Call/WhatsApp: +1 332 209 4094

diferent ways scholars use “theory” in the feld of communication. Compare, for instance, how the syllabus groups theories and how Craig groups them. Some defnitions of “theory” were contradictory; some were complementary. All had their supporters and detractors.

diferent ways scholars use “theory” in the feld of communication. Compare, for instance, how the syllabus groups theories and how Craig groupsthem. Some defnitions of “theory” were contradictory; some were complementary. All had their supporters and detractors.

We began this semester by talking about diferent ways scholars use “theory” in the feld of
communication. Compare, for instance, how the syllabus groups theories and how Craig groups
them. Some defnitions of “theory” were contradictory; some were complementary. All had their
supporters and detractors.
Choose one defnition of “theory” and explain it in your own words. (It could come from my
grouping on the syllabus, or from Craig, or if you are daring, you can propose your own.)
According to this defnition, what is a theory? What questions does a theory help us ask and
answer? For a scholar who uses “theory” this way, what types of evidence count as valid?
Choose some aspect of your life at the University of Ottawa. Imagine you are a scholar who
understands theory the way you describe it above. How would you examine this aspect of your
life here? What questions would you ask? How would you go about answering them? Be sure to
provide concrete examples.
In light of your analysis, what is the value of communication theory? In the university’s
communication BA curriculum, you have to take at least three theory courses, including this
one. Do they have value in your life outside of the classroom?
Note:
If you choose, you can use sources beyond those from class, but you are not obligated to. It is
possible to write an excellent paper with only the readings from class.
In any case, regardless of what you use, you must include a bibliography and provide
references for everything you cite, including readings from class. (See Appendix.)
Any citation format (APA, Chicago, MLA) is fne, as long as you use it correctly and consistently.
(See Appendix, which uses Chicago author-date. If you choose a diferent format, fnd that
format’s guide and follow it.)
APPENDIX
What is Academic Honesty?
CMN 3109: Advanced Theories in Communication
Kyle Conway
Table of Contents
Attribution of authorship p. 2
Bibliography p. 3
Sample bibliographic entries p. 4
Parenthetical citation p. 5
University of Ottawa Academic Regulation 14 p. 6–12
1
Attribution of Authorship
Explicit and implicit claims
When you write, you are making a series of explicit and implicit claims.
The explicit claims are about what your paper is about. If your professor asks you to write about the history of
television, your explicit claims are about exactly that—the history of television.
The implicit claims are more complicated. One is that, unless otherwise noted, the ideas you are presenting are
your own. But not just the ideas—also the expression of those ideas, that is, how they are phrased, how sentences
are worded, even the specific terms you use to describe particular concepts.
Forms of borrowing
Of course, there is nothing wrong about using someone else’s ideas. (In fact, that’s the basis of a university
education!) The key to using someone else’s ideas is simply to indicate clearly and unambiguously when you are
borrowing and what you are borrowing.
Borrowing takes different forms, which fall along a continuum. Each form of borrowing requires a somewhat
different form of citation, although the reason behind the citation remains the same—to indicate when and what
you are borrowing.
Forms of citation
Borrowed concept: Imagine you find an author who proposes a term or concept that you like—it’s clever and it
describes the world in a way you hadn’t seen it before. You decide to use it. Since it comes from someone else
originally, you must 1) put it in quotation marks, if you use the term the author used, and 2) indicate who and
where the term or concept came from. That second part is your citation, either in a footnote or in a parenthetical
citation.
Borrowed explanation—paraphrase: Imagine that what you’ve found is more than just a term or concept. It’s an
explanation or a description of a relationship, perhaps something that brings your argument into focus. You decide
to describe it in your own words. Since the reasoning behind explanation comes from someone else, you must
indicate who and where it came from, even if you are not using the author’s exact language. That is your citation,
again, in a footnote or a parenthetical citation.
Borrowed explanation—direct quotation: Perhaps you like someone else’s wording—they’ve expressed the idea
better than you could. If you quote it directly, you must 1) place it in quotation marks and 2) indicate who and
where the wording came from. You must do both of these—leaving off the quotation marks or failing to give a
citation both create the false impression that you are the author of the ideas you have borrowed.
Failure to cite
What happens when you fail to cite a concept, phrase, or explanation? In essence, you’ve made an implicit claim
that is false, namely that what you have borrowed is your own. The consequences of this claim can be severe, as
University of Ottawa’s Academic Regulation 14 explains (link). My policy is to report all cases of plagiarism,
both intentional and unintentional, to the fraud committee in the Faculty of Arts, which decides what the
consequences should be.
