Is it plagiarism to substitute a similar, yet different, idea?

[grad29]

Would it be plagiarism to substitute a like-thought, to be more original? For instance -

 

This idea from a website:

 

"Popular media, such as the  “Donna Reed Show”, reinforced that stereotype of women in that decade"

 

To:

 

"Televisions shows, like  "Leave it to Beaver”, demonstrated this misogynistic perception of women in that generation."

 

 

Do I still have to cite the original website, despite having used my own words? 

Edited August 7, 2015 by westy3789

[fuzzylogician]

Yes, it would be plagiarism. It would in fact still be plagiarism even if you gave the citation. And if this is for an academic paper, a website is usually not an acceptable source. See here: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342054#a_icb_pagecontent732741_paraphrase

[TakeruK]

If you take someone else's idea and try to present it as your own, even if you changed every word to a different word, it is plagiarism. If you really really need to use that idea/thought, then you should cite the website and make it clear that this is not your idea. If this is for academic writing then I also think that a website is not a good place to source your ideas.

[Maxtini]

It is very difficult to determine whether it is plagiarism or not from one sentence. Especially for factual sentence (that is sentence that only describe fact not ideas/opinion).

If your sentence is followed by a whole paragraph of idea that is similar with the author. Then it is plagiarism.

[grad29]

That seems kind of silly to me. The idea that certain gender stereotypes were reflected in movies, tv shows, magazines, etc... is not that creative of a thought.  It would be typical for someone to "come up" with this idea. Also, there are probably many things we feel are original thoughts, but are really based on things we've read about years ago. There are probably many ideas within my paper that have been thought of and mentioned by others without me realizing it.

 

This is the first part of the paragraph, which I typed completely on my own. 

 

"The opportunities for women in the workplace in the 1950’s were not nearly as great as they are today. Women as being the caretakers, rather than the providers, of the household was still the predominant image. Although America was on the brink of major changes to gender equality in the 1950's, the country was still much closer to traditional gender roles than we are today. In return, the expectations of young people in 1950's were much different. "

 

This idea is probably something I've read about at some point in my life. Even though I used no source to type those words, my perspective of the 1950s comes from the books and things I've read.

 

In order to build upon this first part of the paragraph, I need to support it. I may logically turn to the roles women were shown to have in the media. In doing that, it confirms the predominant image of women is in fact what I mentioned it to be.

 

So a quick google search shows that the television show, the Donna Reed Show, is a fine example of this. That gets me thinking "hey, television shows are a great way to support my thought", but in order to be more original, I come up with the show "Leave it to Beaver". Is that plagiarism if I don't cite the website that mentioned the Donna Reed Show? What about if I choose not to use any television shows, but instead think of a book - like a specific instance within the novel "Catcher in the Rye" that depicts a female staying home taking care of her son? 

 

Usually when I write a paper, I try and get a grasp for the subject first. I look at what other people are writing about it or how they think of it. It helps widen my perspective. Although in the end I may develop my own unique perspective, I didn't get to that point without the contributions of others. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by westy3789

[TakeruK]

It is very difficult to determine whether it is plagiarism or not from one sentence. Especially for factual sentence (that is sentence that only describe fact not ideas/opinion).

If your sentence is followed by a whole paragraph of idea that is similar with the author. Then it is plagiarism.

 

I agree that it is hard to determine when it is only one sentence, out of context. But westy3789's question implied that the context was they wanted to use that idea but was not sure what would constitute plagiarism.

 

Also, maybe I misunderstood your post, but I think that the example sentence from westy3789:

 

Televisions shows, like  "Leave it to Beaver”, demonstrated this misogynistic perception of women in that generation.

 

is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. Since it is an opinion, or a thought from the author, the reader would expect these thoughts to be original to the author, unless otherwise stated. So if a writer were to do what westy3789 suggested, I believe it would be plagiarism, because the author is writing someone else's thought and since they do not state that it was not their original thought, then they would be misleading the reader into thinking the thought was their own.

 

On the other hand, if the sentence was factual, I think in academic writing, you still need a citation to support this fact (unless it is a "well known fact" or "common knowledge"). So it would still be incorrect in academic writing to not have a citation if the sentence was a fact. 

 

That seems kind of silly to me. The idea that certain gender stereotypes were reflected in movies, tv shows, magazines, etc... is not that creative of a thought.  It would be typical for someone to "come up" with this idea. Also, there are probably many things we feel are original thoughts, but are really based on things we've read about years ago. There are probably many ideas within my paper that have been thought of and mentioned by others without me realizing it.

 

In my opinion, for issues relating to academic honesty, intent and context matters.

