Beyond these issues of intellectual property, sampling is a valuable form for students to compare to academic writing because it requires creativity in finding and using sources. As a writing instructor, I find that students are less concerned with what they can do with a source than what is the citation format their work must fit. This outlook is a symptom of the way many of us teach academic citation systems, as rigid sets of rules that dictate we attribute all sources to avoid accusations of plagiarism. While I am as frustrated with plagiarism as are other writing teachers, I believe this reverence toward sources puts students at a disadvantage when they are asked to interact with the words and ideas of other authors. When I ask students, even in upper-level classes, why they use sources, the answer is overwhelmingly “to back up my points” or “to show what the experts believe.” Rarely do I hear students talk about engaging in a conversation with their sources, responding to their ideas, or building from the work they have done by updating it, extending it to new areas, or challenging its ideas. Rather than digging for unique source material and seeking out voices that can be applied to their own new and unique topics, I too often see my students opting for overused topics (like abortion, gun control, or the death penalty) where they believe they can find the most sources. These papers tend to be far less interesting and complex than the papers that develop unique topics that require more digging for sources and combining and applying sources that may not be on their topic at all. I am not suggesting that my students sample, rather than cite, in their writing, but rather that studying hip-hop sampling as an alternate citation system can shed new light on how sources might be used and how sourcework can be a creative act.
Mickey Hess, “Was Foucault a plagiarist? Hip-hop sampling and academic citation,” Computers & Composition 23 (2006)
