ABSTRACT:

In this entry, I reflect on how my faith shapes my understanding and practice of integrity in research as a Christian librarian. I share how I used to misunderstand plagiarism and justify it, but through study and correction, I came to see that true integrity goes far beyond simply avoiding plagiarism—it means being genuine, truthful, and faithful in all aspects of scholarship. Drawing from both Scripture and theologians like Millard Erickson, I explore how integrity in research involves not only honesty with sources and ideas but also a Christ-like commitment to truthfulness and reliability, even when it’s challenging. I discuss how faithfulness to both my profession and my faith community calls me to integrate biblical values into my research, teaching, and service, and I highlight how integrity is essential for real transformation in learning. Ultimately, I argue that as a faithful librarian, practicing research integrity is about more than following rules; it’s about seeking to honor God and foster genuine growth in myself and those I serve.

FULL ENTRY:

A few months back, I provided some background on the Christian factors of research. The Christian aspects of research investigate the question: “Should the belief of a faithful librarian influence how they conduct and teach research?” My answer to this question is a resounding “YES!” In my previous entry, I discussed the first factor: “All truth is God’s truth.” This entry returns to discuss the second component distinguishing research for faithful librarians: integrity.

Integrity is a fascinating concept for research due to its comprehensive nature and its widespread application in various contexts. For example, an individual can be seen as a person of integrity, a building can have structural integrity, and a corporation can be known for its fiscal integrity. While these contexts have differing implications, they share similarities: integrity is defined as “doing what you said you would do” (Engstrom & Larson, 1987, p. 10). For example, an individual with integrity remains true to his/her words; they are authentic. Similarly, a building with structural integrity can withstand the natural forces for which it was designed. Fiscal integrity typically refers to an organization following financial rules and regulations to which it is bound. All these contexts utilize the concept of integrity, which involves doing what you said you would.

When I think of integrity in the context of research, one of the first concerns that comes to mind is plagiarism. I do not need to elaborate on this idea further because academia generally disapproves of plagiarism and its various manifestations. Unfortunately, the availability of easy-to-use generative AI tools has only compounded the issue. Institutions of higher education and librarians work hard to discourage plagiarism and develop policies to counter it, and rightly so. However, I’d like to take a few minutes to discuss this topic because of a personal misunderstanding I had regarding plagiarism and the plagiarism I frequently justified based on my misunderstanding. I thought plagiarism simply happened when I copied a sentence, a paragraph, or a whole section of a book without providing a reference to the work from which it came. For example, if this entire blog entry was a verbatim copy of a chapter from Booth et al.’s The Craft of Research, and I simply noted this by a reference at the end of the section, I would have thought that since I was giving a reference, I was not plagiarizing. Such an assumption is absurd. At a minimum, if this whole blog entry were a verbatim copy of a chapter from Booth et al., it should be in a block quote format, even though that would look odd and copying that much of a text verbatim is typically not an acceptable practice for research and writing, it, at a minimum, properly acknowledges that I am copying a work verbatim.

Looking back, my understanding of plagiarism was incorrect and, again, simply ludicrous. As a faithful librarian, this gross misunderstanding of plagiarism reminds me that I am a sinner and that such a misunderstanding simply manifests my sinful nature. Subsequently, I have a warrant to seek humility in all professional endeavors due to the depravity caused by my sinful nature. Fortunately, my misconception was graciously corrected.

When preparing to write my master’s thesis, I had to read Booth et al.’s (2024) The Craft of Research. This book, along with its section “Guarding Against Inadvertent Plagiarism” (section 12.9), helped me understand what I was doing wrong. They delve into the details regarding how easy it is to plagiarize, the various ways plagiarism occurs, and the necessity of intentionally and aggressively avoiding it; otherwise, plagiarism happens.

Christianity argues that all humanity has a sinful nature (Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:23). In other words, people do not need to work to do wrong things; instead, it takes effort to do what is right and just. Again, my inclination to plagiarize and its ease is simply a byproduct of my sinful nature. That is not an excuse but rather an observation that may help explain the frequency of plagiarism in many academic contexts and the concerns it raises.

Before reading Booth et al. (2024), my justification for plagiarizing seemed to echo a shallow and false humility, as I stated, “This scholar articulates their ideas with such expertise that I really cannot express them any better, so why try?” Or I would argue (again with a very shallow manifestation of humility), “Who am I to critique work done by a scholar?” I did not understand the immense value behind trying to critique or articulate a scholar’s argument in my own words and context. A light came when I understood that analyzing and synthesizing are critical skills for which plagiarism and the improper use of generative AI impede development. Analysis and synthesis provide a more comprehensive understanding of the text to the reader, enabling them to identify where the scholar went wrong and/or the strength of the scholar’s argument. Using analysis and synthesis are critical to the learning and knowledge endeavors and play key roles in the transformative function of learning.

