(With specific reference to the Jennifer Ivory-Tatum (2001) dissertation)
Go back to the documentation by clicking HERE.
- Who are the individuals alleging plagiarism in the Ivory-Tatum dissertation? Who owns this website?
We prefer to refrain from identifying ourselves, for a number of reasons: news stories tend to write of an aggrieved party using plagiarism as a weapon, rather than looking at the plagiarism claims to confirm validity; any potential connection to our initial sources could lead to retaliatory behavior; and our intent is to keep the focus on the scholar’s behavior, not the actions leading up to and including our review. Instead of asking “why did this website choose to focus on this individual/dissertation?” visitors should instead be asking “does this behavior amount to plagiarism, and if so, why, and what should be done about it?” - Why did you choose to review this dissertation?
Our review started when unnamed sources shared information with us documenting a handful of instances of plagiarism in the Ivory-Tatum dissertation, including proof that the first paragraph of the dissertation was entirely copied (and neither cited nor quoted) from another’s work. A few quick searches later revealed a potential pattern, and we started our inquiry. - Do you intend to review other scholars’ work?
Yes, we are interested in doing other deep dives into academic dishonesty, and so we are open to recommendations. Note that we cannot guarantee that we will take on any recommendation nor can we assure we will confirm any alleged plagiarism. Tips can be e-mailed to theacademichonesty@proton.me. - Isn’t this just considered poor citation practice, something that happens all the time?
This is a common response to plagiarism allegations, and typically attempts to minimize the behavior by considering this similar to unintended plagiarism in other examples. Yes, we acknowledge that many works of scholarship have mistakes that would be considered plagiarism, by its strict definition. What’s required to elevate those allegations is to investigate whether there is a pattern of that behavior, particularly within that single work, when there are few additional published works to investigate. In this case, we found dozens — well over 50 instances, and all within pages 1 through 37. If the author had missed a couple of quotation marks here or there, and had page references, it would be more understandable. But with over 50 having no quotation marks, and at least 13 instances where language was copied without proper citation or attribution at all, and many additional instances where the copied language included citations that were themselves copied…that speaks to a pattern. - Perhaps the author simply did not know the correct practice for quoting others’ works.
If the author simply “did not know” to quote directly copied language in an academic work, that speaks to the precise reason that dissertations exist: to prove to one’s College that they understand how to synthesize existing research, extract an issue to be examined, and conduct research that addresses gaps in understanding or supports prior knowledge. An inability to properly review existing literature and follow basic practice to attribute others’ words would be the sort of deficiency that would necessitate additional education or result in a failed defense, if discovered at the time of submission. Visitors should ask themselves this: if a dissertation committee or advisor had seen evidence of this extent of uncited copying in a dissertation pre-defense, would they allow it to proceed? If the author chose not to change anything and move ahead, would the author pass their defense? Would it not be plagiarism if that happened? To make an assertion that a scholar would be this deficient in basic citation practice would be to criticize the very education the scholar received, and to suggest that the program does not adequately prepare its students, and that would be a serious accusation. The “Occam’s Razor” explanation would be that the author knew the language was copied but chose not to write it as a direct quotation. In the Ivory-Tatum case, over half of the literature review would consist of quoted text, which is unheard of in standard scholarly practice and would most certainly merit revision from an advisor or committee. - If the plagiarism only happens in the initial chapters and the research is original, what is the big deal?
First, plagiarism isn’t about claiming someone’s research as your own, though there are instances of that type of plagiarism and they are indeed serious; it is about claiming someone else’s words and ideas as your own. When a scholar copies another author’s words, professional courtesy and academic policies mandate that scholars properly attribute those words, by including a citation, quotation marks, and a page reference. This conveys acknowledgement to the original author and indicates to readers that they will find those words and additional context in the original work. When they fail to use quotation marks and page numbers, they are, intentionally or not, representing the author’s words as their own, and representing that they are synthesizing an author’s findings, rather than simply copying them. Copying quotations is sometimes good practice; a means to let the author speak in support of one’s own argument. At the scale and frequency found in this dissertation, it suggests an attempt to simply let other authors review the literature, and perhaps the scholar did not even read much of the literature cited, as evidenced by not only copying an author’s words but their citations as well.
Second, it’s worth discussing and understanding the purpose of a practitioner degree, as the University of Illinois’ Ed.D. degree is described. According to the website for the Ed.D., “The Doctor of Education degree program is designed to provide students with advanced professional training and to further develop their abilities in the scholarly study of professional problems,” and, “The Ed.D. dissertation is intended to demonstrate the student’s ability to relate academic knowledge to the problems of professional practice” (emphases ours). There is a focus on analysis and application of prior research literature on professional practice, and so there is a weight placed on the ability to read, understand, and apply prior literature. To simply copy other authors’ words without synthesizing meaning represents a shortcut to simply cross the finish line. Simply put, plagiarism is cheating in the dissertation, the penultimate test of “scholarly study of professional problems.” Trying to bypass the “scholarly study” and “relate academic knowledge” expectations of the degree in the final stage seems a grossly irresponsible act. - What do you want to happen as a result of this allegation?
We do not do this work to effect an actual outcome. It is neither our place to determine that this should result in the removal of an awarded degree nor our role to assert it disqualifies an individual from their current employment, or any other outcome. That would overstep our authority, as such decisions would be the responsibility of the University, academic college, and employing bodies for the individual(s). Our intent is to get information out, to conduct the necessary background research, and to share our findings. In no way should our work be considered exhaustive or conclusive. Our documentation should provide sufficient background and direction to any of the above named organizations should they decide to conduct their own investigation. - Have you found any other examples of plagiarism from this scholar?
This particular individual has not published any other peer-reviewed articles since the dissertation, that we can tell. Unfortunately, that leaves us with very few other works to look for examples of plagiarism. However, we did find one recent example of language that was copied and not cited in an email Dr. Ivory-Tatum sent to the district in October 2023:
We are continuing to look for further examples but have none to share at this point.