A Logo

Feel free to include my content in your page via my
RSS feed

Help Irongeek.com pay for
bandwidth and research equipment:

Search Irongeek.com:

Affiliates:
ISDPodcast Button
RootSecure Button
Social-engineer-training Button
Irongeek Button

Web Hosting:
Dreamhost Logo
Help Irongeek.com pay for bandwidth and research equipment:

paypalpixle


Critically Plagiarizing?: Ideas On Spotting Plagiarism, While Spending No Money Adrian Crenshaw (yes, really, no one else would claim the typos)

Critically Plagiarizing?: Ideas On Spotting Plagiarism,
While Spending No Money

Adrian Crenshaw
(yes, really, no one else would claim the typos)

 

 (Note: I did an open records request to get newer syllabi from 2013, update notes at the bottom)
 

Ok, this article is in part me being snarky, but a friend said I should make fun of the situation. I figured I could also make an article for InfoSec educators out of it. At one point before I was forced to change majors (granted, for a better career), an instructor referred to me with the statement: “Student asserts and excuses personal and professional anti-law and anti-ethics statements and positions in class; not for beneficial class discussion”. I’m not 100% sure why, maybe because I stated that not all laws are ethical and that sometime the ethical thing to do is break the law, maybe it is because I asked about laws involving technology and hacking (a word that freaks out some people). There’s lots more about that in my IU Southeast Business School write-up. One thing that struck me about my former “Business Law and Ethics” professor, Linda Christiansen, was that she actually defined critical thinking in her syllabus as:


 

“Critical thinking is reasonably and reflectively deciding what to believe or do; thinking that explicitly aims at well-founded judgment.” ~Linda Christiansen

(Update Note: Seems to have been removed removed by the 2013 version of the syllabus. As a matter of fact, she does not even define it in the newer syllabus, which considering her knowledge of it, is probably for the best.)
 

Sounds like a good definition overall. No citation was given, and granted it is just a syllabus, but bare with me. Since my personal experience with her lead me to believe Linda did not understand what critical thinking was, I suspected something might be up. I did some Internet searches on substrings and found:


 

“Critical thinking is "reasonably and reflectively deciding what to believe or do.""
 

Which was cited as coming from “Ennis (1985)” in many references to the definition (Example Search I still have not found what exact work this is). I found this also:


 

“thinking that explicitly aims at well-founded judgment”


 

Which gets cited as “(Elder and Paul, 2007)” (Example Search, this may be the direct link, and yes, I know I’m not using a proper citation form, but I am giving credit and I think this is easier to follow for an online article).


 

It looked like she just jammed two other sources’ definitions together, but hey, there are only so many ways you can define “critical thinking”, and maybe this is such a common phrasing there was no need to cite (“hello world” for Ethics)? The “critical thinking” example has a lot of room for doubt, maybe she wrote it. This got me thinking, if you don’t have access to a service like Turnitin, how do you use just Google and a few tools? While I was at it, I figured I’d check out her definition of Ethics. I decided to use her syllabus as practice for finding plagiarism online (there is a link at the bottom of this page to her syllabus if you want to play along). From her syllabus:


 

“Ethics is the study and practice of decisions about what is good or right.  Ethics guide us when we are wondering about what we should be doing in a particular situation.  Business ethics is an application of ethics to the special problems and opportunities experienced by businesspeople.”  ~Linda Christiansen

(Update Note: Still in 2013 version of syllabus, largely unchanged.)
 

Doing some Googling, I found this PDF
http://novellaqalive2.mhhe.com/sites/dl/free/0073524913/537900/Chapter_02.pdf

Sorry to link to likely pirated content. Based on the contents, and what seems to be the ISBN number 0073524913, I think this is a chapter of Dynamic Business Law by Nancy Kubasek, M. Neil Browne, Andrea Giampetro-Meyer, Linda Barkacs, Dan Herron, Carrie Williamson, Lucien Dhooge (Published January 4, 2008). I don’t see my old teacher listed as an editor, but maybe the credit is not there and she just did some editing? This is the definition of ethics from that book:


 

“Ethics is the study and practice of decisions about what is good, or right. Ethics guides us

when we are wondering what we should be doing in a particular situation. Business ethics

is the application of ethics to the special problems and opportunities experienced by business-people.”

