This controversy piece describes how a British alcohol sociologist named David Robinson plagiarized several times in the UK, which was discovered, and then he moved on to administration at an Australian University. He returned to the UK to open a branch of his new University, Monash, where his former transgressions were revealed. Meanwhile, opponents of his found an even earlier bit of plagiarism Robinson had committed, and he resigned his position at Monash. Although some object to continuing to examine this case, it is critical to reveal and analyze how these gross thefts occurred and were largely tolerated, including the ways Robinson's "apologies" were handled.

The Stanton Peele Addiction Website, August 10, 2002.

The Continuing Significance of David Robinson's Plagiarism Career [+]

Stanton Peele
Morristown, NJ

David Robinson Resigns Due to Third Revelation of Plagiarism

David Robinson was a prominent British sociologist in the alcoholism field. From 1971 to 1980 he was a research fellow at the Addiction Research Unit (ARU) in London. In 1980, Robinson left the ARU to take an academic position at the University of Hull where, in 1989, he became vice chancellor (vice chancellor is equivalent to president of an American university). Soon after, he emigrated to Australia to assume the vice chancellor's post at the University of South Australia. In 1996, he took the same position with Monash University, in Melbourne (Baty, June 21, 2002).

Monash is the model of a modern university. Robinson arrived after Monash had already become the largest university in Australia with six campuses, 42,000 students, and an annual budget of $576 million. Robinson continued Monash's expansion overseas, starting new campuses in Malaysia and South Africa and "centres" (adjuncts to existing universities) in Italy and as part of King's College, London. By 2002, Monash's budget was over $710 million (Miller, July 20, 2002).

In July, Robinson was in London for the grand opening of the King's College Centre. As it happened, he arrived following the appearance of a column in the June 21 issue of The Times (of London) Higher Education Supplement (THES) revealing that Robinson had admitted to two cases of plagiarism, in 1979 and 1983 (Baty, June 21, 2002; Ketchell, July 13 2002).

Worse for Robinson, the Melbourne newspaper The Age revealed that faculty opponents to his policies had uncovered yet an earlier example of Robinson's plagiarism (Ketchell, July 6, 2002). In a sociological textbook on drinking and alcoholism, Robinson (1976) had lifted exact or nearly exact wording from an earlier textbook by Roebuck and Kessler (1972). As was Robinson's pattern, although he referenced the plagiarized source at some point in his text, he appropriated long stretches of text without using quotations or identifying the earlier volume as the source of the material.

Monash's chancellor was informed by a faculty member of a third case of plagiarism he discovered, and a Monash researcher, William Webster, acting as a Vice President of the Association for the Public University, then revealed the newly-discovered plagiarism to The Age (William Webster, e-mail, July 21, 2002). Soon after, Robinson resigned his post at Monash, departing with a sizable settlement based on the A$2 million remaining on his contract (Maslen, July 19, 2002).

Robinson's 1979 Theft

In 1979, Robinson (1979b) published a chapter, entitled "Drinking behaviour," in a volume, Alcoholism in Perspective, edited by Marcus Grant and Paul Gwinner (1979). This chapter took over virtually in tact pages of material directly from a much earlier article by anthropologist David Mandelbaum (1965), which appeared in Current Anthropology.

There were a number of ironies about the Mandelbaum article and Robinson's theft. For one thing, at the same time that the Grant and Gwinner volume appeared, Mac Marshall (1979) reprinted Mandelbaum's 1965 article in a volume which was to become a classic, Beliefs, Behaviors, & Alcoholic Beverages. But there was an even stranger irony in some ways — in the same year, Robinson (1979a) edited his own volume, Alcohol Problems, which reprinted the part of the Mandelbaum article which he took over directly, only here with the correct attribution. (It is indicative, however, that in both Robinson 1979a where he attributed the material to Mandelbaum, and in Robinson 1979b where he purloined the material but made one reference to the earlier article, Robinson misstated the dates of the original publication.)

More than half of Robinson's article in Grant and Gwinner is lifted, virtually verbatim, from Mandelbaum. That is, after a new introductory paragraph, and one insertion of his own material, Robinson took almost word-for-word the first fifteen paragraphs from Mandelbaum (and some additional material thereafter). This material is a survey of cross-cultural drinking practices. What is most striking initially is that Robinson deleted Mandelbaum's references for the different styles of drinking described in various cultures — as though he feared these might be the tell-tale signs of plagiarism.

But what is ultimately perhaps more shocking is that, when Robinson made modifications in this material, these were done clearly to adapt Mandelbaum to a modern, British setting, to wit:

Mandelbaum (1965):

The act of drinking can serve as a symbolic punctuation mark differentiating one social context from another (reference). The cocktail prepared by the suburban housewife for her commuting husband when he returns in the evening helps separate the city and its work from the home and its relaxation. In more formal ritual, but with similar distinguishing intent, an orthodox Jew recites the habdalah blessing over wine and drinks the wine at the end of the Sabbath to mark the division between the sacred day and the rest of the week.

Robinson (1979b):

The act of drinking can serve as a symbolic punctuation mark, differentiating one social context from another. The swift half pint in the pub before the commuter train leaves for suburbia helps separate the city and its work from the home and its relaxation. In more formal ritual, but with similar distinguishing intent, an orthodox Jew recites the Havdola blessing over wine and drinks the wine at the end of the Sabbath to mark the division between the sacred day and the rest of the week.

Further Revelations in re Robinson's 1979 Plagiarism

The thefts from Mandelbaum do not exhaust Robinson's unacknowledged borrowing in his 1979 chapter. Monash opponents of Robinson (Webster, mail received August 5, 2002) identified materials that Robinson (1976) lifted from Roebuck and Kessler (1972). Some of these same materials then migrated to Robinson's later work. For example, Robinson shifted from plagiarizing Mandelbaum's ethnographic research to reviewing Donald Horton's systematic cultural analysis of drinking excesses based on the Cross-Cultural Survey files at Yale.

[Horton] constructed a scale of drinking behavior based on the degree of insobriety commonly reached by adult male drinkers. . . . The more primitive a society's food gathering techniques, the greater is the danger of food shortage and the more difficult are life conditions. These conditions, according to Horton, should create a relatively high amount of anxiety. Primitive subsistence techniques were, thus, assumed to be conducive to high anxiety levels. . . . (Robinson, 1979b, p. 28)

Compare this with the Roebuck and Kessler text:

A scale of drinking behavior was constructed, based on data showing the degree of insobriety commonly reached by adult male drinkers. . . . The more primitive that a society's food-getting techniques are, the greater the danger of food shortages, and the more difficult are life conditions. These conditions, according to Horton, should create a relatively high amount of anxiety in such cultures. Primitive subsistence techniques were thus assumed to be conducive to high anxiety levels. (Roebuck & Kessler, 1972, pp. 141-142)

Robinson's Monash opponents pointed out that Robinson (1976) had lifted this and other passages from Roebuck and Kessler, the revelation of which finally sealed Robinson's fate as vice chancellor at Monash. Yet he then compounded this crime by repeating the plagiarism of some of this material in his later work. Indeed, given that it is virtually impossible to check all the possible sources from which Robinson has stolen[*], it is plausible that much of Robinson's work comprises compilations of material he lifted from various sources.

Robinson's 1983 Theft

In 1983, Robinson (1983a) had included a chapter entitled "Alcoholics Anonymous: American origins and the international diffusion of a self-help group," in a volume published in Britain by Croom Helm, edited by Griffith Edwards and two others, based on papers which were produced earlier for the World Health Organization. It became clear that this article included, as a large part of its development, historical material lifted from a classic work in the field, by Harry G. Levine (1978), "The discovery of addiction: Changing conceptions of habitual drunkenness in America." Robinson included the Levine article in his reference section, but did not refer to it in the text.

Although this theft was discovered, apologized for (see below), and reported in THES, it had a further element that was apparently not recognized at the time (although later reported in Australia, see Ketchell, July 25, 2002). This was that Robinson (1983b) further developed and refined the chapter into an article he published the same year in the journal Alcohol & Alcoholism. In this further appropriation of Levine's material, he apparently had been alerted that his plagiarism had been discovered, and so he appears to have taken some half-steps to cover his theft. That is, he added a sentence attributing his historical analysis to the Levine source, and two parenthetical references to "Levine, 1978," which were not part of his chapter in the Edwards volume. But, while maintaining the exact same wording he had taken from Levine in that publication, Robinson continued in his Alcohol & Alcoholism article to avoid exact references for the quoted material, and included no quotation marks for it.

This created a bizarre anomaly, when comparing the parallel sections of the two Robinson publications. This is the beginning of the purloined section in Robinson (1983a), with borrowings from Levine (1978) noted:

The idea that alcoholism is a disease — the chief symptom of which is loss of control over drinking behavior, and whose only remedy is abstinence from all alcoholic beverages — is now about two hundred years old. [Levine, "The idea that alcoholism is a progressive disease — the chief symptom of which is loss of control over drinking behavior, and whose only remedy is abstinence from all alcoholic beverages — is now about 175 or 200 years old, but no older."] During the seventeenth century and for most of the eighteenth, the assumption was that people drank and got drunk because they wanted to, not because they "had" to. [Levine: "During the 17th century, and for most of the 18th, the assumption was that people drank and got drunk because they wanted to, and not because they 'had' to."]

Robinson then repeats sentences taken from Levine at intervals for the next several paragraphs.

In the revised version in Alcohol & Alcoholism, these exact same two sentences are included, without quotations, with this sentence between them: "The following brief discussion of some of the ideas which were adopted by AA, relies heavily on the article by Harry G. Levine (1978)," followed by all the same purloined materials, with no addition of quotations anywhere.

Responses to the Plagiarism

Robinson's BJA apology, to Mandelbaum, read:

At the request of Professor D.G. Mandelbaum, Dr D. Robinson is happy to point out that four pages of his chapter on Drinking Behavior in Grant, M. and Gwinner, P. (eds) Alcoholism in Perspective, Croom Helm, London and University Park Press, Baltimore, 1979, rely, with minor alterations and a reference to the original, on a section of Professor Mandelbaum's review article: Alcohol and Culture, Current Anthropology, 6.3.281. 1965. (Robinson, 1981).

The apology to Levine appeared as a glued insert in subsequent copies of the Edwards et al. (1983) volume issued by Croom Helm:

After this book was printed the publisher learned that David Robinson in his chapter which appears on page (sic) 168-174 had used material from another author. At least 20 sentences of this chapter were taken verbatim, without references and without quotation marks, from H.J. (sic) Levine, 'The Discovery of Addiction: Changing Conceptions of Habitual Drunkenness in America', pp. 143-174 in The Journal of Studies on Alcohol Vol. 39, No. 1, Jan. 1978. Dr Robinson unreservedly apologizes for this serious violation of scholarly standards.

Ron Roizen, a researcher then at the Alcohol Research Group in Berkeley, who mediated on behalf of Mandelbaum (David Mandelbaum died in 1987), reported feeling more repugnance at the reactions and negotiations in re the Mandelbaum apology than to the plagiarism itself. The apology begins "At the request of Professor D.G. Mandelbaum. . .," as though an apology was only required due to the punctiliousness of the robbed party. Roizen noted particularly the next clause, that Robinson was "happy" to acknowledge his theft:

Why would anyone be "happy" to point out such a thing? Would a robbery suspect be "happy to point out" that he robbed? Would a rapist? The "happy to point out" bullshit is an inappropriate and insulting attempt at dismissiveness and glossing over the sweep and severity of Robinson's transgression — and the BJA's editors should never have allowed this phrase to be included in Robinson's apology. (Roizen, e-mail, August 5, 2002)

The entire apology fails to convey the breadth (material from Mandelbaum formed, after all, the majority of Robinson's chapter) and purposefulness (as in Robinson's replacement of American with British examples) of the theft. Likewise, referring to "Professor Mandelbaum's review article" might seem to make the theft more acceptable, since Mandelbaum could be seen only to be summarizing others' material himself. Finally, mentioning Robinson's single misleading reference to Mandelbaum in the text amidst 15 and more purloined paragraphs gives a further misleading impression.

Levine fared somewhat better. Nonetheless, how slighting is it that his name is incorrectly spelled? Moreover, no acknowledgement was apparently ever made of Robinson's use of the same material from Levine without quotation in a separate journal article. Yet, Robinson apparently considered that the addition of general references to Levine in Alcohol & Alcoholism gave him permission to continue to omit exact attribution of the Levine material he used.

