Plagiarism: An Open Letter to the Genealogical Society of Ireland
Plagiarism is the copying or paraphrasing of other people’s work or ideas without full acknowledgement. - University of Oxford
The webpage of the Guild of One-Name Studies relating to its April 2013 Conference and AGM in England features the following notice:
'Origins and Meanings of Irish Surnames, John Hamrock, This talk has been removed from the Guild website for copyright reasons' (http://www.one-name.org/talks/conf2013.html).
Why would it be found necessary to post
such a
notice? As
the case very much involves the Genealogical Society of Ireland, as
that body has declared that 'no further
correspondence whatsoever will be entertained on this matter' and
because a false narrative is in circulation, it has
been decided to proceed by way of an open letter. The writer
understands that a former Genealogical Society of Ireland Chairman
was or is his
society's representative for the Guild of One-Name Studies in Ireland.
John Hamrock has recently been appointed Chairman of the Genealogical
Society of Ireland, promising that a 'key focus will be on Education
and Training' and to 'look to offer distance learning possibly in
partnership with leading third level institutions' (Ireland's Genealogical Gazette,
May 2014, page 1).
By way of background,
I noticed in May 2013 that slides/handouts containing drafts of my work
in progress on Irish surnames, entrusted
to students in class, had been reused without permission by Mr Hamrock
as a core part of his presentation to the Guild of One-Name Studies
at the aforementioned conference in April 2013, being then published
online.
Having tried and failed to negotiate a
resolution with Mr Hamrock, I entered a complaint with the US-based
Association of Professional Genealogists of which he was a member. On
1 October 2013 this association
decided that Mr Hamrock was in violation of its code of ethics in that
he copied the
information in eight slides of the present writer relating to Irish
surnames without giving adequate credit and in breach of the principle
of 'fair use'. Having considered the facts of the case, the Guild
of One-Name Studies properly removed the presentation from its
website as noted above, but Mr Hamrock made no move to apologise or
make amends.
Most of
the tables in question were in fact out
of date, having been
amended and published in the writer's article 'A Survey of Irish
Surnames 1992-97'
(http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/studies/surnames.pdf),
and on
that account alone were not suitable for reuse. For example, as
illustrated below, Mr Hamrock copied an old class handout of mine
illustrating use of surname prefixes based on the Dublin area telephone
directory only, which I have since amended to include data from the
telephone directories for the whole of Ireland (see 'Survey of Irish
Surnames', pages 21-22). It seems obvious that it is highly unethical
for a student to reuse a teacher's material in this way, and as I
pointed out to Mr Hamrock in an unacknowledged e-mail dated 25 May
2013, 'where a scholar has produced clearly identifiable published
work, reproducing material from their old lecture notes without
permission and citing their name and educational institution only could
not be regarded as giving full and proper credit to their work'.
Example
of archived class slide/handout of Sean Murphy 2007 (left),
unauthorised copy used by John Hamrock 2013 (right),
which implies that he carried out research in the sources listed with perhaps some unspecified assistance from myself.
There are other examples of
plagiarism or presentation of the work of another as one's own with
which the other party is involved. A Genealogical Society of Ireland
course description at
http://familyhistory.ie/wp/courses/
contains the following words:
'Topics to be covered include the principles of genealogy, computers
and the internet, place names and surnames, location and use of census,
vital, valuation, church and other records. Practical advice will be
shared with participants as they embark on the quest to trace their
ancestors.' This is verbatim and near-verbatim copying of text from the
description of a long-standing introductory course given by the present
writer:
'Topics to be covered include principles of genealogy, computers and
the Internet, place names and surnames, location and use of census,
vital, valuation, church and other records. Practical advice and
guidance will be given to students embarking on the work of tracing
their ancestors.' Again, it simply is not acceptable for
someone to
set
up as an educator and re-use the class material of a former teacher
rather than carefully compile their own, and such action undermines and
devalues the course being copied. Unfortunately, it would appear
that unacknowledged copying has become habitual, in that an article
republished on Ancestor Network's site
contains the definition, 'Heraldry, to most people, is the practice of
designing, displaying, describing, and recording coats of arms and
heraldic badges', which is a slightly altered version of Wikipedia's definition,
'To most, though, heraldry is the practice of designing, displaying,
describing, and recording coats of arms and heraldic badges'.
