"Disappointing Is Plagiarism of a Doctoral Supervisor at
Peking University,"
an article in the January 10 issue of Social Sciences Journal, has
sparked strong public debate. The article disclosed that Wang
Mingming, a famous young professor and doctoral supervisor at the
Department of Sociology of Peking University, committed plagiarism.
It states that around 100,000 words in his recent book, Imaginary
Alien Nation, are identical to some sections of Cultural
Anthropology by American anthropologist William A. Haviland.
The Chinese version of Cultural Anthropology was published in 1987,
with Wang being one of the translators. Less than 30 years of age
at the time, Wang worked at Xiamen University, and
was later admitted to the School of Oriental and African Studies at
the University of London. After
graduation, he returned to China and became a professor at Peking
University.
The news concerning his plagiarism has shocked Chinese society, and
undercurrents of corruption in academia have begun to surface.
Xu
Ming, Director of Social Sciences Journal, said he was afraid the
publication of the article might hurt Prof. Wang. However, he
finally decided to publish it because such a practice is currently
too prevalent to ignore. "As a young researcher, I feel
increasingly upset with the unhealthy atmosphere in academic
circles. So I am going to contribute a little to eradicate academic
malpractice," said Wang Xiaosheng, the author of the article and a
doctoral candidate at Capital Normal University.
On
January 14, Peking University decided to severely punish Wang
Mingming. Consequently, he was deprived of virtually all his
academic posts, including directorships of the Folklore Study
Center and the Teaching and Research Section of Anthropology, and
membership of the Academic Board of the Department of Sociology at
Peking University. Using Wang's case as a negative example, the
Department of Sociology at Peking University has launched an
educational campaign among faculty members to promote academic
ethics.
On
January 17, Washington Post carried a detailed report on Wang's
plagiarism of Haviland's work. "Cultural anthropology has played an
important role in reviving anthropology in China. I would hate to
see the guy go down the tubes for what appears to be an honest
mistake," said Prof. Haviland in a telephone interview. Wang wrote
him a letter of apology. Fortunately, an unpleasant situation had
already been averted, as Haviland's reaction was milder than
expected: "I'm not upset; he got a little carried away."
Some scholars believe that corruption in academia is the result of
social problems, such as impetuousness and commercial speculations.
Others believe the work of scholars has declined because they
cannot resist the lure of material benefits of a market economy. To
reverse this situation, competent departments must devise and
implement rules and regulations, and enhance legislation to
regularly and systematically restrain scholars' academic activities
and behavior.
This Is An Issue of Academic Integrity
Yin Jinan (Professor of the Department of Art History at the
Central Academy of Fine Arts): Wang Mingming's plagiarism indicates
bigger problems. While many people comment on his moral defects,
they overlook institutional problems. Corruption in academia in
fact stems from problems with the academic mechanism as a whole,
including evaluation, assessment and publishing procedures.
Since China's reform and opening-up more than two decades ago, no
major reforms have taken place in the academic system, and academic
and administrative functions have not been separated. This poses a
few questions: Are people who enact academic rules actually
academic authorities? Is their enactment legal? The fact that
officials in charge of academic issues naturally become academic
authorities and leaders in their fields of study is a problem. The
academic board should consist of top scholars, not of officials
with an academic background.
In
the face of this plagiarism incident, should we raise questions on
who supports, induces and benefits from corruption in academia, and
who encourages it? Blaming it on individual moral defects is an
oversimplified answer. Who should be responsible for academic
corruption? It should first be blamed on the assessment system. It
is a serious problem if members of the academic board neither read
the books nor hold the criteria. Without reforms in the academic
system, corruption in academia is inevitable.
Plagiarism can be indirect as well as direct, and the former type
is more prevalent. Who are intellectuals? They are creators of new
knowledge. If a scholar lacks originality and cannot create and put
forward new concepts, methods or theories, his or her works qualify
as indirect plagiarism.
Our existing academic system has a lot of problems, for it cannot
identify indirect plagiarism. In many developed countries, works
that are not innovative but merely repeat the author's or other
people's notions are never published. When a monograph goes to
press, extensive and honest comments are made, and the concepts,
structure, methods and sources of information used by the author
are critically examined. Book reviews in China, on the other hand,
are usually superficial and just praise the author.
International academic symposia usually practice a strict
evaluation mechanism, under which they select candidates according
to their fields of expertise and outlines. Publishing their works
and participating in academic symposia puts outstanding scholars in
the spotlight of their specialties. Academic research is like a
long distance race without a terminal point, and winners are
different at different stages.
In
Western countries, usually four to 10 years are allotted to writing
a doctoral thesis, which must be of a high standard. Our doctoral
education system, however, has remained the way it was under the
former planned economy. Doctoral candidates achieve their degrees
after three years of study, just like master's candidates. What
kind of high-quality thesis can be completed in three years? Two
years after graduation, doctoral degree holders become associate
professors, and then professors five years later. Associate
professors are required to write two books in five years. How can
they complete so many in-depth research projects in such a short
time? Under such circumstances, they actually have no choice but to
lift parts of other people's works, and it's a good thing if their
works contain a few new elements. Seven years later, they need not
make any further efforts.
