Skip to main content

Is It Plagiarism or Patchwriting? Toward a Nuanced Definition

Abstract

Prior to the 1970s, student writers were advised to incorporate the ideas of the authors they read in one of two ways: summary or quotation. With increasing instruction in paraphrase as an acceptable method of reproducing the ideas of others came the recognition that sometimes when students produce something that looks like paraphrase, they are actually drawing too heavily on the words of the source rather than rendering the ideas in “original language.” The resulting text has been called patchwriting, cryptomnesia, unconscious plagiarism, and non-prototypical plagiarism, along with various subcategories including clause quilt, copy and paste, word string, pawn sacrifice, and cut and slide plagiarism. The term most commonly used in the USA is patchwriting, although the definition of that term is not fixed and neither is the classification of patchwriting as plagiarism. Some teachers and scholars argue that when patchwriting is accompanied by some form of citation, it should not be classified as plagiarism or as ethical or moral misconduct, but rather as misuse of sources. In some cases that distinction hangs on the concept of intent, which for many is connected with the question of the reading and writing skills of the students in question. Recent research into reading and citation has complicated beliefs about the role of textual difficulty and about student reading practices and source use, suggesting the need for more complex analysis and more nuanced terminology. This chapter describes the distinctions scholars have drawn between plagiarism and the misuse of sources most commonly referred to as patchwriting.

Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   699.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berke, J. (1972). Twenty questions for the writer: A rhetoric with readings. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., & Murphy, D. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(3), 432–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheating in College. (1976, June 7). Time, pp. 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittick, R., & Stevick, R. (1961). Rhetoric for exposition. New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2003). Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. Retrieved from http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/9

  • Fakouri, M. (1972). Achievement motivation and cheating. Psychological Reports, 31, 629–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibaldi, J., & Achtert, W. (1977). MLA handbook for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations. New York: Modern Language Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. (1991). The Bedford guide for college writers (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, V., Diekhoff, G., LaBeff, E., & Clark, R. (1986). College cheating: Immature, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25(4), 342–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, E., & Feldman, S. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horning, A. (2010). Reading, writing, and digitizing: A meta-analysis of reading research. The Reading Matrix, 10(2), 243–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57, 788–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Stamford: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M., & Jamieson, S. (2013). Research writing. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper-Taggart, B. Hessler, & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (2nd ed., pp. 231–247). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., & Rodrigue, T. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing and Pedagogy, 2(2), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: Toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 6(2), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, S. (2008). One size does not fit all: Plagiarism across the curriculum. In R. M. Howard & A. Robillard (Eds.), Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies (pp. 77–91). New York: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, S. (2013). Reading and engaging sources: What students’ use of sources reveals about advanced reading skills. Across the disciplines. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/reading/jamieson.cfm

  • Jamieson, S. (2015). Revising patchwriting: Data-based insights into ‘transgressive’ student writing. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Modern Language Association, Vancouver, 9 Jan 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, S., & Howard, R. M. (2011). Unraveling the citation trail. Project information literacy smart talk, no. 8. Retrieved from http://projectinfolit.org/smart-talks/item/110-sandra-jamieson-rebecca-moore-howard

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantz, M. (1990). Helping students use textual sources persuasively. College English, 52(1), 74–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. (1985). The composing process of students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2, 434–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton, J., & Hamerlynck, L. (1967). Perception of deviant behavior: A study of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 379–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, G. (1987). The Macmillan college handbook. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrimmon, J. (1957). Writing with a purpose: A first course in college composition. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuss, E. (1984). Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving College and University Teaching, 32, 140–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecorari, D. (2001). Plagiarism and international students: How the English-speaking university responds. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 229–245). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin, P., & Dykema, K. (1959). Writer’s guide and index to English (3rd ed.). Chicago: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin, P., Dykema, K., & Ebbitt, W. (1964). Writer’s guide and index to English (4th ed.). Chicago: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? Psychological Record, 47(1), 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 973–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 308–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roig, M., & de Jacquant, J. (2001). Guidelines on plagiarism and paraphrasing in writing manuals across various disciplines. In Proceedings: Investigating research integrity, pp. 281–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherrill, D., Salisbury, J., Horowitz, B., & Friedman, S. (1971). Classroom cheating: Consistent attitude, perceptions and behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 8, 503–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber-Wulff, D. (2014). False feathers: A perspective on academic plagiarism. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39961-9.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weber-Wulff, D., & Wohensdorf, G. (2006). Strategien der plagiatsbekämpfung. Information: Wissenchaft & Praxis, 57(2), 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, W., Zielonka, A., & Gaier, E. (1967). Personality correlates of cheating among college women under stress of independent opportunistic behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 68–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Jamieson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this entry

Cite this entry

Jamieson, S. (2016). Is It Plagiarism or Patchwriting? Toward a Nuanced Definition. In: Bretag, T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_68

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics