Search

This paper reconstructs prevalent academic discourses of student plagiarism: moralism, proceduralism, development, and writing/inter-textuality. It approaches the discourses from three aspects: intention, interpretation and the nature of the academic community. It argues that the assumptions of the moralistic approach regarding suspect intention, the transparency of interpretation, and the homogeneous nature of the academic community are in effect sustained by discourses of proceduralism and development. This results, first, in the simplistic rendition of student identities as honest/dishonest, and, second, in the proposal of or acquiescence to the triad of prevention, detection and punishment. The paper concludes that radical re-conceptualization of plagiarism may only be discovered in the discourse of inter-textuality where intention, interpretation and the academic community are construed as social practices concerning the negotiation of various identities and values--those of students as well as those of academics. (Contains 1 note.)

Part of a comprehensive study to analyse British broadsheets' coverage of the First Gaza War, this paper examines the moral arguments presented in editorials. Doing so, it showcases a non-dualist, relational inquiry of the representation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of focusing on what is empirically 'true', morally 'right', and ethnically 'Israeli/Jewish' or 'Palestinian/Arab' as extra-discursive categories, it approaches them as discursive constructions and asks what relations, what forms of lives the editorials cultivate in representing them. The analysis demonstrates that whilst newspapers overwhelmingly imagine isolated and ahistorical essences to clash in Palestine-Israel, they do not exclusively do so. Traces of a discourse of relations, where 'I' (Palestinian or Israeli) is partly constituted by the 'Other' (Israeli or Palestinian) can also be found in the editorials. It is with the vicissitudes of such relational accounts that the article concludes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper unpacks the far-reaching theoretical and practical issues that underlay the classical debate between cognitive psychologist Ulric Neisser and discursive social psychologists Derek Edwards and Jonathan Potter on Watergate witness John Dean's memory. Accounting for their disagreements, Neisser claimed the mantle of the cognitive-ecological approach to memory and emphasized the psychologist's ultimate priority of truth over discourse, while Edwards and Potter claimed that of discursive/rhetorical psychology and focused exclusively on discourse over truth. As such, the debate at the time ended in mutual misunderstanding and the shadow of theoretical incommensurability. However, a rhetorical analysis of the arguments suggests that Neisser was right about truth when he intuitively sensed the importance of discourse, and Edwards and Potter were right about discourse when they did not lose sight of truth. Therefore, beyond the impasse there has remained a promise inherent in the debate: it demonstrated an imaginative attempt to undermine the absolute dichotomy of truth and rhetoric and demonstrate their mutual inter-dependence. As will be argued, such integration of traditional concerns of the psychologist entails the re-conceptualization of the discipline as political and moral science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]