It is not possible to speak of the published responses by Robinson without noting the role of Griffith Edwards, a psychiatrist who is the UK's doyen of addiction research. Edwards is also the long-time editor of the world's leading addiction journal, Addiction (formerly the British Journal of Addiction), and a prominent figure in the World Health Organization. Edwards figured centrally in Robinson's apologies through his various roles — as Robinson's "employer" at ARU, as editor of the Croom Helm volume in which the material Robinson purloined from Levine — and then Robinson's apology — appeared, and as editor of the British Journal of Addiction/Addiction where, although none of the material which was either stolen by Robinson or published by him appeared, one of Robinson's apologies appeared.

Conclusion

After all these years, and certainly after Robinson's ignominious fall from grace, perhaps not much more needs to be said on the matter. Robinson apparently ceased plagiarizing after the Levine incident and remained "plagiarism free" for 20 years, although for most of this period he had left research and writing for university administration.

Yet, plagiarism never goes down easy. For one thing, Robinson was free to continue to minimize his actions, and to mischaracterize the reactions of those he wronged. Following the discovery of the third plagiarism, Robinson took refuge behind the standard excuses — it was an accidental borrowing caused by pressures to write and publish material rapidly. As an editorial in The Age characterized this response, it was, "a defence that Monash, or any, university would be unlikely to regard as adequate if offered by an undergraduate explaining text copied into an essay without attribution. A student who said, as Professor Robinson did in response to the third accusation, that the substantial passages of unattributed text in question had been copied inadvertently, would have been answered with a stern 'Please explain.' " (Editorial, July 13, 2002).

Meanwhile, Robinson described the earlier plagiarism incidents as follows:

These matters were dealt with and resolved more than 20 years ago. They were public at the time of their resolution and were discussed in an open and frank way between my then employer and myself. Following my immediate and unreserved apology, no further action was taken by the publishers, the authors or by my employers. (Baty, June 21, 2002, emphasis added)

What, we might wonder, could Mandelbaum and Levine have done in addition? These cases expose how little power the plagiarized have, since they must often rely on the plagiarist (and in this case his supporters) for a remedy. Beyond this, the closing of ranks around Robinson's actions continues to leave a bad taste all these many years later. Roizen contrasted Edwards' actions and attitudes during these events with his consistent, active, moralistic denunciation of alcohol researchers who have any involvement with the alcohol industry:

. . . .if I recall correctly, I felt more disappointed in the editorial staff at BJA (i.e., Edwards) than in Robinson. The protective coating that Robinson got from BJA has always been a mystery to me. Was it the British sense of protecting their own against an American (or, gasp, American Jew's) claims of misconduct? Was it the classist sensibility of the Brits — i.e., that all us doctorated folk have to stick together? Was it Edwards' way of protecting his research institution (more or equally with protecting Robinson)? Or was it just a simple lack of honor and courage? It is striking how readily Edwards takes the high horse regarding "drinks industry" funding on behalf of high scholarly and scientific norms and yet how indifferent to said norms he proved to be in this matter. (Roizen, e-mail, August 2, 2002)

Moreover, some argue that Robinson has already been punished, first by his leaving active research and writing, and second by his departure from the United Kingdom (although these could as well have been ordinary career advancements). Further, since he has left his position at Monash (voluntarily or not), some argue, what point is there to continuing to examine Robinson's crimes? A colleague of mine, Archie Brodsky, senior research associate at the Program in Psychiatry and the Law of Harvard Medical School, offered the following insights in reaction to these defenses against further discussion of the Robinson matter:

As for the first, can the profession of scholarship and teaching tolerate putting an exposed cheater in administrative power over researchers, teachers, and students? As for the second, are we to go back to previous centuries when English criminals were shipped out to Australia to start a new life? (That may have made sense then, but they had to farm and settle a frontier, not lead a university.) Yes, ruin his career rather than his life, but shouldn't his punishment be more like that of Charles Van Doren [a Columbia University faculty member who was discovered to have cheated on a television quiz program, as depicted in the 1994 film, "Quiz Show"], who had to work for an encyclopedia publisher the rest of his life rather than teach college?. . . . [Those who object to this continued discussion are] not considering two important interests and values that Edwards' (and others') actions slighted: (1) Justice, vindication, for the victims. (2) Maintaining the standards of the field. Stronger statements outlining the full extent of the plagiarism, promulgated in more — and more prominent — places, would serve those two ends. (Brodsky, e-mail, August 6, 2002)