It might be observed that the attitude of the Genealogical Society of Ireland
itself to the copying of material from its publications is anything but
casual, as demonstrated by the following prefatory warning in its Journal:
All rights reserved. No part of this Journal may be reproduced or utilised in any way or means, electronic or mechanical, including photography, filming, recording, video recording, photocopying or by any storage or retrieval system, or shall not by way of trade or otherwise be lent, resold or otherwise circulated in any form or binding or cover other than that in which it is published without the prior permission, in writing, from the publisher Genealogical Society of Ireland.
The
present writer has been in the habit of appending a shorter statement
to his publications, hopefully serving both to protect his intellectual
property from misuse and at the same time not to discourage others from
making reasonable
use of same: 'Contents may be freely reproduced offline for fair
personal and educational use, with proper acknowledgment' (this text
may need to be revised in the light of lessons learned in the present
ongoing case). It might be noted here that the US
concept of 'fair use' is a good one, being defined as 'a legal doctrine
that portions of copyrighted materials may be used without permission
of the copyright owner provided the use is fair and reasonable, does
not substantially impair the value of the materials, and does not
curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair%20use).
I
have no objection, indeed I am very happy to see published articles of
mine being
used by others, provided that it is done appropriately and with proper
credit, and that might include a table or two in a lecture presentation
properly referenced as to source. However, it is clearly not acceptable
to use eight tables from a teacher's old class handouts and present
them as though they were based primarily on one's own research.
Having devoted thousands of hours work to
the subject, I am willing and able to deliver lectures on Irish
surnames in my own right and can hardly be expected to acquiesce in someone else presenting my research as his work
at conferences. Efforts to resolve the dispute by negotiation
before proceeding by way of
formal complaint proved fruitless and at the moment of writing there
has been no admission of wrongdoing, no apology and no effort to make
amends (an attempt has been made to pressurise me to remain silent).
While the case was taken very seriously in the USA and England as
indicated, the
writer understands that the matter has been represented in Ireland as
in effect a 'petty,
personal dispute', with the personal pettiness allegedly lying on the
present writer's side, but it is or should be clear that plagiarism is
a very
serious matter impacting adversely on standards in Irish genealogy.
Unfortunately, the matter of plagiarism does not end with the examples cited above, as
there are even more serious instances of unacknowledged verbatim
transcription, as detailed in the
following sample parallel texts relating to an article in a publication
produced by
the Genealogical Society of Ireland, Essays Presented to Liam Mac
Alasdair, FGSI (accessible online
and to which volume the present writer was also a contributor at a time
when he was endeavouring to work constructively with the Society).