~Dynamic Business Law


 

Humm. See, this is something I would not have found if I was searching for whole sentences, each line has at least one character different from the first. Tip: There are times when an exact string is not what you want to search for. This actually gets more technical than you might first suspect. Some students have apparently been using homoglyphs in Unicode to defeat string searches. Take a few to Latin “e”s and “o”s and replace them with Cyrillic versions. My understanding is that Turnitin normalizes some of these Unicode issues, but check out this talk on Unicode and you will see there are a lot of options. Ok, how about how she defines what “ethical dilemmas” are?:


 

“These problems and opportunities present businesses with ethical choices, each of which have advantages and disadvantages.  An ethical dilemma is a dilemma or choice for which many times no clear right decision is available.  The dilemma has multiple potential solutions, none of which is altogether superior.  Social responsibility of business consists of the collection of expectations that the global community imposes on its firms.”  

~Linda Christiansen

(Update Note: Still in 2013 version of syllabus, largely unchanged.)
 

and:


 

“Such questions present businesses with ethical choices, each of which has advantages

and disadvantages. An ethical dilemma is a problem about what a firm should do for

which no clear, right decision is available. Reasonable people can expect to disagree about

optimal solutions to ethical dilemmas.”

~Dynamic Business Law


 

Ok, that one is not as clear, but it’s interesting to see what is changed (or it might all be original), just to give insight into the workings of one’s mind as to what is important. For the homoglyphs, Elizabeth J. Pyatt's post has covered it well, using visual spell check and changing the font may work for spotting this Unicode technique. I’ll add to that by mentioning that saving the paper as an ANSI file may also make it obvious when letters start to disappear (depending on the conversion), and spotting odd Unicode in custom software is easy (like noticing 5 different kinds of whitespace and non-printable characters such as Unicode tags in the range U+E0000-UE0074). Synonyms though are a little harder in some ways for a computer to detect (though they may be easier for humans). If someone does a global replace of the word “problem” for “dilemma” or “dog” for “canine” the only way to tell is to read for how well the words flow together, see if they sound out of place even if technically right (this is also error prone I imagine due to human judgment). I also imagine most student plagiarists would be too lazy to take the time to proofread a cooked paper again to be sure that it reads right (I like that term, I’m going to start to refer to electronically mangled original text as Unicode cooked, Synonym cooked and Sentence cooked text). The point of plagiarism, at least for most students, is to save time. Like I  said, I’m not sure at all if the quote above counts as plagiarism, at least not a totally horrific kind. I did find other sentences though:


 

“Much of the litigation and liability arising in business is avoidable.  Many times the only difference between an employer being sued or not is a manager or supervisor who recognizes that the decision being made may lead to unnecessary litigation and thus avoids it. “

~Linda Christiansen

(Update Note: Still in 2013 version of syllabus, largely unchanged.)
 

“Much of the litigation and liability arising in the area covered by these statistics is avoidable. Many times the only difference between an employer being sued or not is a manager or supervisor who recognizes that the decision being made may lead to unnecessary litigation and thus avoids it.”

~

HRMD 620: Employee Relation Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander and Laura Hartman,  University of Maryland University College 2007

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0078134005/information_center_view0/book_preface.html


 

The thing about the above sentences is, while the first two in each set are similar, and the second two are both the same, much of the surrounding text it not. I could think of a technique I’ll call “sentence cooking” when you write a piece of software to interleave different works of a similar theme, then proof read it, but you would still have to edit for flow. This last example might be better referred to as “venetian cooked” as maybe a longer work was cut down by removing the less needed sentences in between, because just a little ways down in the same document we have:


 

“Management often strays from appropriate considerations and treads on thin legal ice.  Many of these mistakes made are based on ignorance rather than malice.  Often it is a result of simply not knowing that a decision was being handled incorrectly.”

~Linda Christiansen

(Update Note: First two sentences in the 2013 version are the same, last one was dropped.)
 

“We have seen how management most often strays from appropriate considerations and treads on thin legal ice, exposing it to potential increased liability. We came to realize that many of the mistakes were based on ignorance rather than malice. Often it was simply not knowing that a decision was being handled incorrectly.”

~

HRMD 620: Employee Relation Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander and Laura Hartman,  University of Maryland University College 2007

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0078134005/information_center_view0/book_preface.html


 

and then later:


 

Additionally, this course provides a basis for making decisions in “gray areas” through the study of social and political movements, legislative history, and case law.  