How do you know whether you have been clear in your attribution of authorship? Here’s the test question: Is it
unambiguously clear who originated each idea and each sentence (especially at the level of word choice and
phrasing) in your paper? If there is ambiguity, fix it. Once you have eliminated all ambiguity, then you have
ensured that your implicit claims about authorship and originality—in short, that you are the author of the things
of which you claim to be the author—are true.
2
Bibliography
Why do you need a bibliography?
A bibliography, or the list of sources you use in your paper, serves two main purposes:
1. Along with your footnotes or parenthetical citations, the bibliography indicates what is your own and what you
have borrowed. In other words, it clarifies your implicit claims about who is the author of the paper you are
turning in.
2. The bibliography allows readers to evaluate the quality of your sources and the quality of your argument.
For this reason, your bibliography should list all the sources you have cited (including the textbook and other
class materials). It should be organized alphabetically by author’s last name, and each entry should include the
information listed below.
Bibliography: necessary information
To be complete, every entry in your bibliography needs the following pieces of information:
1. Name of author(s)
2. Publication date:
Book: year of copyright (found on the back of the title page)
Scholarly journal: year of publication
Magazine: month and year of publication (and, when indicated, also the day)
Newspaper: month, day, and year of publication
Website: month, day, and year of page’s last update (this might take some sleuthing to find, and in some
cases, the day or month might not be given)
3. Title:
Newspaper: include the title of the article and the title of the newspaper
Magazine: include the title of the article and the title of the magazine
Website: include title of the page you consult and the name of the website
4. Publication information
Book: city of publication, name of publisher
Scholarly journal: volume number and issue number, page numbers of article
Newspaper: page numbers of article
Magazine: page numbers of article
Website: internet address
The reason you include all of this information is to provide your readers with the tools necessary to find the work
you have cited if they want to. Please note: professors do this often.
3
Sample Bibliographic Entries
These examples all follow Chicago author-date style, but you are free to use APA or MLA, if you prefer. Note the
punctuation (the periods, colons, commas, and parentheses), which does in fact matter.
Book
Lastname, Firstname. Year of publication. Title in Italics. Place of Publication: Name of Publisher.
Bhabha, Homi. 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Book chapter
Lastname, Firstname. Year of publication. Title of Chapter. In Title of Book in Italics, edited by Editorfirstname
Editorlastname, first page-last page. Place of Publication: Name of Publisher.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2007. The Hermeneutical Experience. In Theorizing Communication, edited by Robert T.
Craig and Heidi L. Muller, 239-250. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Academic journal
Lastname, Firstname. Year of publication. Title of Article. Journal Title in Italics volume number (issue number):
first page-last page.
Ogrodnick, Margaret. 2010. Feminism, Democracy, and the Limits of Diversity: Reflections from Canada. North
Dakota Quarterly 77(1): 32-50.
Magazine
Lastname, Firstname. Year of publication. Title of Article. Name of Magazine, Month Day: first page-last page.
Kelly, Brendan. 2007. Muslim Sitcom “Mosque” Answers Ratings Prayers. Variety, January 22: 20-21.
Lastame, Firstname. Year of publication. Title of Article. Name of Magazine, Month Day. internet address.
Kirkpatrick, Jeane J. 1979. “Dictatorships and Double Standards.” Commentary Magazine, November.
www.commentarymagazine.com/article/dictatorships-double-standards/.
Newspaper
Lastname, Firstname. Year of publication. Title of Article. Name of Newspaper, Month Day: first page-last page.
Mason, Christopher. 2007. “Little Mosque” Defuses Hate with Humor. New York Times, January 16: A4.
Lastname, Firstname. Year of publication. Title of Article. Name of Magazine, Month Day. internet address.
MacFarquhar, Neil. 2006. Sitcom’s Precarious Premise: Being Muslim Over Here. New York Times, December 7.
www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/arts/television/07mosq.html.
Website
Lastname, Firstname. Year of publication. Title of Webpage. Name of Blog, Month Day (if available). internet
address.
Sebian, Beth. 2007. Islam in the United States. Euro-Islam.Info: News and Analysis on Islam in Europe and North
America. www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/united-states/.
4
Parenthetical Citations
What do parenthetical citations do?
There are multiple ways to cite your sources, one of which is in parentheses following something you have
borrowed.1
Parenthetical citations allow you to state unambiguously where you get your information. In other words, along
with your bibliography, they allow you to attribute authorship clearly so that your implicit claims about what you
have written are true.
What must parenthetical citations include?
A sentence that includes something borrowed needs to indicate the author you’re borrowing from, the year of
publication, and the page number (if it exists). The author’s name and the publication year are there to point
readers to the right bibliographic entry, and the page number is there to help readers find the section of the
document you’re borrowing from.