In 1021 MacConcannon, lord of Hy Diarmada,
was killed by O'Gadhra. In 1023 O'Conor, King of Connaught, made an
expedition into Brefne, where he killed Donnell O'Hara, King of
Luighne. In 1024 occurred "the battle of Ath na Croisi in Corann,
between Ua Maeldoraidh, i.e. King of Cenel Conaill, and Ua Ruairc, when
O'Ruairc was defeated, and a terrible slaughter of the men of Brefne
and Connacht was committed by the Cenel Conaill" (L.C., A.U., F.M.,
A.T.). The O'Haras and O'Garas seem to have been opposed to O'Conor and
on the side of O'Ruairc in the years 1021 and 1023, and to have been on
his side, together with O'Ruairc, in 1024, combining to resist the
Ulstermen. But this reading depends on the description of those who
were killed as "of Brefne and Connacht." So it may have only beeen a
successful raid against O'Rourk and his allies, who could not resist
Ulster without help from O'Conor. All accounts call it a defeat of
O'Rourk, who is said to have lost 2000 men. [A footnote 20 refers to
Knox as in right column but uses 2000 reprint.] John Hamrock, ‘The origins and chief locations of the O Gara Sept’, Rory J Stanley, Editor, Essays Presented to Liam Mac Alasdair, FGSI, Genealogical Society of Ireland, Dun Laoghaire 2009, page 55. About this period (AD 1135) the kingdom of Luighne seems to have been practically broken into two separate kingdoms under O'Gara and O'Hara, the former holding as his kingdom so much as in the county of Mayo, with the country of the Gregry under him. The O'Haras may be held to be no longer Mayo men, having no supremacy over Gailenga. [A footnote 23 refers to Knox as in right column but uses 2000 reprint.] Hamrock, 'O Gara Sept', page 55. An Augustinian friary was said to have been established by O Gara in 1423 in Knockmore, Co. Mayo, of which the doorways and windows are in good preservation; and it is still a favourite burial place. [A footnote 30 refers to O'Hart as in right column.] Hamrock, 'O Gara Sept', page 56. The MacDermotts retained their rank as lords of Moylurg down to the end of the 16th century; and as successors to the O'Garas continued to hold considerable property at Coolavin, in Co. Sligo, down to recent times; and The MacDermott is still known as Prince of Coolavin. [A footnote 40 refers to Woulfe as in right column.] Hamrock, 'O Gara Sept', page 58. The establishment of the Gaileanga in Connaught probably took place for the same reasons and at the same time as the settlement of the Luighne there. By the official genealogies they are shown to be descended from Cormac Gaileng (whose name may have been invented for the purpose) through Art Corb who was a son of Laoi, the eponymous ancestor of the Luighne. Towards the end of the tenth century Gallen came under the power of the chieftains of Luighne, chiefly the Í Gadhra, who ruled it till the early thirteenth century when it (sic) was pushed aside by the Jordans. This area was afterwards called Mac Jordan's country. [A footnote 12 refers to McKenna as in right column, but uses 1980 reprint.] Hamrock, 'O Gara Sept', page 53. Little is known of the ancient rulers of Sliabh Lugha, but the area's name probably derives from Lug Lámfata (in modern Irish, Lugh Lámhfhada) 'Lugh the Longarmed', the most famous of the Celtic gods. The Luigne were closely related to the people called the Gailenga; these latter have given name to the barony of Gallen, Co. Mayo, which borders Sliabh Lugha on the west. The same two peoples were also settled close to one another in ancient Meath where they gave the name to the baronies of Lune and Morgalion/Machaire Gaileang. [Footnotes 6 and 7 refer to McDonnell-Garvey in right column.] Hamrock, 'O Gara Sept', page 52. In 1688 ninety per cent of the land in the county [Sligo] was owned by Protestants, making it the most Protestant part of Connacht. There were then about eighty-five landlords in the county. Half of them owned land there before the 1641 rebellion and Cromwellian war. A few like Taaffe, and Richard Coote, Lord Collooney, held estates of over 10,000 acres. Others, like Kean O'Hara, held over 4,000 acres. The O'Haras of Annaghmore were the only Gaelic landowners to survive. They had converted to Protestantism early in the seventeenth century. The Taaffes of Ballymote were the only substantial Catholic landlords to survive. Others, like O'Connor Sligo and the O'Garas of Moygara, were irrevocably dispossessed and disappeared from the history of the region. Some Gaelic families stayed on as tenants on their former possessions and re-emerged again during the Jacobite War. [A footnote 41 refers to Swords as in right column.] Hamrock, ‘O Gara Sept’, page 58. [No quotation marks or other indications are given that the above text has been transcribed verbatim or near-verbatim from the sources in the right column.] |
In 1021 MacConcannon, lord of Hy Diarmada,
was killed by O'Gadhra. In 1023 O'Conor, King of Connaught, made an
expedition into Brefne, where he killed Donnell O'Hara, King of
Luighne. In 1024 occurred "the battle of Ath na Croisi in Corann,
between Ua Maeldoraidh, i.e. King of Cenel Conaill, and Ua Ruairc, when
O'Ruairc was defeated, and a terrible slaughter of the men of Brefne