 

First: intent. If you came up with this idea on your own, of course it's likely that someone else already thought of it too. That's okay. It's not plagiarism. However, if you saw someone's idea and decided to copy it but just change the words to be more original then this is bad. In your first post, it sounded like this second scenario. In your followup post, it sounds more like the first scenario.

 

Context also matters. If this is a small piece of writing, for example, a small weekly writing assignment for a class, then, in my opinion, it's not a huge deal if you went to other sources (Internet, conversations with friends etc.) for help generating ideas. However, if this is one of the main points in an academic publication, then you definitely should do your due diligence and make sure your thought is original. If your thought is not original, you must cite other people who have worked on it in the past. This is part of doing a responsible literature review. Academic work is built on previous existing work--you don't need your thoughts to be 100% original because most academic work takes existing ideas and then builds on them. But you have to properly credit those who came before you.

 

For things in between (e.g. a class term paper), then it would depend on the expectations of the prof and the scope of your paper. Are you expected to do a literature review? Find out!

 

It's hard to be perfect. Sometimes you are going to make mistakes and overlook a study you should have cited. Hopefully it is caught before it's too late and everyone leaves happy, but once in awhile, mistakes will happen. One academic mistake like this isn't going to get you banned from the field. I think this is where intent matters--mistakes are forgivable but malicious actions are not.

 

 

So a quick google search shows that the television show, the Donna Reed Show, is a fine example of this. That gets me thinking "hey, television shows are a great way to support my thought", but in order to be more original, I come up with the show "Leave it to Beaver". Is that plagiarism if I don't cite the website that mentioned the Donna Reed Show? What about if I choose not to use any television shows, but instead think of a book - like a specific instance within the novel "Catcher in the Rye" that depicts a female staying home taking care of her son? 

 

Usually when I write a paper, I try and get a grasp for the subject first. I look at what other people are writing about it or how they think of it. It helps widen my perspective. Although in the end I may develop my own unique perspective, I didn't get to that point without the contributions of others. 

(emphasis added). Exactly. Here, you describe a good literature review process and when you write the paper, you should acknowledge the previous work regarding your main idea (e.g. Donna Reed, Catcher in the Rye, etc.). In my opinion it fulfills a lot of purposes:

 

1. Gives proper credit to previous work, which is the currency of academia. You'll want others to do the same for you too.

2. It's honest and upfront about how you got to your ideas.

3. Strengthens your own work by showing the reader how your ideas fit in with the existing knowledge/field.

 

So, there are lots of good reasons to properly cite and credit work!

[grad29]

The context of the paper is a writing sample that's part of a graduate application. My topic is "why do students drop out of high school?". Although it's simply a writing sample and isn't going to be published, it would be considered a research paper. I'm assuming the admissions committee wants to see whether or not an applicant is capable of constructing an academic piece of writing. What approach should I take towards referencing, given that? In high school and in college, teachers would convict me of plagiarism when I was simply drawing upon what I've learned up to that point and putting it in my own words. I think it's because I have a tendency to write in a way that appears, on its surface, to be taken directly from a textbook. Take the following once again:

 

The opportunities for women in the workplace in the 1950’s were not nearly as great as they are today. Women as being the caretakers, rather than the providers, of the household was still the predominant image. Although America was on the brink of major changes to gender equality in the 1950's, the country was still much closer to traditional gender roles than we are today. In return, the expectations of young people in 1950's were much different. 

 

It kind of looks like this could have been copied and pasted directly from a website or rephrased from a few, but it wasn't. What I don't want to have happen is the admissions committee perceive that I'm plagiarizing when I'm not. What I began to do in college in some of my papers that looked overly text-like was include a reference at the end of every paragraph. I would pull a resource that was related to what I was talking about, even though I didn't use it. I would give credit where credit wasn't due so I wouldn't be convicted of plagiarizing. Obviously, in a graduate application where they are asking for a writing sample, you don't want to just slap a source at the end of every paragraph since that would look quite sloppy. 

 

Author's Thought: "Popular media, such as the  “Donna Reed Show”, reinforced that stereotype of women in that decade"

 

"My" thought: "Televisions shows, like  "Leave it to Beaver”, demonstrated this misogynistic perception of women in that generation."

 

What you're saying makes sense - I agree that using that sentence without giving credit to the author would be plagiarism, since I'm misleading the reader into thinking it was my own idea. When an opinion is stated, it's assumed that it's the thoughts of the author. The take away from that is, don't mislead the reader into thinking it's your brain cells at work when it isn't. Although, if you happen to form an opinion that has already been formed by another person (which most opinions will be), it's not plagiarism because there was no intent to be deceptive. How a reader can create that distinction is difficult. Are we supposed to just assume that any paper with really good ideas has some level of plagiarism in it? Some people do.