~Linda Christiansen

(Update Note Seems to have been removed by the 2013 version, but exists in others.)
  

“In an effort to best inform employers of the reasoning behind legal requirements and to provide a basis for making decisions in “gray areas,” we often provide background in relevant social or political movements, or both, as well as in legislative history and other relevant considerations.”

~

HRMD 620: Employee Relation Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander and Laura Hartman,  University of Maryland University College 2007

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0078134005/information_center_view0/book_preface.html


 

Yeah, no reason you can’t mix “venetian cooked” with other techniques.  Sometimes, just a few words get changed. This is when not using a exact phrase search helps a lot, much of the difference here is formatting. I found these in the IRAC section of her syllabus, most seemed to come from Benjamin A. Templin, J.D. at http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html (I’m not sure when he wrote this, but he has “© Copyright 1999 - 2003” on the bottom of his site) (Update Note: By the 2010 version she dropped the IRAC section completely, at least in the version they sent me.)
 

:


 

“ISSUE

The facts of a case suggest and issue.  The key to issue spotting is being able to identify which facts raise which issues. Because of the complexity of the law, the elimination or addition of one fact (such as time of day or whether someone was drinking) can eliminate or add issues to a case thereby raising an entirely different rule of law. “

~Linda Christiansen


 

“Issue Spotting - The First Step


 

    "The facts of a case suggest an Issue."


 

The key to issue spotting is being able to identify which facts raise which issues. Because of the complexity of the law, the elimination or addition of one fact (such as time of day or whether someone was drinking) can eliminate or add issues to a case thereby raising an entirely different rule of law.”

~

http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html



 

RULE

The issue is covered by a rule of law.  Simply put, the rule is the law. The rule could be common law that was developed by the courts or a law that was passed by the legislature.

For every case you read, extract the rule of law by breaking it down into its component parts. In other words, ask the question: what elements of the rule must be proven in order for the rule to hold true?


 

•    What are the elements that prove the rule?

•    What are the exceptions to the rule?

•    From what authority does it come?

•    What’s the underlying public policy (if any) behind the rule?

~Linda Christiansen



 

Rule - What is the Law?


 

    "The issue is covered by a Rule of law."


 

Simply put, the rule is the law. The rule could be common law that was developed by the courts or a law that was passed by the legislature.


 

For every case you read, extract the rule of law by breaking it down into its component parts. In other words, ask the question: what elements of the rule must be proven in order for the rule to hold true?


 

Questions to ask when reading a case:


 

    What are the elements that prove the rule?

    What are the exceptions to the rule?

    From what authority does it come? Common law, statute, new rule?

    What's the underlying public policy behind the rule?

    Are there social considerations?

~

http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html



 

ANALYSIS

Do not stop at the rule of law.  Compare the facts to the rule to form the analysis.  This important area is really relatively simple. For every relevant fact, you need to ask whether the fact helps to prove or disprove the rule. If a rule requires that a certain circumstance is present in order for the rule to apply, then the absence of that circumstance helps you reach the conclusion that the rule does not apply.

You will be tested to see whether you can apply the law to a given set of circumstances. The analysis is the most important element of IRAC since this is where the real thinking happens.

•    Which facts help prove which elements of the rule?

•    Why are certain facts relevant?

•    How do these facts satisfy this rule?

•    What types of facts are applied to the rule?

•    How do these facts further the public policy underlying this rule?

•    What's the counter-argument for another solution?


 

~Linda Christiansen



 

Analysis - The Art of Lawyering


 

    "Compare the facts to the rule to form the Analysis."


 

This important area is really relatively simple. For every relevant fact, you need to ask whether the fact helps to prove or disprove the rule. If a rule requires that a certain circumstance is present in order for the rule to apply, then the absence of that circumstance helps you reach the conclusion that the rule does not apply. For instance, all contracts for the sale of goods over $500 have to be in writing. Consequently, in analyzing a contract for the sale of goods, you apply the presence or absence of two facts - worth of good and whether there's a written contract - in order to see whether the rule holds true.


 

The biggest mistake people make in exam writing is to spot the issue and just recite the rule without doing the analysis. Most professors know that you can look up the law, but they want to test whether you can apply the law to a given set of circumstances. The analysis is the most important element of IRAC since this is where the real thinking happens.