and Connacht was committed by the Cenel Conaill" (L.C., A.U., F.M.,
A.T.). The O'Haras and O'Garas seem to have been opposed to O'Conor and
on the side of O'Ruairc in the years 1021 and 1023, and to have been on
his side, together with O'Ruairc, in 1024, combining to resist the
Ulstermen. But this reading depends on the description of those who
were killed as "of Brefne and Connacht." So it may have been only a
successful raid against O'Rourk and his allies, who could not resist
Ulster without help from O'Conor. All accounts call it a defeat of
O'Rourk, who is said to have lost 2000 men. Hubert T Knox, The History of the County Mayo, Dublin 1908, pages 41-42. About this period the kingdom of Luighne seems to have been practically broken into two separate kingdoms under O'Gara and O'Hara, the former holding as his kingdom so much as in the county of Mayo, with the country of the Gregry under him. The O'Haras may be held to be no longer Mayo men, having no supremacy over Gailenga. Knox, History of County Mayo, Dublin 1908, page 45. A friary was erected at Knockmore, in the 14th century, by O'Gara, of which the doorways and windows are in good preservation; and it is still a favourite burial place. John O'Hart, Irish Pedigrees, or the Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation, 1, 5th Edition, Dublin 1892, page 206. The MacDermotts . . . retained their rank as lords of Moylurg down to the end of the 16th century; and as successors to the O'Garas continued to hold considerable property at Coolavin, in Co. Sligo, down to recent times; and the MacDermott is still known as Prince of Coolavin Patrick Woulfe, Sloinnte Gaedhal is Gall: Irish Names and Surnames, Dublin 1923, page 350. The establishment of these Gaileanga in Connaught probably took place for the same reasons and at the same time as the settlement of the Luighne there. By the official genealogies they are shown . . . to be descended from Cormac Gaileng (whose name was probably invented for the purpose) through Art Corb who was a son of Laoi, the eponymous ancestor of the Luighne. . . . . . towards the end of the tenth century it [Gallen] came under the power of the chieftains of Luighne, chiefly the Í Ghadhra, who ruled it till the early thirteenth century when they were thrust aside by the Jordans; it is often afterwards referred to as Mac Jordan's country. Lambert McKenna, Editor, The Book of O'Hara: Leabhar Í Eadhra, Dublin 1951, pages xviii-xix. Little is known of the ancient rulers of Sliabh Lugha, but the area's name name may give us a clue . . . . . the most famous of the Celtic Gods . . . Lug Lámfata (in modern Irish, Lugh Lámhfhada - 'Lugh the Longarmed') . . . . . the Luigne were closely related to a people called the Gailenga; these latter have given name to the barony of Gallen Co. Mayo, which borders Sliabh Lugha on the west. The same two peoples were also settled close to one another in ancient Meath where they gave name to the baronies of Lune and Morgalion/Machaire Gaileang. Máire McDonnell-Garvey, Mid-Connacht: The Ancient Territory of Sliabh Lugha, Manorhamilton, Co Leitrim, 1995, page 9. In 1688 ninety per cent of the land in the county was owned by Protestants, making it the most Protestant part of Connacht. There were then about eighty-five landlords in the county. Half of them owned land there before the 1641 rebellion and Cromwellian war. A few like Taaffe, and Richard Coote, Lord Collooney, held estates of over 10,000 acres. Others, like Kean O'Hara, held over 4,000 acres. The O'Haras of Annaghmore were the only Gaelic landowners to survive. They had converted to Protestantism early in the seventeenth century. The Taaffes in Ballymote were the only substantial Catholic landlords to survive. Others, like O'Connor Sligo and the O'Garas of Moygara, were irrevocably dispossessed and disappeared from the history of the region. Some Gaelic families stayed on as tenants on their former possessions and re-emerged again during the Jacobite War. Liam Swords, A Hidden Church: The Diocese of Achonry 1698-1818, Blackrock, County Dublin, 1997, pages 18-19. |
As can be seen, the text on the left is
copied
mostly verbatim and sometimes near-verbatim from the
authors listed on the right, with no use of inverted commas or other
indications of
quotation. In contrast, the first two pages of the article are composed
mainly of three large blocks of indented quotations from correctly
cited authors (Hamrock, 'O Gara Sept', pages 50-51), but the
continuation of this style throughout the whole piece would have been a
frank admission that it was substantially copied, indeed to a somewhat
absurd degree. Although the
sources exploited in the case of the unmarked quotations are listed in
footnotes, the impression given
is that
the text is the original composition of the author rather than the
words
of others. In the first quotation in the table above, the letters
'L.C., A.U., F.M., A.T.' are Knox's abbreviations for the Annals of
Loch Cé, Annals of Ulster, Annals of the Four Masters and Annals of
Tigernach respectively, and the verbatim copying of another's author's
source citations is of course another form of plagiarism.
