Behind the Scenes of Scientific Debating

In analysing a scientific debate, there are at least two types of relevant information. One is the debate itself, experienced first hand or via a transcript. Another is what can be called backstage information, which includes the debaters’ preparations, plans, notes, thinking and reservoir of arguments and responses. Familiarity with backstage information can provide insights for understanding the dynamics of the debate. Often, the only individuals with much backstage information are the debaters themselves, plus perhaps one or two advisers or close friends. An observer of the debate seldom has access to backstage information. The next best thing, then, is generalisations based on backstage experience with debates of a similar nature.

Martin, Brian. University of Wollongong (2000). Articles>Scientific Communication>Rhetoric

Business Lessons, Italian Style  

Martin shares the intercultural tips and tricks he has learned during his thirteen years of working in Italy, and discusses how they contrast with his business experiences in America.

Martin, Brian. Intercom (2006). Articles>Collaboration>Regional>Italy

Plagiarism: A Misplaced Emphasis

Plagiarism is conventionally seen as a serious breach of scholarly ethics, being a theft of credit for ideas in a competitive intellectual marketplace. This emphasis overlooks the vast amount of institutionalized plagiarism, including ghostwriting and attribution of authorship to bureaucratic elites. There is a case for reducing the stigma for competitive plagiarism while exposing and challenging the institutionalized varieties.

Martin, Brian. University of Wollongong (1994). Articles>Writing>Ethics>Plagiarism