Notes

+ Disclosure: I spoke with and gained valuable insights and information from, in addition to Archie Brodsky, Ron Roizen, and William Webster, two individuals familiar with the cases who wish to remain unattributed. I got valuable documents from Phil Baty (of THES) and Penny Page, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies librarian. None of these people necessarily agrees with all, or any, of the things I write here. I have in the past published material in BJA and my work has been reviewed in that journal by Griffith Edwards; I have also consulted and continue to consult with Marcus Grant, editor of the volume in which Robinson published the material he stole from Mandelbaum, and with the organization Grant directs, the International Center for Alcohol Policies, an alcohol-industry-funded organization in the alcohol policy area, although Grant has not reviewed, or contributed any material to, this article. [back]

* According to Webster (e-mail, July 21, 2002), the further Robinson plagiarism was discovered when a colleague examined the next book alphabetically in the Monash library stacks from Robinson's 1976 text. [back]

References

Newspaper articles

Baty, P. (June 21, 2002). Whistleblowers: Plagiarism scandal returns to haunt v-c. The Times Higher Education Supplement (London).

Editorial. (July 13, 2002). Monash and its VC: the end of the affair. The Age (Melbourne).

Ketchell, M. (July 6, 2002). Plagiarism: fresh claims against Monash Uni head. The Age (Melbourne).

Ketchell, M. (July 13 2002). Quiet rejoicing in Monash corridors. The Age (Melbourne).

Ketchell, M. (July 25, 2002). Plagiarism accusations grow. The Age (Melbourne).

Maslen, G. (July 19, 2002). Serial plagiarist forced to quit. The Times Higher Education Supplement (London).

Miller, C. (July 20, 2002). Campuses galore, but was it academe? The Age (Melbourne).

Mail/e-mail

Brodsky, Archie. E-mail to Stanton Peele, August 6, 2002.

Roizen, Ron. E-mail to Stanton Peele, August 2, 2002.

Roizen, Ron. E-mail to Stanton Peele, August 5, 2002.

Webster, William. E-mail to Stanton Peele, July 21, 2002.

Webster, William. Mail to Stanton Peele, received August 5, 2002.

Published work

Edwards, G., Arif, A., & Jaffe, J. (Eds.) (1983). Drug Use & Misuse: Cultural perspectives. London: Croom Helm (including inserted apology to Levine by Robinson).

Grant, M., & Gwinner, P. (Eds.) (1979). Alcoholism in Perspective. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Levine, H.G. (1978). The discovery of addiction: Changing conceptions of habitual drunkenness in America. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 39, 143-174.

Mandelbaum (1965). Alcohol and culture. Current Anthropology, 6, 281. Reprinted in Marshall, M. (Ed.), Beliefs, Behaviors, & Alcoholic Beverages, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (pp. 14-30), 1979; Robinson, D. (Ed.), Alcohol Problems: Reviews, research and recommendations, New York: Homes & Meier (pp. 15-21), 1979.

Marshall, M. (Ed.) (1979). Beliefs, Behaviors, & Alcoholic Beverages. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Robinson, D. (1976). From Drinking to Alcoholism: A sociological commentary. London: Wiley & Sons.

Robinson (1979a). Alcohol Problems: Reviews, research and recommendations. New York: Homes & Meier.

Robinson, D. (1979b). Drinking behaviour. In Grant, M. & Gwimmer, P. (Eds.), Alcoholism in Perspective. Baltimore: University Park Press (pp. 23-33).

Robinson (1981). Apology to Mandelbaum (in News and Notes). British Journal of Addiction, 76(3), 336.

Robinson, D. (1983a). Alcoholics Anonymous: American origins and the international diffusion of a self-help group. In Edwards, G. et al. (Eds.), Drug Use & Misuse: Cultural perspectives. London: Croom Helm (pp. 168-175).

Robinson, D. (1983b). The growth of Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 18, 167-172.

Roebuck, J.B., & Kessler, R.G. (1972). The Etiology of Alcoholism: Constitutional, psychological and sociological approaches. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.