 

Questions to ask when reading a case:


 

    Which facts help prove which elements of the rule?

    Why are certain facts relevant?

    How do these facts satisfy this rule?

    What types of facts are applied to the rule?

    How do these facts further the public policy underlying this rule?

    What's the counter-argument for another solution?

~

http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html



 

CONCLUSION

<the first sentences were not much alike>


 

If a rule does not apply, don't fall into the trap of being conclusive on a party's liability or innocence. There may be another rule by which the party should be judged. In other words you should conclude as to whether the rule applies, but you shouldn't be conclusive as to whether some other result is probable. In that case, you need to raise another rule and analyze the facts again.

In addition, the conclusion should always be stated as a probable result. Courts differ widely on a given set of facts, and there is usually flexibility for different interpretations. Be sure to look at the validity of the opponent's position. If your case has flaws, it is important to recognize those weaknesses and identify them.

~Linda Christiansen



 

Conclusion - Take a Position

<the first sentences were not much alike>


 

If a rule does not apply, don't fall into the trap of being conclusive on a party's liability or innocence. There may be another rule by which the party should be judged. In other words you should conclude as to whether the rule applies, but you shouldn't be conclusive as to whether some other result is probable. In that case, you need to raise another rule and analyze the facts again.


 

In addition, the conclusion should always be stated as a probable result. Courts differ widely on a given set of facts, and there is usually flexibility for different interpretations. Be sure to look at the validity of the opponent's position. If your case has flaws, it is important to recognize those weaknesses and identify them.

~

http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html

 

Funny thing is, according to the syllabus, she uses Turnitin.com (she explains this in a section that ironically seems to have been copy and pasted in, but it’s university boilerplate so I won’t split hairs).


 

When she defined Plagiarism in the syllabus, she used this:


 

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is defined as presenting someone else’s work, including the work of other students, as one’s own. Any ideas or materials taken from another source for either written or oral use must be fully acknowledged, unless the information is common knowledge. What is considered “common knowledge” may differ from course to course.

a.  A student must not adopt or reproduce ideas, opinions, theories, formulas, graphics, or pictures of another person without acknowledgment.

b.  A student must give credit to the originality of others and acknowledge indebtedness whenever:

1.  Directly quoting another person’s actual words, whether oral or written;

2.  Using another person’s ideas, opinions, or theories;

3.  Paraphrasing the words, ideas, opinions, or theories of others, whether oral or written;

4.  Borrowing facts, statistics, or illustrative material; or

5.  Offering materials assembled or collected by others in the form of projects or collections without acknowledgment.

(http://dsa.indiana.edu/Code/index1.html)  


 

Well, at least she cites a source on that definition.


 

I did some looking into Turnitin by asking some professors I know that use it.  As long as someone is checking the report it spits out, it may be a helpful extra tool, but I don’t trust automation for this completely (but I can imagine there are some professors that do). Then again, I don’t trust human judgment much either. I’d like to get an account on the services, but I’m cheap. If you have one and you want me to send you some cooked essays it would be interesting to see how they normalize Unicode (we would submit an uncooked one I wrote, then a cooked version of my own work). Another research idea I have, along with a Unicode homoglyph encoder, is to use some Google APIs to brute force the effort. Have the tool take a string, parse it, mangle it, cut it in all sorts of ways, and automate what I did by hand. Most of the code should already exist in open source password crackers and web spiders, but of course I would give attribution :). What I’ve not tried far is tossing these sorts of searches into closed databases of periodicals like JSTOR (not free, but I can visit a university library for awhile). Also, try your luck with Google Books.


 

The possible plagiarism I found is only in a syllabus, granted, but shouldn't we expect more from people teaching a business law and ethics class, especially when all they had to do was write a syllabus? Those in glass houses should not cast stones (or ctrl-c apparently).


2009 Syllabus can be found here:
http://www.irongeek.com/downloads/christiansen/B516%20Fall%202009%20Syllabus.doc
Newer ones:
http://www.irongeek.com/downloads/christiansen/2010.pdf
http://www.irongeek.com/downloads/christiansen/2011.pdf 
http://www.irongeek.com/downloads/christiansen/2012.pdf
http://www.irongeek.com/downloads/christiansen/2013.pdf 


 

So does IU Southeast and Indiana University take Linda Christiansen's plagiarism seriously?