 

 

All this leaves me with a few potential concerns:

 

(1) By citing the original source which helped me form the above sentence, I worry that no originality in the sentence I used will be credited. Using APA format, there doesn't seem to be the option to state "part of this was mine, but part of it wasn't". Why waste time rephrasing something and making it better, why not just throw quotations around everything and string it together - if no credit for the developed thought is going to be given?

 

(2) The flow of the paper may be affected by citing too many things. It's distracting if you have more than one or two references per paragraph. 

 

(3) Where should we draw the line? Even though the end thought may be different than each of the sources I've investigated, technically it was influenced by each of those individuals. Whether or not a source was glanced at for a few seconds or read over completely, is irrelevant. It brought about an idea and in the strictest sense, deserves some form of credit for emerging the idea. 

 

(4) If you restate a "simple" idea in your own words (i.e. televisions shows, like  "Leave it to Beaver”, demonstrated this misogynistic perception of women in that generation), including an original example and a slightly different take - how plagiarized is it really? I mean if the problem is deceiving the reader, leading them to think you're responsible for a thought when you're not, isn't a slightly different take with a new, perhaps better, example of a simple idea closer to originality than plagiarism? If the idea is to "use your own brain cells" isn't rephrasing a "simple/common" thought into your own words and using your own examples using your own brain cells? I feel like it is. It's hard to define a specific point in which a thought becomes plagiarized. There's two ends of that spectrum - statements that are completely identical (obviously plagiarism) and thoughts which are somewhat similar, but include different words, examples, and a slightly different meaning. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by westy3789

[Eigen]

This goes back to intent. 

 

Did you have the idea that "Leave it to Beaver" reinforced a misogynistic perception of women first, and then go looking for other people with similar ideas?

 

Or did you read the author's thought that the "Donna Reed Show" and other popular media reinforced a specific stereotype of women, an then realize it was also applicable to "Leave it to Beaver"?

 

If the former, then I wouldn't consider it plagiarism. There's lots of chance for similar ideas to be developed in parallel, and yours is (in the very small context given her) slightly different than the authors. 

 

If the latter, then no matter how much you change the sentence, unless you cite the idea you're plagiarizing the author's thoughts and idea. 

 

IMO, there are two important types of plagiarism to consider here, and we're somewhat conflating the two of them. The first, and most common type, is to copy someones words with minor changes. Even with a citation (and honestly, especially with a citation) this is still plagiarism. It would need to be cited as a quote for it to not be plagiarized. 

 

The second type is to copy someones ideas, and put them in your own words. In this case, citation without quotation attributes the ideas to the author, but you're taking a slightly different spin on it. 

 

For this latter type, it again goes back to intent. Parallel development of similar ideas (when you have notes to show the development of your idea, and the sources of that idea) isn't stealing someone else's work if and only if you were unaware of that work when you generated your idea. If you were aware of the authors work when you generated your idea, and it was part of the basis of your idea, it must be cited and attributed.

[PizzaCat93]

Disclosure: I am not in the same field as you, so everything I say may not apply (although both are social sciences).

 

A few comments - 

 

- If you have read many academic papers, you will realize that there almost always are more than 1 to 2 citations per paragraph, especially in literature review sections. Papers often have literally hundreds of in-text citations, and in regards to my thesis (which got the highest grade in my class) I have sometimes as many as 5-10 citations in one paragraph. We cite to credit others for their work - that is the only reason - and it is honestly better to over-cite than to under-cite.

 

- You must cite not only if you quote, but also if you take an idea from someone else's work. When do you not have to cite? When you're writing about something that is common knowledge. In some fields, you don't have to cite what is common knowledge for those within the field. This is not the case for my field, but it may be for yours. 

 

- Your concerns about "flow". See above. But also, this is an academic paper; it's a work of scholarship, not a work of art. No one cares about "flow". That said, if you're seriously concerned, maybe consider using footnotes or endnotes, as they are not as disruptive. 

 

- You don't necessarily have to "intend" to be "deceptive" to engage in plagiarism. In fact, it could purely be an accident, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. If you've repeatedly had teachers/professors think you're plagiarizing, you probably should start listening to their advice. In my opinion, it's not your writing style that's making them think this; it's that you're not citing enough. 

 

That's just my two cents. I hope I was not too harsh. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by PizzaCat93

[Eigen]

 

- If you have read many academic papers, you will realize that there almost always are more than 1 to 2 citations per paragraph, especially in literature review sections. Papers often have literally hundreds of in-text citations, and in regards to my thesis (which got the highest grade in my class) I have sometimes as many as 5-10 citations in one paragraph. We cite to credit others for their work - that is the only reason - and it is honestly better to over-cite than to under-cite.

 

Agree with everything you said, but worth noting here for possible field specific differences:

 

It's very possible to over-cite. Most of my field's journals strictly limit the maximum number of citations for articles, and are trying to push to fewer, more relevant citations.

 

Hence, there will always be times where you cannot cite everything done with similar ideas/similar work, and have to cite the ones that are either generally most interesting, or most specifically salient to your work's direction.

[rising_star]

PizzaCat93's advice is spot-on. That said, I re-read the paragraph in question with my grader hat on, westy, and I have concerns that go beyond the citation question. The paragraph that you've provided is very vague and reads like the first paragraph of many of the papers I grade which are written by 2nd-year college students. That isn't the tone or impression you want to give to a graduate admissions committee.

 

On that note, I'd also add that your initial topic seems very vague. You want to have a clear argument that you have reached based on the literature and your research, which you don't seem to have currently. The topic of "why do students drop out of high school" is a huge one and also one that is very vague. For this to be a successful paper, you're going to need to pick one specific aspect of why students drop out (undiagnosed/untreated learning challenges, the need to earn money to support the family, drug/alcohol addiction, already years behind and no longer wish to get caught up, etc.) and focus on that for the entirety of your paper. If you do that, then I'm not sure you need references to "Leave it to Beaver" or any other TV show, unless the TV show is actually about someone who drops out of high school. I hope this helps.

 

Good luck!

[TakeruK]

I also strongly agree with PizzaCat, with Eigen's note on the maximum number of citations. I guess this is where you might hurt some feelings because although maybe 5 people did things worth citing, you might only be able to cite the top 2 most relevant, which is a subjective opinion. But such is life!
 
Westy: you mention that you are concerned about distinguishing original thought and previous thoughts. In my field, we accomplish this by writing our paragraphs so that this is clear. For example, an introduction to a paper in my field might sound something like:
 

Smith et al. (2009) argued that popular media, such as the Donna Reed show, reinforced that stereotype of women in that decade. Jones et al. (2010) suggest that graphic novels also had the same effect. In this paper, I show that television shows, such as "Leave it to Beaver" also demonstrate this misogynistic perception of women in that generation.

Also for the context of a writing sample, you definitely want to do a thorough literature review. This means after you come up with your ideas, you should look for others who have done similar work and write your introduction to place your work in context with the existing body of knowledge. I agree with Eigen that you don't have to worry about being thought of as "stealing" someone's idea if you thought of it first, and then found similar studies later (i.e. it's not plagiarism). But I think it is bad academic writing if you did not do a good literature review.

[fuzzylogician]

Also for the context of a writing sample, you definitely want to do a thorough literature review. This means after you come up with your ideas, you should look for others who have done similar work and write your introduction to place your work in context with the existing body of knowledge. I agree with Eigen that you don't have to worry about being thought of as "stealing" someone's idea if you thought of it first, and then found similar studies later (i.e. it's not plagiarism). But I think it is bad academic writing if you did not do a good literature review.

 

I think this should be clarified: Good academic work does *not* mean sitting in isolation, thinking about some ideas, writing them up, and then doing a lit review to see who has said anything relevant in the past and creating a lit review. This often leads to re-discovering old ideas and generally wasting time. Good research means first reading up on what exists in the area that you are interested in, then building on those existing ideas and saying something new. This is harder and requires a lot of time studying up on your field before you can make an original contribution, but this is precisely why it takes a long time to get a PhD. It's not so easy to innovate. 

 

Westy, if for this writing sample you are not in a position to innovate in this way, that is okay, but pretending that you are is obvious (as a reader and grader of such papers) and wrong. One thing I often suggest to my students who face this problem is to read enough to be familiar with different approaches to something, and write a paper that presents and integrates these different views and adds something new to that -- e.g. how to take from one approach to enrich another, how to apply an approach that was developed for phenomenon A to phenomenon B, point out a problem that is addressed by approach A but hasn't been by approach B and either show how you'd do it or describe how it's a problem for B, etc. This is usually the first step to saying something original, and if done well is not bad for an undergrad. The most difficult part of this work is going to be coming up with a detailed enough question that you can actually read enough of the relevant literature to know what's out there and form an opinion. As rising_star already points out, your current topic is extremely broad, and therefore really impossible to seriously work with. I suggest you start there.

[TakeruK]

I think this should be clarified: Good academic work does *not* mean sitting in isolation, thinking about some ideas, writing them up, and then doing a lit review to see who has said anything relevant in the past and creating a lit review. This often leads to re-discovering old ideas and generally wasting time. Good research means first reading up on what exists in the area that you are interested in, then building on those existing ideas and saying something new. This is harder and requires a lot of time studying up on your field before you can make an original contribution, but this is precisely why it takes a long time to get a PhD. It's not so easy to innovate. 

 

Yes, thank you for writing it more clearly than I did