In
Western countries, assigning graduates to work at their Alma Mater
is uncommon. It's impossible for a Harvard graduate to continue
working at Harvard and become a tenured professor right after
graduation. Harvard may employ them only after they become
influential scholars in a certain field and achieve some
recognition.
Prestigious universities in the West always invite applications
from every segment of society whenever there's a vacancy, thus
giving everybody a chance to compete. In China, on the other hand,
Peking University and Tsinghua University are filled with their own
graduates, thus depriving people from outside these universities of
an opportunity to compete.
Becoming a tenured professor is very hard in Western countries;
individuals must do an excellent job and introduce a lot of
innovations to achieve that position. However, all academic posts
in China are permanent, which means that no one will ever be laid
off, whether a teaching assistant or a professor. Hence, there's no
differentiation between ordinary and tenured faculty members.
Furthermore, another current practice brings the management of
academic posts to another extreme, namely, professors have to
compete for a teaching position but won't be given fixed
professional titles. This, in a sense, places intellectuals on the
same level as manual laborers.
Self-discipline and Institutional Restraint Are Both
Important
Ge
Jianxiong (Professor and Director of the History and Geography
Study Center at Fudan University): Plagiarism isn't a mere academic
issue; it reflects a person's moral status. The public is
astonished not at Wang's lack of knowledge about Chinese
philosophical history or his faulty knowledge of principles of
anthropology, but at his plagiarism, considering that he is a
doctoral supervisor of a prestigious institute such as Peking
University. This public reaction to such a misdeed raises a
thought-provoking question: Can it be said that the public is
unable to distinguish right from wrong? A fine line exists between
academic criticism and a case of plagiarism, and that line should
be clearly drawn. This is an issue involving plagiarism and the
person's moral status. Now that this case has been publicized,
nobody can get away with such an act.
Strengthening self-discipline and improving the academic evaluation
system are important measures to be taken. All social mechanisms
related to academia should be reformed to curb corruption in
academia.
The general academic atmosphere is currently shrouded by an
eagerness to achieve quick success and instant benefits. Many
universities and research institutions aim for world recognition.
However, if they were really aware of the conditions and standards
of world-class universities, they would realize that there's a
large gap between them, which cannot be bridged in a short period.
Educational administrative departments should therefore objectively
evaluate China's present overall academic system, to avoid imposing
unreasonable demands on higher education institutions. Since
research funds are limited, making reasonable arrangements for the
utilization of academic resources and economizing is essential.
Zhu Xueqin (Professor of University of Shanghai): In some Western
countries, a stiff academic evaluation system formed spontaneously
by the academic circle exists.
There are two things I am opposed to: One is to hastily bestow
senior professional titles on young scholars before they are fully
qualified, in the hope that they quickly achieve a great deal on
that level. Some universities vie with one another to increase the
majors enrolling doctor and master candidates, and establish
various research centers to pursue a larger scope and a higher
standard and even reach international standards in a short time. As
a result, professors and doctoral supervisors have increased by
large numbers. Such short-sighted acts will only result in a waste
of academic resources and limited scientific research funds, and
keep academic competition at a low level. The other thing I am
against is administrative interference in academia. The
interference of administrative departments has, to a certain
extent, disrupted the natural development of the academic
profession.
Scholars Need Self-discipline
Wu
Xiaoru (Professor of Peking University): Scholars must discipline
themselves. If they lack solid knowledge of their subject or cannot
even follow some basic principles, they shouldn't write books. Some
social factors indeed tempt young students to pursue quick material
benefits. However, if they choose this road, they shouldn't trade
academic endeavor for utility! Some people call me the academic
police and don't like me. But I don't mind continuing to play such
a role.
Yang Yusheng (Associate Professor of Beijing Normal University): At
present, five unhealthy phenomena prevail in academic circles-low
standards, slipshod reproduction of materials, bubble academia,
counterfeit production, and plagiarism. It's hard to imagine that
students who have grown up in such a corrupt academic atmosphere
would inherit the academic essence, and carry on pure Confucian
principles in their academic research.
Generally speaking, it's a serious mistake if an intellectual
doesn't respect the interests of his country, people and society
while writing a book. To be specific, one must respect academic
ethics and abide by academic rules while working on a project. I
always tell my doctoral students to make detailed notes of the
books they cite, and I often tell graduate students that they must
retain their values as they move about in society and compose
academic works. Intellectuals are the mainstay and conscience of
society. Ordinary people may follow trends, but intellectuals
should not. They should not seek material benefits just because
everybody else may do so. They must instead persist in their
intellectual pursuits in an honest and systematic manner.
(
Beijing Review February 22, 2002)