An Analysis of Kurt Bouman’s Dissertation

Entisar Elsherif, Libya

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Every research goes through certain stages of the study in which reading through the available literature is always the first step of the procedure to help the researcher cover his research topic and decide his research questions. After reading through the existing literature, deciding the research questions, and determining the research design, the researcher faces the challenge of choosing the appropriate data collection methods especially when dealing with sensitive topics such as plagiarism. It is because the researcher has to choose those that are reliable and could provide answers to his/her research questions without exposing the participants to risks. This raises questions such as: (a) how does the researcher decide what data collection methods to use?, (b) What procedures would he/she do to ascertain their reliability?, and finally (c) what did he/she use to analyze and interpret this data? This paper is an attempt to explore, ask, and answer such questions and discuss significant points that arise from such questions. For this reason, I looked at Kurt Bouman’s dissertation, entitled “A Phenomenological Investigation of College Students’ Construction and Representation of Plagiarism”, which is a dissertation submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research to fulfill the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 2009.

The main reason for choosing this dissertation is its relevance to my research interests which would provide me with substantial information about the topic as well as ways of designing the research methodology and choosing the data collection methods. This is because I’m interested in students’ plagiarism and Bouman’s (2009) research is an investigation into college students’ considerations and compositional practices of plagiarism. Instead of investigating plagiarism as “inherently improper or reprehensible” act, Bouman planned to study plagiarism as a kind of student behavior (Bouman, 2009, p. 4). He stated that students who plagiarize are involved in certain writing behaviors that they consider as correct and justified. By looking at their views of plagiarism and written practices, he intended to collect data that would provide answers regarding students’ thoughts and compositional performances of plagiarism. In view of that, the researcher’s decision regarding his research design and data collection methods will provide me with the foreground for my study, cement the basis for a thorough understanding, and empower me to deal with such a sensitive research topic.

Bouman’s empirical research study of plagiarism included thirty-one college undergraduate level students. He applied the phenomenological research approach to investigate college students’ plagiarism related understandings and experiences. He used ‘semi-structured research sessions’ that included six focus groups and nine one-on-one interviews. The analysis of the conversations from the interviews and discussions from focus groups sessions shown that the students’ understandings and experiences of plagiarism, authorship, and student writers align with and disconnect from “[the researcher’s] primary beliefs and assumptions” and teaching and policy implications “are at times confirmatory, at times unsetting” (Bouman, 2009, p. v). He concluded that disciplinary and institutional constructions and policies regarding plagiarism can be informed through college students’ plagiarism related perceptions (ibid).

What made this dissertation attention-grabbing is the researcher’s choice of the data collection methods and the procedure the researcher went through to choose the appropriate ones that would provide him with information about college students’ plagiarism. The data collection methods he chose were noteworthy because of the sensitivity related to plagiarism. His first decision was to use surveys and focus groups. He considered questionnaires because he assumed that students’ answers would reveal their formation of plagiarism. He prevented to offer the participants with plagiarism definition because it was the previously conducted surveys’ limitation. Instead, he “carefully designed questions [that] would allow [him] access to dimensions of students’ perspectives on and experiences with plagiarism” (Bouman, 2009, p. 85). Also, he chose focus groups because he wanted to study college students’ plagiarism related perceptions. Thus, this raised a question: how did he evaluate the effectiveness of questionnaires and focus groups in revealing answers related to his research questions? Reading his research revealed that he conducted some kind of testing of the chosen methods that is known as the pilot study. Pilot studies are used as a feasibility study to discover whether the researchers’ decisions about data collection methods were appropriate and increase the quality and efficiency of those methods. That is, to decide the reliability of his data collection methods.

