"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)