 

So, since I like roasting hypocrites, I contacted Indian University/IU Southeast and here is what little I got back. Emails below were edited for spacing and to avoid spam to the email addresses. I contacted the original authors, and Linda Christiansen was not involved with any of the original works based on their responses. I contacted Uric B. Dufrene, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs at IU Southeast and got nothing back:

 


Plagiarism ok if it is on a syllabus?
2 messages

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:00 PM
To: "Andrews, Teresa A" <tandrews(at)ius.edu>, "Dufrene, Uric B." <UDUFRENE(at)ius.edu>
Curious if this gets a reaction at all. How serious is Plagiarism taken?

 

Thanks,
 
Adrian


--
"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit." ~ W. Somerset Maugham
"The ability to Google can be a serviceable substitute for technical knowledge." ~ Adrian D. Crenshaw
 

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:37 AM
To: "Andrews, Teresa A" <tandrews(at)ius.edu>, "Dufrene, Uric B." <UDUFRENE(at)ius.edu>
Hello,
 
    So, is there any comment, even just an "it is under investigation"? From the very same syllabus, if a student had done the same thing, they would have been instantly failed.

 
Adrian

 

Well, technically I did get something back, an out of office message from secretary Teresa Andrews. I also left messages on Facebook pages related to IUS, and sent an email to IU Southeast's SGA and student newspaper about it (and admittedly trolled Jay White on the issue using Twitter). More crickets. My dialog to get more up to date syllabi was also interesting:

Open Records Request
10 messages

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:39 PM
To: gcrecreq(at)iu.edu
Please see attached request form.

 
Adrian
 

--
"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit." ~ W. Somerset Maugham
"The ability to Google can be a serviceable substitute for technical knowledge." ~ Adrian D. Crenshaw
 

 
 
    Adrian_Crenshaw_Request_for_Public_Record_Form.png
137K

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM
To: gcrecreq <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu>
Hello,
    Just want to confirm you received this. Also, I want the original documents, not scans of printouts. Nothing should need to be redacted.
 
Adrian
 
[Quoted text hidden]

General Counsel Recrds Request <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu> Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM
To: Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

Mr. Crenshaw,

Yes we did receive your emails. Thank you. Please see the attached letter from Stephen Harper.

Thanks,

 Anthony Warner
Administrative Assistant
Indiana University
Office of the Vice President and General Counsel
107 S. Indiana Ave.
Bryan Hall Room 211
Bloomington, IN 47405
Telephone (812) 856-1804
Facsimile (812) 855-0678
http://www.iub.edu/~vpgc/


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this E-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system.


 
 
    Crenshaw, Adrian_initial response.pdf
159K

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM
To: General Counsel Recrds Request <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu>
Thanks much.
 
Adrian
 
[Quoted text hidden]

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM
To: General Counsel Recrds Request <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu>
Hello,
 
   Is there an estimate on when this information will be available?

 
Thanks,
 
Adrian
 
[Quoted text hidden]

General Counsel Recrds Request <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu> Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM
To: Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

Adrian, 

The University is working to gather the records you have requested.  I do not have a specific estimate as to how long this process will take, but we will be in touch with you as soon as we have fully gathered and reviewed the requested records.

Thanks,

Stephen Harper, Assistant General Counsel
Office of the Vice President & General Counsel
Indiana University
107 S. Indiana Avenue, Bryan Hall 211
Bloomington, IN 47405
(812) 855-0008 (Phone)
(812) 855-0678 (Fax)


Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:00 PM
To: gcrecreq <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu>

Thanks Stephen
 

[Quoted text hidden]

General Counsel Recrds Request <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu> Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:26 AM
To: Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

Mr. Crenshaw,

Please see the attached letter from Stephen Harper.  The original letter including a CD with the requested files will follow in U.S. Mail.

Thank you,

Anthony Warner
Administrative Assistant
Indiana University
Office of the Vice President and General Counsel
107 S. Indiana Ave.
Bryan Hall Room 211
Bloomington, IN 47405
Telephone (812) 856-1804
Facsimile (812) 855-0678

http://www.iub.edu/~vpgc/


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this E-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system.

From: irongeek(at)gmail.com [mailto:irongeek(at)gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Crenshaw
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 6:01 PM
To: General Counsel Recrds Request
Subject: RE: Open Records Request

[Quoted text hidden]

 
 
    Crenshaw, Adrian_response.pdf
129K

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:00 AM
To: General Counsel Recrds Request <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu>
Acknowledged. Thanks much.

