Tyra Twomey, Holly White and Ken Sagendorf (Eds), 2009
Syracuse, New York, The Graduate School Press of Syracuse University
$19.95 (pbk), 176 pp.
ISBN 978‐0‐9777847‐4‐5
‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’—a common adage that communicates a basic moral principle: namely, that it is unfair to make evaluative statements regarding the content (or character) of something (or someone) based on outward appearances. As a metaphor, the adage is rarely used or meant literally. So, it was with some surprise that I found myself invoking these words as I beheld the steely grey handcuffs on the blue cover of Pedagogy, not policing. An odd occasion for irony at best, I thought, and then turned to the task at hand: evaluating its content.
Pedagogy, not policing is an edited volume focused on—as its subtitle succinctly describes—‘positive approaches to academic integrity at the university’. It is organised into four sections, each section containing two to six chapters, each chapter consisting of 4 to 10 pages. It is, in short, a slim volume with slim chapters. Though it need not follow that its contribution to the genre (i.e. the relatively young, but growing collection of books dedicated to describing the problem of academic dishonesty and/or strategies for promoting academic integrity) be likewise slim, it is. Both in substance and style, Pedagogy, not policing leaves much to be desired. This is not to say that the volume does not possess strengths; or, more precisely, potential strengths. As detailed below, Pedagogy, not policing represents a case of the importance of good editing; or, more precisely, the perils of poor editing.
There are two potential strengths of this volume that are undermined or under‐developed as a result of editorial decisions or inaction. The first of these potential strengths is the passion and commitment of the authors to promoting academic integrity. It is clear from the tone of each chapter that the authors care deeply about their subject. Unfortunately, their passion is largely untempered, with many (even most) of the chapters reading like early drafts. The absence of sufficient revision and refinement is manifest in a number of ways: claims are rarely supported with evidence, even when such evidence exists; anecdotes, while providing rich detail and context, are overused and misused to draw prescriptive generalisations; analogies are overwrought (see the chapter ‘Freshmen composition as disaster response’); scapegoating of secondary teachers for problems of poor writing and plagiarism is unchecked (see same chapter, pp. 21–22); and, finally, the prose is left unpolished throughout and feels incomplete in a number of chapters.
The editors not only fail to push each author to craft crisp and cogent contributions, they fail to bring them together effectively as a whole. This failure to organise and properly introduce the myriad contributions to this volume constitutes the second way in which the editors’ decisions and inaction undercut a potential strength of the volume: the broad diversity of authors’ voices, experiences and perspectives on academic integrity. Specifically, the volume includes contributions not only by faculty and administrators but also students (7 of the 24 contributors are graduate students). Their experiences and perspectives are seldom heard and their contributions raise important questions that are rarely discussed. For example, is the undisclosed use of a professional writing consultant (to help one organise and write his or her dissertation or other scholarly products) ‘stepping over the line?’ (p. 61). Or, in a similar vein, how much guidance from one’s dissertation advisor is too much? What is the point at which the rightful ‘intellectual boundaries’ between advisor and advisee have been crossed and the former has become ‘over‐involved’? (p. 71).
In addition to this great diversity of voices and perspectives, the volume covers an equally great diversity of topics. This diversity includes expected offerings, such as chapters on the meaning and importance of academic integrity (Horacek), ‘the science of cheating’ (Lovett) and strategies for promoting integrity and preventing cheating (Bolton, Roache‐Fedchenko, Udermann and Lamers, and Yee and MacKown); but also some unexpected offerings, such as chapters on the specific challenges to academic integrity in freshmen composition classes (Pangborn), among student athletes (McGregor) and for international students (Smithee). In short, for such a slim volume, Pedagogy, not policing, covers a broad spectrum of voices and issues related to academic integrity.
Unfortunately, as alluded to above, the volume is not well organised and the diversity of voices and topics is cacophonous as the editors fail to orchestrate them into a sound and orderly arrangement. While the volume has a clear goal of promoting academic integrity through good pedagogy, it lacks a holistic vision of the problem of academic dishonesty and how postsecondary institutions can ameliorate it. The four sections (Theory in Practice, Graduate Students as Students, The People behind the Policies and Integrity in Assessment: Strategies for TAs) do not follow or form an inherently logical or identifiable pattern. Nor, moreover, do the editors even attempt to offer readers an integrated whole. Their brief introduction to the volume (shorter than this review) and the still shorter introductions to the four sections do little more than note the author and title of the chapters.
Readers with expertise and interest in moral development and education will certainly be disappointed with this volume. As detailed above, it does not make a unique contribution toward conceptualising the problem of academic dishonesty, nor the cultivation of academic integrity. However, for those readers primarily interested in concise lists of strategies for preventing cheating and plagiarism, Pedagogy, not policing offers a wide range of perspectives and approaches. However, it should be noted that not all the offerings are rooted in good pedagogy. Yee and MacKown’s long list of suggestions for the surveillance of students—‘Listen at all times for student whispering’, ‘Watch student eye movements’, ‘Be suspicious of pen‐click noises’ and ‘Patrol room frequently’—left me feeling not as an agent of my students’ moral formation but as an officer of the law charged with detecting and preventing their misbehaviour. In doing so, it reminded me of the handcuffs on the cover and how far we remain from the day we’ll be beyond using them.
© 2010, Jason M. Stephens