So, a citation looks like this:
When studying television, one choice students must make relates to method, or “the approach scholars
take in describing the role of some object of study in society” (Conway 2009, 6).
If you mention the name of the author in the sentence, you don’t need to mention it again in the citation:
According to Kyle Conway, when studying television, one choice students must make relates to method,
or “the approach scholars take in describing the role of some object of study in society” (2009, 6).
When you are citing something (such as a website) without page numbers, simply include the year. It will be clear
from your bibliography why there are no page numbers.
When you are including a reference to indicate that you have paraphrased someone else’s ideas, place the
parenthetical citation at the end of the sentence. For example:
When studying television, one choice students must make relates to method, or the set of questions that
scholars ask about their object of study (Conway 2009, 6).
According to Kyle Conway, when studying television, one choice students must make relates to method,
or the set of questions that scholars ask about their object of study (2009, 6).
Of course, all of these examples presume that you include an entry for the book you’re citing in your
bibliography:
Conway, Kyle. 2009. Technology/Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies. Grand Forks:
University of North Dakota Communication Program.
1 Another way is through footnotes, such as this one. But I tend to prefer parenthetical citations.
5
note: no end punctuation
before the close quotation
mark
note: comma to
separate year and
page number
note: end
punctuation
comes after close
parenthesis
3/21/2016 Academic regulation 14 – Other important information | Administration and Governance | University of Ottawa
http://www.uottawa.ca/administration-and-governance/academic-regulation-14-other-important-information 1/7
Academic regulation 14 – Academic fraud and other
information
14 Academic fraud
(Approved by the Senate on November 24, 2014 and effective immediately.)
REGULATION ON ACADEMIC FRAUD
Preamble
Academic integrity is a fundamental value at the core of all academic activities. The
regulation on academic fraud de nes the acts that can compromise academic integrity,
and outlines the consequences of such acts and the formal disciplinary procedures in
place. Further information on academic integrity is available in the University of Ottawa’s
Academic Integrity Student Guide.
Beyond educational measures that professors may take, the University of Ottawa has two
processes in place for handling cases of academic fraud —the regular process and the
accelerated process.
The University is committed to upholding the integrity of the process for handling
academic fraud (PDF). Disclosure of the identity of any student accused of academic fraud
or the person(s) alleging academic fraud is limited by the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Only the results of the investigation can be disclosed to
the person who submitted an allegation of academic fraud.
De nition
1. Any act by a student that may result in a distorted academic evaluation for that student
or another student. Academic fraud includes but is not limited to activities such as:
a) plagiarising or cheating in any way;
b) submitting work not partially or fully the student’s own, excluding properly cited
quotations and references. Such work includes assignments, essays, tests, exams,
research reports and theses, regardless of whether the work is in written, oral or another
form;
c) presenting research data that are forged, falsi ed or fabricated.
d) attributing a statement of fact or reference to a fabricated source;
e) submitting the same work or a large part of the same piece of work in more than one
course, or a thesis or any other piece of work submitted elsewhere without the prior
approval of the appropriate professors or academic units;
3/21/2016 Academic regulation 14 – Other important information | Administration and Governance | University of Ottawa
http://www.uottawa.ca/administration-and-governance/academic-regulation-14-other-important-information 2/7
approval of the appropriate professors or academic units;
f) falsifying or misrepresenting an academic evaluation, using a forged or altered
supporting document or facilitating the use of such a document;
g) taking any action aimed at falsifying an academic evaluation.
Sanctions
Note: For cases involving graduate courses, the following sanctions are imposed by the
Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (FGPS).
2. Students who commit or attempt to commit academic fraud, or who are a party to
academic fraud, are subject to one or more of the sanctions below. All sanctions are
effective immediately, notwithstanding an appeal. If a student withdraws from a course
following an allegation of fraud  led against the student, the University may re-register the
student in the course in question.
Sanctions stipulated in sections 2(a) to 2(f) inclusively, are imposed by the faculty offering
the course. Sanctions should be accompanied by a follow-up mechanism, such as
mandatory meetings with appropriate persons or services, e.g. the mentoring centre, the
Academic Writing Help Centre (AWHC), etc.
a) a written warning;
b) zero for part of the work in question;
c) zero for the work in question;
d) zero for the work in question and the loss of additional marks for the course in
question;
e) zero for the work in question, with a  nal grade no higher than the passing grade for
the course in question;
f) an F grade for the course in question.
Sanctions stipulated in sections 2(g) to 2(i) inclusively are imposed by the faculty offering
the course, after consulting with the student’s home faculty.
g) the addition of another 3 to 30 credits to the student’s program requirements or to the
requirements of any program at the same level in which the student subsequently
registers.
h) suspension of a University of Ottawa or faculty scholarship for a speci ed period;
i) the loss of any faculty or University scholarship opportunity;
Sanctions stipulated in sections 2(j) to 2(n) inclusively are imposed by the Senate Appeals
Committee upon recommendation of the student’s home faculty. The decision of the
Senate Appeals Committee takes effect immediately.
j) suspension from the University for a maximum of two years. No course taken at the
3/21/2016 Academic regulation 14 – Other important information | Administration and Governance | University of Ottawa
http://www.uottawa.ca/administration-and-governance/academic-regulation-14-other-important-information 3/7
j) suspension from the University for a maximum of two years. No course taken at the
University of Ottawa or elsewhere during the suspension period will be recognized by the
University and no tuition fees will be refunded. Once the suspension ends, the student can
re-register in the program and is subject to the program requirements in place at that time.
k) inclusion of a permanent statement on the student’s of cial transcript: Sanction
pursuant to contravention of the University regulation on fraud.
l) expulsion from the University of Ottawa and permanent statement on the student’s
of cial transcript indicating the student was expelled from the University for committing
academic fraud. Three years following the date of expulsion, the student is eligible to make
a request to the Senate Appeals Committee to have the expulsion set aside, including the
possibility, where applicable, of having the mention removed from the student’s transcript.
If the student reapplies to the University of Ottawa, the regular admission process applies.
m) cancellation or revocation of a degree, diploma or certi cate conferred prior to the
University becoming aware of academic fraud;
n) any other sanction considered appropriate for the circumstances.
Procedures
3. Allegations of fraud in an undergraduate course must be submitted in writing with
supporting documentation, to the dean of the faculty offering the course in question;
allegations of fraud in a graduate course are handled by the dean of the Faculty of
Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (FGPS).
4. Within ten (10) working days of receiving an allegation of academic fraud, the dean or
the dean’s representative decides whether there are reasonable and probable grounds to
believe that the allegation is founded, indicate the process for which the student is eligible
and begin this process. The dean or the dean’s representative:
a) informs the student in writing of the allegation made and provides a copy of all
supporting documentation; if the allegation involves an examination, the student has the
right to consult the exam in question at the faculty, in a diligent manner.
b) provides a copy of the present regulation;
c) The student has  ve (5) working days to provide a response. If the student does not
reply, the regular process is started.
Accelerated process
By agreeing to the accelerated process, the student acknowledges having contravened the
academic regulations and accepts that one or more sanctions will be imposed.
Sanctions possible are those indicated in sections 2(a) to 2(g).
5. A student alleged to have committed academic fraud is eligible for the accelerated
process except in allegations involving:
a) a repeat offence;
3/21/2016 Academic regulation 14 – Other important information | Administration and Governance | University of Ottawa
http://www.uottawa.ca/administration-and-governance/academic-regulation-14-other-important-information 4/7
a) a repeat offence;
b) an allegation serious enough to merit any of the sanctions indicated in sections 2(h) to
2(n);
c) more than one student.
6. A meeting is arranged between the person in charge of handling the accelerated process
for academic fraud cases and the student as soon as possible. The purpose of the meeting
is to discuss the situation, determine the sanction(s) to be imposed and sign an agreement
whereby the student acknowledges having committed a contravention, of the academic
regulation and accepts the imposed sanction(s) listed.
At this meeting, the student has the right to be accompanied by a person of their choice.
The person accompanying the student is there to provide support and can, therefore, assist
the student during the meeting keeping in mind that the exchange is,  rst and foremost,
between the faculty and the student. The person in charge of handling the accelerated
process for cases of academic fraud can also be accompanied during the meeting. In
advance of the meeting, each party must provide the other party with the name of any
accompanying person.
The student has two (2) working days after the meeting to sign and return the agreement to
the person responsible for the accelerated process.
7. Within  ve (5) working days, the person in charge of the accelerated process forwards
the decision reached during the accelerated process along with details of the sanction(s)
imposed to the professor of the course in which the allegation of fraud was made and to
the director of the academic unit involved.
8. The accelerated process for an allegation of academic fraud should be completed within
fteen (15) working days of the date the allegation is made.
9. The student can decide to stop the accelerated process at any time prior to signing an
agreement, in which case the regular process is followed.
10. The person in charge of the accelerated process can also end the process if it is
unlikely an agreement can be reached, for example in the following situations:
* The student does not reply to emails or return phone calls or tries to unduly prolong the
process.
* The student refuses to acknowledge having committed academic fraud.
* The student refuses to accept the sanction.
* The student does not attend the meeting.
11. If the regular process is subsequently initiated:
* All information disclosed by a student during the accelerated process is considered
con dential and is not to be disclosed during the regular process.
* The fact that the accelerated process was used or that the student had considered it
cannot be disclosed to the inquiry committee established under the regular process.
* No person (other than the student) involved in the accelerated process can be a
member of the inquiry committee established under the regular process, unless the student
3/21/2016 Academic regulation 14 – Other important information | Administration and Governance | University of Ottawa
http://www.uottawa.ca/administration-and-governance/academic-regulation-14-other-important-information 5/7
member of the inquiry committee established under the regular process, unless the student
has agreed.
Regular process
12. If the student is not eligible for the accelerated process or chooses the regular process,
or if the accelerated process was abandoned, within  ve (5) working days of receiving the
student’s reply, the dean or the dean’s representative forwards the  le to an inquiry
committee composed of at least three individuals, appointed by the dean. The dean or the
dean’s representative is not eligible to sit on the committee.
In a case involving a student in a program offered by more than one faculty (e.g., joint,
integrated), the dean can ask a representative of the faculty or faculties in question to sit
on the committee.
In a case involving a student from another faculty, the dean can ask a representative from
the other faculty to sit on the committee.
13. The inquiry committee:
a) asks the student to submit in writing, within ten (10) working days, all information and
documents relevant to the allegation and asks the student to appear before the committee.
The student can be accompanied by a person of their choice when appearing before the
committee (in cases of alleged fraud involving more than one student, the accompanying
person cannot be one of the other students involved in the case). The person
accompanying the student is there to provide support and can, therefore, assist the student
during the meeting, keeping in mind that the exchange is,  rst and foremost, between the
faculty and the student.
b) requests any other information it considers relevant.
c) Once the student has been given the opportunity to be heard in writing and/or in person,
the inquiry committee can conclude that the allegation is not suf ciently founded, in which
case no further action is to be taken or that the allegation is founded, in which case it has
ve (5) working days from the date of the meeting to submit a report to the dean, including
a recommendation for the appropriate sanction(s).
14. Within  ve (5) working days of receiving the inquiry committee’s report, the dean or the
dean’s representative sends a copy of the report to the student. The dean informs the
student that the student has the right submit written comments to the committee’s report,
particularly with respect to any sanctions being imposed, within ten (10) working days.
15. The committee’s report and, if applicable, the student’s written comments are
submitted to the faculty’s executive committee (or its equivalent). Any new evidence
provided by the student should be submitted to the inquiry committee. The executive
committee makes a decision on the sanction(s) (in the case of sanctions that can be
imposed by the faculty) or recommends sanction(s) to the Senate Appeals Committee (in
the case of sanctions that can be imposed by the Senate Appeals Committee).
16. In the case of sanctions that can be imposed by the faculty, the decision of the faculty’s
executive committee, or equivalent, takes effect immediately, notwithstanding an appeal.
3/21/2016 Academic regulation 14 – Other important information | Administration and Governance | University of Ottawa
http://www.uottawa.ca/administration-and-governance/academic-regulation-14-other-important-information 6/7
executive committee, or equivalent, takes effect immediately, notwithstanding an appeal.
17. Within  ve (5) working days following the decision of the faculty’s executive committee,
the dean or the dean’s representative informs the student in writing of the executive
committee’s decision or recommendation and provides details of the appeal procedure.
Appeal
Accelerated process
18. A student wishing to  le an appeal after having signed the agreement must submit the
appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee within ten (10) working days of having signed the
agreement. Under the accelerated process, an appeal can be launched only in cases of
procedural error.
Regular process
19. A student who decides to appeal the decision of faculty’s executive committee (or its
equivalent) or its recommendation to the Senate Appeals Committee, must inform the
Of ce of the Vice-President, Governance and provide the reasons for the appeal in writing,
within ten (10) working days of being noti ed of the executive committee’s decision or
recommendation.
The Senate Appeals Committee procedure is posted here.
The decision of the Senate Appeals Committee is  nal and cannot be appealed.
Cases involving multiple students
20. When the allegation of fraud involves several students from different faculties, the case
is submitted to the faculty that offers the course, in accordance with the procedure set out
in this regulation. At the graduate level, allegations of academic fraud are submitted to the
dean of the FGPS.
21. Cases involving more than one student registered in a course offered by more than one
faculty, including courses offered at both undergraduate and graduate level (cross-listed
courses), are submitted to the deans responsible for the courses in question. If the
allegation is deemed to be founded, the deans will strike a joint inquiry committee.

Leave a Reply