studies. College Composition and Communication. https://doi.org/10.2307/358295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism–a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, T., & Jacobson, T. (2011). Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy. College and Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-76r1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, T., & Jacobson, T. (2014). Metaliteracy: Reinventing information literacy to empower learners. Neal-Schuman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClure, R. & Clink, K. (2009). How do you know that? An investigation of student research practices in the digital age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0033

  • McComiskey, B. (2015). Dialectical Rhetoric. UP of Colorado. Meaningful Writing Project. http://meaningfulwritingproject.net

  • Merkel, W. (2021). Collage of confusion: An analysis of one university’s multiple plagiarism policies”. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moretti, F. (2003). Distant Reading. Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecorari, D. (2006). Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing. English for Specific Purposes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecorari, D. (2015). Plagiarism in second language writing: Is it time to close the case? Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, W. (2019). It wasn’t just the trolls: early internet culture, “fun,” and the fires of exclusionary laughter. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119849493

  • Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2021). You Are Here: A Field Guide for Navigating Polluted Information. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quintilian. (1980). Institutio Oratorio [The Institutes of Oratory]. 4 vols. Translated by H.E. Butler. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.84.3.973-982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronai, K. (2020). Plagiarism defined? Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.202003282558

  • Rose, S. (1996). Scholarly citation practices as courtship rituals. Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 1(3), 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, P. (2018). Are we making our students plagiarize? In D. Pecorari & P. Shaw (Eds.), Student plagiarism in higher education: Reflections on teaching practice (pp. 123–139). London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166148

  • Shi, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland-Smith, W. (2010). Retribution, deterrence and reform: The dilemmas of plagiarism management in universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800903440519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland-Smith, W. (2011). Crime and punishment: An analysis of university plagiarism policies. Semiotica. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. (2006). Plagiarism or Intertextuality? A Study of the Politics of Knowledge, Identity and Textual ownership in Undergraduate Student Writing. Diss. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Web: SemanticScholar.org.

  • Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vie, S. (2013). A pedagogy of resistance toward plagiarism detection technologies. Computers and Composition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2013.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. & Jamieson, S. (2019). How The LILAC Project and The Citation Project are collaborating to further understanding of student research and writing. 7th International Conference on Writing Analytics: Broadening the Community. Florida. January 25. Available http://www.citationproject.net/studies/sats/

  • Weber-Wulff D. (2016) Plagiarism detection software: promises, pitfalls, and practices. In: Bretag T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_19

  • Weber-Wulff, D. (2019). Why does plagiarism detection software not find all plagiarism? In D. Pecorari & P. Shaw (Eds.), Student plagiarism in higher education: Reflections on teaching practice. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315166148

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Writing Studies, Rhetoric, and Composition, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Rebecca Moore Howard

  2. Department of English, Drew University, Madison, NJ, USA

    Sandra Jamieson

Authors
  1. Rebecca Moore Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Jamieson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Jamieson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Howard, R.M., Jamieson, S. The Ethics of Teaching Rhetorical Intertextuality. J Acad Ethics 19, 385–405 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09424-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09424-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation