December 21, 2004

The Institutional Economics of Plagiarism

Posted by Henry

‘Angry Moderate’ made a comment on my post on plagiarism last week, which I’ve been meaning to respond to.

Richard Ellickson’s marvellous book, Order Without Law, notes that the first and usually most effective sanction against violators of a community norm is, “truthful malicious gossip.” In my experience, this is quite common with regard to plagiarists - and the worst plagiarism is not copying off some web-site but stealing other scholars’ ideas and/or empirical material before they publish it - and quite appropriate and quite effective. The only problem is the equally large circulation of untruthful malicious gossip.

This seems to me to be the beginnings of an interesting take on the problem of plagiarism - like Robert Ellickson’s cattle ranchers in Shasta county, we could resolve the problem of plagiarism informally, if only we had an effective means of spreading truthful malicious (as opposed to untruthful malicious) gossip about who has plagiarized. The problem is, of course, that the informal personal networks of academia don’t seem up to the task - as the Chronicle reported, even the department chairs of some offending academics don’t seem to know that they have plagiarized. In part, the problem is one of poor communications among academics. Here, the new institutional economics suggests that centralized communications can play an important role. Work by game theorists suggests that a centralized communications structure in which one actor is an “honest broker” of information about who has behaved badly and who hasn’t, can support honest behaviour among a much larger group of participants than a decentralized structure which relies on one-to-one gossip alone. As Avner Greif, Paul Milgrom and Barry Weingast have pointed out, this was one of the key functions that guilds played in the late mediaeval period - they had centralized communications systems policing the behaviour of guild members to ensure that they all played by the rules. Any member of the guild who broke the rules (by trading with someone who the guild was boycotting) would find that he was boycotted himself by other guild members.1

Of course, in academia, the closest equivalent to guild structures - the various professional associations - don’t play this role. As the Chronicle documents, they seem loathe to discipline their members - and even more loathe to publicize their disciplinary actions when they take them. Clearly, they don’t have the powers to punish plagiarists themselves. But by identifying and publicizing incidents of plagiarism they could do a lot to solve the problem, leaving the actual enforcement to one-to-one interactions among academics themselves, so that identified plagiarists would find it difficult to get jobs and grants. The current situation in which it’s difficult to distinguish ‘real’ incidents of plagiarism from malicious gossip, is in many ways the worst of all possible worlds.

Posted on December 21, 2004 05:54 PM UTC
Comments
Followups
Post a comment










Remember personal info?






Please only hit the "Post" button once. Although there may be a delay while the page reloads, something is happening, we promise.