 
Adrian
 
[Quoted text hidden]

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM
To: General Counsel Recrds Request <gcrecreq(at)iu.edu>
Why did they send scans in a PDF instead of the original word docs for Linda Christiansen's?

 
Adrian
 
[Quoted text hidden]

 

I never got an answer to why Jay White and Jon Bingham's syllabi we generated PDFs I could copy and paste from (as well as find metadata), but Linda Christiansen's syllabi were printed out and scanned back in as a PDF format I could not copy and pasted from (making searching for plagiarism harder) and with the original metadata stripped. The original syllabus I had from Linda Christiansen was a Word DOC, so why not send that if there is nothing to hide (also, page formatting was a bit off from the one I had in class)? I did get hold of  a Research Integrity Officer for Indiana University, but sadly not much could be done:

plagiarism allegation
11 messages

Bizila, Shelley D <sbizila(at)iupui.edu> Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM
To: "irongeek(at)irongeek.com" <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

Dear Mr. Crenshaw, 

My office recently was forwarded a report you had made regarding Dr. Linda Christiansen at IU Southeast. By way of introduction, I am the Research Integrity Officer for Indiana University and my office handles allegations of research misconduct which includes allegations of plagiarism, falsification and/or fabrication.  I’ve attached a link to our policy here:  http://researchadmin.iu.edu/Policies/ResearchMisconduct.pdf.  I’d like to speak to you regarding your concerns.  Please let me know your availability for a brief phone call sometime this week or next and let me know if you have questions regarding the policy or the role my office.

Best,

Shelley

Shelley Bizila, MS, CIP, CCEP
Clinical Research Compliance Officer
Research Integrity Officer
Office of Research Compliance
Indiana University
980 Indiana Avenue
Lockefield Village, Room 3343
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone:  317/274.5524

Fax: 317/274.0264
E-mail:  sbizila(at)iupui.edu 


Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:44 PM
To: "Bizila, Shelley D" <sbizila(at)iupui.edu>
Sure. Feel free to ask questions as you see fit. Were you needing to call? My number is 812-949-2987 .
 
Thanks,
 
Adrian
 
[Quoted text hidden]
--
"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit." ~ W. Somerset Maugham
"The ability to Google can be a serviceable substitute for technical knowledge." ~ Adrian D. Crenshaw
 

Bizila, Shelley D <sbizila(at)iupui.edu> Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:49 PM
To: Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

I am heading into a meeting now; is there a good time to reach you by phone either tomorrow or Wednesday? 

Shelley Bizila, MS, CIP, CCEP
Clinical Research Compliance Officer
Research Integrity Officer
Office of Research Compliance
Indiana University
980 Indiana Avenue
Lockefield Village, Room 3343
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone:  317/274.5524

Fax: 317/274.0264
E-mail:  sbizila(at)iupui.edu 

 

[Quoted text hidden]

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:52 PM
To: "Bizila, Shelley D" <sbizila(at)iupui.edu>
Sure. Any time after 10am should be find either day.
 
Adrian
 
[Quoted text hidden]

Bizila, Shelley D <sbizila(at)iupui.edu> Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:53 PM
To: Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

Thanks, I will call you late morning tomorrow. 

Shelley Bizila, MS, CIP, CCEP
Clinical Research Compliance Officer
Research Integrity Officer
Office of Research Compliance
Indiana University
980 Indiana Avenue
Lockefield Village, Room 3343
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone:  317/274.5524

Fax: 317/274.0264
E-mail:  sbizila(at)iupui.edu 

 

 
[Quoted text hidden]

 


Bizila, Shelley D <sbizila(at)iupui.edu> Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM
To: Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

Hi Mr. Crenshaw,

I am not at place where I can use a phone right now so thought I’d email my question(s). In specific, I am responding to your charge of plagiarism within, it appears from your website, several syllabi from Dr. Christiansen’s classes over a period of years.  I am trying to discern if there are any research implications here since my office’s jurisdiction over plagiarism is confined to plagiarism in research and usually syllabi do not meet the definition of a research record in the policy I reference below:

                Research Record. Any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of a Charge of Research Misconduct. A Research Record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; printed or electronic correspondence; memoranda of telephone calls; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

Do you think your allegations of plagiarism involve any research records?  If not, I will work to determine the appropriate non-research path for this complaint.