It has been suggested to me that the
failure to
indicate quotation is
an insignificant oversight and that while the standards of sources use
and citation I
advocate are appropriate for a university, they should not apply to
amateur publications.Of course amateurs are not exempt from having to
adhere to basic standards, and I would certainly not defame
non-professional genealogical authors by accepting that many or most of
them would regularly engage in unacknowledged verbatim copying of the
work of other authors. Mr Hamrock, who is a professional
genealogist, actually provides evidence that he knows well how to treat
the work of another author appropriately, in that in the article cited
above he had occasion to quote from one of my publications in
perfectly correct form using quotation marks:
This is a very important point not
always understood
by those who have not received training in scholarly composition,
namely, that avoidance of plagiarism requires not only citation of
sources used but clear distinction between original and quoted text.
The University of Oxford, for example, having defined plagiarism as
'the copying or paraphrasing of other people’s work or ideas without
full acknowledgement', goes on to make it clear that avoidance of
plagiarism entails clear identification of quoted material:
Harvard too is quite explicit on the need to mark quotations clearly:
Verbatim
plagiarism
If
you copy language word for word from another source and use that
language in your paper, you are plagiarizing verbatim. Even if you
write down your own ideas in your own words and place them around text
that you've drawn directly from a source, you must give credit to the
author of the source material, either by placing the source material in
quotation marks and providing a clear citation, or by paraphrasing the
source material and providing a clear citation. (http://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342054)
It
could not be said that an author who intersperses their own composed
text with substantial unmarked verbatim transcriptions of the work of
others is doing anything other than using that work without full and
proper acknowledgement and in effect passing it off as their own.
Typically a block of plain scholarly text referenced to the work of
another author indicates that it is original composition which is
paraphrasing, drawing on or significantly influenced by that person's
work, but where direct quotation occurs it is imperative that it is
indicated clearly, usually by quotation marks or indentation as stated.
While deliberate plagiarism is
notoriously difficult
to prove legally, Alex Haley's Roots,
still admired and advanced as a research model by unaware genealogists,
furnishes an open and shut case, in that Haley was found to have copied
passages from Harold Courlander's The African and was obliged to pay substantial damages (New York, 12 February 1979, page 69, accessed via books.google.com).
Many accused plagiarists seek refuge first in denial, often followed by
a claim that any copying was inadvertent, but lack of intent is
actually no defence to a well supported charge of
plagiarism, which in any case usually
results from a combination of want of care and inadequate
scrupulousness. In my experience most of
those shown to have copied verbatim without proper acknowledgment are
apologetic and seek to correct their mistake. I would certainly not
be found wanting if even at this late state there was an acceptable
apology and offer to make amends in relation to the inappropriate use
of my class material as described above.