Another important question was raised as a result of the previously mentioned question: how did the pilot study help the researcher? Looking at the procedure of the pilot study I found out that he decided to evaluate the efficacy of surveys and focus groups to determine their reliability in gathering answers for his research questions. He used the Likert-Style questionnaire and discussions in focus groups to collect data. His organization of the sixty-five questions of the survey into six sections gave him the chance to relate each question and section to one of his research questions and gave the participants the chance to provide comments about his questions. After conducting the pilot study and analyzing the gathered data from the surveys and focus groups he found that the data gathered from the focus groups was proved to be more effective and reliable than those that were gathered from the surveys. Through discussions he was able to gather data that “provide the broad based and socially grounded perspectives on plagiarism that [he] was looking for” (Bouman, 2009, p. 91). As a result of the pilot study, he preferred to use focus group studies to examine ‘students’ perspectives on plagiarism’. Interactive discussions allow the researcher to gather data from the participants’ answers to questions or discussing questions raised by the group. Finally, to accomplish having more detailed and concise data, Bouman decided to look at individuals’ perspectives on plagiarism along with group discussions. This allowed him to investigate issues in private settings which would allow the students to provide personal experiences. Accordingly, he cancelled using surveys and concentrated on conversational research methods which are focus groups and one-on-one interviews. This allowed him to gather information about “where students get their ideas about plagiarism, how their ideas are formed, and how their beliefs and experiences with plagiarism influence their textual practices” (Bouman, 2009, p. 88). Bouman’s detailed explanation of the pilot study procedures and conclusion caught my attention to the importance of the pilot study in making the decision about the selection of the applicable data collection methods. Choosing any data collection method without testing will not grant the researcher the efficiency of gathered data. Consequently, this data might not provide essential answers for the research questions.

Furthermore, data analysis and interpretation is an essential stage because it specifies the research findings and provide answers to the research questions. Looking at Bouman’s process of data analysis and interpretation I found that he analyzed his data that was collected from the pilot study and after the conduction of the conversational data collection methods. To collect data gathered from the pilot study he conducted “a descriptive statistical analysis of the survey data using the SPSS FREQUENCIES program” (ibid, 2009, p. 85). This is a statistical analysis program which is used to analyze the collected data from surveys. By comparing the analyzed data from the surveys and focus groups, he was able to cancel his first choice of using surveys and concentrate on using focus groups.

After conducting the focus group discussions and the individual interviews, Bouman transcribed those recorded discussions. Then, a code system was designed to assist him to deal with data and come to conclusions related to his research questions. This shows that data analysis methods, such as SPSS or the coding systems, aid the researcher to examine and analyze his results and provide those findings as conclusions or ways of implementation. Choosing the appropriate data analysis would enable the researcher to interpret his findings and answer and present his research questions.

What I found admirable in this study is the researcher’s approach in conducting the focus groups. The way he managed focus group discussions especially the beginning of the discussion was an essential part of the successful collecting of data and its interpretations. My first concern was related to the way that the researcher would start the conversation between the participants in the groups. Of course, it seemed ridiculous to start asking questions from the beginning. ‘Icebreaking self-introductions’ were a good way to start a conversation in which students introduce themselves briefly. Another concern was related to recognizing voices during the transcription of the recorded sessions. Bouman presented what is called ‘the pseudonyms’, which are fake names chosen by the participants during their self-introduction, that would enable him to relate these names to their voices. By that, the researcher was able to relate the voices of the pseudonyms to the participants’ transcripts. I came across this term for the first time while reading this dissertation and understood its meaning from the context. Moreover, the ‘prefatory remarks’ that he made in the beginning helped the students participate without the fear that they will be in danger because of certain answers. By letting the participants know that they have the privilege not to answer an uncomfortable question or to cancel their participation at any time during the discussion, the researcher provoked the participants’ sense of safety and their freedom as well as supported their feeling of not being forced to participate in the study. Finally, noting that the discussion is going to be recorded after giving them the right to leave any time they feel they would like to, promoted their voluntarily participation. Planning for such procedure increase students’ desire to participate and enrich the research findings.

Furthermore, the ‘sensitivity of the topic’ made me wonder how the researcher managed to approach it in group discussions without jeopardizing the students. This is because the individuals’ responses might endanger and influence them by putting them in “some level of social or interpersonal risk” (Bouman, 2009, p. 108). With curiosity I read through the section that is related to this point in Chapter 5. The answer to my question was that he went through a variety of steps to ascertain students’ safety and risk-free participation. The most important point was that he claimed a full IRB review although most Composition Studies’ proposals appeal for expedited IRB review. Even though it takes a great deal of time, the researcher chose full IRB review to present his IRB application to the entire IRB Review Committee to make sure that no risk is posed by the project. So, the purpose of this time-consuming procedure is to guarantee that the researcher has taken the suitable steps for the protection of the participants’ rights and maximizing their safety while participating in the project. The researcher also took other steps to minimize the threat of revealing of any of the confidential information related to the students as participants. One of these was making sure that the participants’ identities are kept unknown and no document from the research study can be related to their pseudonyms. Even when they signed the Informed Consent Form using their real names, they placed their signed forms into envelops to minimize the relevance that might be made to their pseudonyms. ‘Standard management procedures’ were another way of reducing risks. He controlled managing the documents and recordings of the research study to minimize the threat of revealing their real identities. Although the researcher could not control the ‘malicious breach of confidentiality’, he urged the participants to come to an understanding of the importance of preventing discussions about what happened in the focus groups sessions afterwards. Last but not least, the most significant point is “providing an additional layer of privacy” by asking the participants to write anonymous answers about certain sensitive questions that would raise vulnerability to students’ privacy breaching risks (ibid). Reading through these strict procedures raised my awareness of the importance of minimizing risks and assuring confidentiality.

