I think Cambridge was his third Professorship. So asking why Cambridge didn't do a computer plagerism analysis of a PDH written a decade previously is slightly preposterous. I mean you'd be looking at the whole of their work over a decade to make a hiring decision. If mistakes were made they are decades old. But looking at the paper supposedly plagerised it seems to be referenced about 12 times in his PHD. I'm not an expert in sociology and I don't have the three degrees (only two) but it would depend where the clone passages were. In the literature review would be more understandable. Someone at GitHub tried to recreate the original text analysis (see here) and found most of the disputed passages are indeed in the literature search and introduction. So not a Biggie since the paper quoted from is extensively referenced? Also writing a PHD Thesis is at least a 3 year job involving real research - I think it'd be literally impossible to plagiarise a whole thesis and probably more work than writing one. There are also usually word numbering constraints that might have lead to this paraphrasing where some adjectives have been replaced but the essence of what is said remains the same. I have to say when I wrote my last Dissertation I questioned the value of changing words in the literature review just for the sake of it... The important thing is ...is something new being constructed? Anyway all academic now they've bullied him to death. As to the other allegations of telling white or grey lies it's like something out of a Tom Sharpe novel. I expect the quad to fill with inflated condoms at any moment....
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment