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        Most of the tables in question were in fact out of date, having been amended and published in the writer's article 'A Survey of Irish Surnames 1992-97' (http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/studies/surnames.pdf),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).

        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