This research was in the American context and the participants were American students that are known as L1 writers. A question about the implications of conducting the research in the L2 context is raised accordingly, especially in cultures that praise plagiarism. Conducting this research in a culture where copying from sources is regarded as good demonstration of good reading, covering the topic, choosing what to copy, and including a variety of materials will reveal very interesting and crucial findings that could be compared with the existing findings. Although I think that it would be very difficult to conduct focus groups and interviews as reliable data collection methods due to the sensitivity of the topic and cultural beliefs and boundaries. Participants of this study were raised in a culture that respects freedom of speech, privacy, and copy right issues and the misuse or misbehavior is a result of misunderstandings or certain circumstance. For example, it is a dominant idea that they came across during all their educational levels that plagiarism is not tolerated in education whereas in cultures where plagiarism is praised, such as the Libyan culture, they learnt to copy from other sources from primary school to university level. Investigating and changing such beliefs and practices would be a real challenge.

Finally, what I found thought-provoking is the idea that my future research study might be a replica. This dissertation is well-organized and the topic, plagiarism, is fully covered in the literature review part and in his research findings. In consequence, I confronted this question: how am I going to study the same topic without accused of being a replica? It is because many of my preliminary proposal’s questions were raised by this researcher. Also, I was thinking about what difference would my intended research make or add to the existing literature. Nevertheless, the idea of conducting this research with Libyan students, as L2 participants, is still valuable and worth the effort since it would provide data about L2 students’ perceptions and practices. Another point worth mentioning is that one of my proposed questions was related to what Bouman proposed in the discussion of the implications of his study findings in which he says “we shouldn’t teach [plagiarism] as a violation of personal morality (Bouman, 2009, p.267). More precisely, “we should teach the construct of plagiarism as we understand it to be” (ibid). Besides, to take my intended research further, I’m thinking of looking at the effectiveness of tutor feedback in helping students prevent plagiarism. To sum up, taking such points into the account will prevent me from replicating what’s already in the field.

To conclude, this paper attempted to explore the data collection and analysis procedure, especially when dealing with a sensitive topic as plagiarism, by asking and answering certain related questions. I raised certain questions and tried to answer them by looking at Kurt Bouman’s dissertation. I found this way of asking and exploring an existing research study looking for answers really useful procedure. This allowed me to think carefully about choosing data collection and analysis methods. It also helped me think critically and taught me how to be precautious in choosing data collection and analysis methods and while going through such procedure and dealing with a sensitive topic. It was noticeable that the pilot study helped the researchers gain confidence regarding what to use as data collection methods. His decision of using focus groups and one-on-one interviews was according to carefully conducted procedures that helped him gain more trustful data and present ample of rich thorough and in depth description of perspectives of college students on plagiarism. This means that careful consideration of the data collection methods would result in promising, accepted and reliable results. Another remarkable procedure is how the researcher made sure that his participants won’t be in risk because of their participation. As a potential researcher, being familiar with such procedures and other procedures that are related to research would expand my knowledge of research and increase the possibility of succeeding in choosing the appropriate data collection methods that would provide precise and detailed answers to my research questions. It also showed me the importance of thinking about each point deeply no matter how irrelevant or small it seems. This dissertation made me think carefully about how to add new findings about the topic in order not to replicate any of the existing research studies, as well. Finally, reading a dissertation that had passed with excellence is beneficial to me as it showed me L1 writer’s style, critical thinking, and reasoning; and enriched my knowledge about the topic.