How does one write without
plagiarising? A dedicated scholar will typically study many sources and
balance them one against the other before synthesising new text, often
interspersed with a reasonable quantity of quotations from other
authors clearly marked in inverted commas, or in the case of longer
quotations, indented. All relevant sources must be cited, usually by
footnotes or endnotes, and in the case of a longer study a concluding
sources list is also necessary. No student leaves my classes
without being taught that plagiarism is wrong and given practical
guidance on how to compose scholarly and properly referenced text, and
I am concerned that if I remain silent the standards exhibited
in
the above work will be
seen to
be a product of my teaching. As online and distance genealogical
education expands
it would be most unfortunate if it became commonplace or acceptable for
course providers to make inappropriate use of the work of others.
Furthermore, at a time when genealogical speaking spots and
professional lecturing opportunities are much sought after, it is
entirely unfair that any individual should be allowed to promote
themselves on the basis of the work of others, and organisers of events
and courses should endeavour to guard against such behaviour.
Given all that has been outlined above, it might
have been considered that there would be no further inappropriate use
of the present writer's material, but there is evidence that this was
occurring as recently as a month before the first version of this open
letter. Consider the following parallel extracts, respectively from the
present writer's treatment of surnames in his Primer in Irish Genealogy, 2013 edition (http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/epubs/primer.pdf),
and from John Hamrock's slide presentation to a 'Genealogy Conference'
at the Davenport Hotel, Dublin, on 9 May 2014 ( published online at http://www.irishgathering.ie/images/AncestorNetworkSonsoftheAmericanRevolutionGenealogyConference.pdf).
Screen print from Sean Murphy's Primer in Irish Genealogy, 2013 edition (left), slide displayed by John Hamrock
at a conference on 9 May 2014 (right), containing unacknowledged verbatim copying from the former.
It can be seen that phrases and definitions have
been copied from my work without use of quotation marks or
acknowledgement, eg, 'Monogenetic surnames have a single origin from
one individual [or] family', 'Polygenetic surnames arose independently
in different places and at different times, examples being Murphy or
Smith', 'Descriptive names referring to an individual's person or
appearance', while 'Placenames or toponymics derived from placenames'
is merely garbled. Some changes have been made, such as substituting
'Feerick
or Hamrock' for 'Faherty or Asquith', and some additional information
has been added, but in general it is clear that Mr Hamrock has again
been engaging in unacknowledged verbatim copying. The slides are
branded with the name of the firm, 'Ancestor Network', and furthermore
the whole presentation is marked '© Ancestor Network 2014'. The slide
presentation of 9 May 2014 features a reading list but there is no
mention of my Primer in Irish Genealogy or any other of my works dealing with surnames, such as 'A Survey of Irish Surnames 1992-97' (http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/studies/surnames.pdf). I have included citations of sources in the above extract from my Primer
to emphasise the importance of always giving due credit to the work of
others, and like all my former students, Mr Hamrock received rigorous
scholarly training in citing sources and avoiding plagiarism. It is
clear at this stage that there is more than just accidental unawareness
of scholarly principles involved here. Furthermore, on a practical
level it would be imprudent of
me as a professional author to fail to
challenge the unacknowledged copying and republication of my work, lest
in time I myself should stand accused of plagiarism.
While all the matters outlined above should give rise to
concern and do nothing to counter the view that genealogy is not a
serious scholarly subject, it would not
be an exaggeration to say that the 'O Gara Sept' article in particular
constitutes one of the worst cases of plagiarism that the
present writer has ever
encountered.
One would imagine that as the plagiarism appears in one of
their publications, it ought to be a matter of grave concern to members
of the
Genealogical
Society of Ireland, but the only response to date has been a threat of
legal action. To be fair, it should also be recorded that a few
individuals have indicated to me that they do not regard as
unreasonable my actions in defence of my intellectual property and in
support of basic scholarly standards. Writing in an individual capacity
as usual, I
conclude by exhorting former students in
particular not to acquiesce in or emulate the kind of behaviour I have
outlined above, nor to allow themselves to be persuaded that the
scholarly ethics they have been taught are in some way superfluous or
'eccentric'.
Sean
J Murphy
17 June 2014, last
revised 19 July 2015