Thanks for your time.

Shelley

Shelley Bizila, MS, CIP, CCEP
Clinical Research Compliance Officer
Research Integrity Officer
Office of Research Compliance
Indiana University
980 Indiana Avenue
Lockefield Village, Room 3343
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone:  317/274.5524

Fax: 317/274.0264
E-mail:  sbizila(at)iupui.edu

 

 
[Quoted text hidden]

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:24 AM
To: "Bizila, Shelley D" <sbizila(at)iupui.edu>
Hi Ms. Bizila,
 
    The ones I found were just in the syllabus, which in part consisted of class notes (IRAC more than anything). I'm not sure it counts s as a research record or not as it is not really new material.

 
Thanks,
 
Adrian
 
[Quoted text hidden]

Bizila, Shelley D <sbizila(at)iupui.edu> Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM
To: Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

Thanks.  As I noted below, then, I don’t believe this is an allegation that can be addressed through the research misconduct policy.  Please let me know if you have additional questions. 

Shelley

Shelley Bizila, MS, CIP, CCEP
Clinical Research Compliance Officer
Research Integrity Officer
Office of Research Compliance
Indiana University
980 Indiana Avenue
Lockefield Village, Room 3343
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone:  317/274.5524

Fax: 317/274.0264
E-mail:  sbizila(at)iupui.edu

 

 
[Quoted text hidden]

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:41 PM
To: Shelley D Bizila <sbizila(at)iupui.edu>

Will be redirected to someone else?
Thanks,
Adrian

[Quoted text hidden]

Bizila, Shelley D <sbizila(at)iupui.edu> Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:10 PM
To: Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com>

I’ve spoken with University Counsel’s office and via IU’s Code of Academic Ethics you could report your concerns to the Dean of the School of Business.

Best,

Shelley

Shelley Bizila, MS, CIP, CCEP
Clinical Research Compliance Officer
Research Integrity Officer
Office of Research Compliance
Indiana University
980 Indiana Avenue
Lockefield Village, Room 3343
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone:  317/274.5524

Fax: 317/274.0264
E-mail:  sbizila(at)iupui.edu

  

From: irongeek(at)gmail.com [mailto:irongeek(at)gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Crenshaw
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Bizila, Shelley D
Subject: RE: plagiarism allegation

[Quoted text hidden]

Adrian Crenshaw <irongeek(at)irongeek.com> Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM
To: "Bizila, Shelley D" <sbizila(at)iupui.edu>
Oh, he knows. He does not care other than it being a nuisance to him. I've caught him in lies/half truth/misstatements before, he is more interested in appearances than ethics.

 
Adrian

 

So, since it is not "Research", nothing can be done about it. Apparently, plagiarism is ok at IU/Indiana University Southeast if you are tenured faculty and it's only a business law and ethics syllabus. I did make Jay White aware of it via Twitter, but complaining to Jay about Linda Christiansen's ethics and hypocrisy is a little like complain about the Jeff Skilling's business ethics to Bernie Madoff.

Change Log:

 

1/13/2014: I did an open records request to get newer syllabi. It seems Linda Christiansen dropped the most egregious plagiarism, the IRAC part. Some of the other items are still there. It's interesting that she changed her definition of online etiquette after I took the class, her new version makes it easier to fail students on a whim. Also, the page spacing was different in the 2009 syllabus IU Legal sent from the one I got in class, but the content seems the same (could be a PDF conversion issue). One of the most suspicious things is, I also requested Jon Bingham's (some of his syllabi seem to be updated from Dagney Faulk's syllabi based on metadata) and Alan Jay White's syllabi, and they were given to me in selectable text formatted PDFs that could be copied and pasted from. Linda Christiansen's were printed out, and then scanned back in, so text could not be easily copied and pasted (but OCR worked well for me). Is there any reason to do this other than making it harder to check for plagiarism?

 

3/10/2014: I posted the section: So does IU Southeast and Indiana University take Linda Christiansen's plagiarism seriously?

Printable version of this article

15 most recent posts on Irongeek.com:


If you would like to republish one of the articles from this site on your webpage or print journal please contact IronGeek.

Copyright 2014, IronGeek
Louisville / Kentuckiana Information Security Enthusiast