This understanding of integrity as a warrant for avoiding plagiarism, whether active or passive, is common among many librarians, regardless of their faith (or lack thereof). However, the broad application of the word ‘integrity’ alluded to earlier raises the question: Can the Christian faith offer an additional understanding of the concept of ‘integrity’ that might be helpful for a faithful librarian? In his classic work, Christian Theology, Millard Erickson offers insightful guidance on integrity. Erickson (1998) argues that integrity is closely tied to truth and that three dimensions of truthfulness — genuineness, veracity, and faithfulness — offer a distinct perspective on integrity (pp. 316-318). 

Erickson’s first point of integrity, genuineness, is often reflected in scholarship, as noted above, through the rigor and challenge of synthesis and analysis. After reading Booth et al. (2024), I had a course project for the following term: to write a review of one of the required texts. I wanted to practice what I had learned about plagiarism and intentionally not plagiarize. This may sound simplistic (and is actually quite embarrassing), but this was the first time I had composed a review apart from consulting professional reviews (i.e., other scholarly opinions) of this book. It may sound a bit unconventional, but I wanted to share my thoughts on an academic work and articulate them. Unfortunately, it was not until I was in a graduate program that I began to understand the roles that integrity and genuine reflection play in scholarly conversations. While it was a challenge to compose such a review, it was an incredible learning experience. I have had the privilege to repeat such a learning experience in many different contexts. Writing an authentic critical review of a book requires genuine reflection and invariably leads to a deeper understanding of the work, which is essential for all forms of scholarly conversation.

Erickson (1998) argues that a second component of integrity is veracity. The term “veracity” may be unfamiliar in the English vernacular. It means “representing things as they really are” or “habitual truthfulness.” (Erickson, 1998, pp. 316-317). What does veracity look like in research?

Ernest Boyer’s (1990) work, Scholarship Reconsidered, is foundational for 21st-century scholarship. On occasion, I reference his work in my teaching and writing. In some contexts where I reference Boyer, I aim to provide a foundation for why librarians should pursue scholarship and, more specifically, what that scholarship entails. In so doing, I often use a quote from Boyer (1990):

“The richness of a faculty’s talent should be celebrated, not restricted. Only as the distinctiveness of each faculty is affirmed will the potential of scholarship be fully realized. Surely, American higher education is imaginative and creative enough to support and reward not only those faculty uniquely gifted in research but also those who excel in the integration and application of knowledge, as well as those especially adept in the scholarship of teaching. If acknowledged, such a mosaic of talent would bring renewed vitality to higher learning and the nation” (p. 27).

Boyer (1990) argues that the concept of “scholarship” should encompass a range of talents, not just writing and research. Boyer’s (1990) work has significantly influenced how many view scholarship, particularly in the context of teaching and learning, in the 21st century. When referring to this quote in some of my writings, however, I take the term “faculty” out and put “librarian” [and put brackets around it when I do, so people know it is not part of the original] and suggest that Boyer may be providing a framework for scholarship for librarians. I am suggesting that Boyer (1990) is saying:

“The richness of a [librarian’s] talent should be celebrated, not restricted. Only as the distinctiveness of each librarian is affirmed will the potential of scholarship be fully realized. Surely, American higher education is imaginative and creative enough to support and reward not only those [librarians] uniquely gifted in research but also those who excel in the integration and application of knowledge, as well as those especially adept in the scholarship of teaching. Such a mosaic of talent, if acknowledged, would bring renewed vitality to higher learning and the nation” (p. 27).

Am I exercising veracity? Am I faithful to the text (i.e., Boyer’s original writings)? As I have used this example in a course to demonstrate my commitment to veracity, I have received pushback from individuals who questioned my representation of Boyer’s idea, specifically whether I was practicing veracity. My response, with humility, led to some fantastic dialogue and helped me learn more about the critical role of veracity in any research endeavor. Veracity is a vital component of integrity for a faithful librarian.

Erickson’s (1998) discussion of iniquity also adds insight to veracity. Erickson (1998) states that iniquity manifests itself in a lack of integrity, which is evident in the disunity of the individual, defined as “a discrepancy between present and past behavior or character” (p. 590). In other words, faithful librarians practice veracity (and integrity) in their research endeavors when they refine their understanding of a scholar’s work to eliminate (as much as possible) differentiation between what the scholar articulates and their understanding of that scholar’s work. Such an effort encourages humility as it awakens librarians to their own limitations and biases, prompting them to strive for an accurate representation of the works of other scholars, including their critique of those works, in their own scholarly endeavors.

John 14:6 adds insight to veracity as well. In this passage, Jesus states, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” This phrase emphasizes that Jesus is the way (Beasley-Murray, 1982, p. 252); consequently, faithful librarians should strive to follow Jesus Christ in all aspects of life, including research. In this context, the concept of “truth” seeks to reveal how Jesus is the way (Beasley-Murray, 1982, p. 252). It “reminds us of the complete reliability of Jesus in all that he does and is” (Morris, 1995, p. 570). The biblical concept of truth encompasses faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, certainty, and veracity (Morris, 1995, p. 259). As faithful librarians strive to emulate Jesus in all respects, should our research methods not reflect Christ-likeness in being truthful and accurate? Again, veracity is a critical component of integrity.

Faithfulness is a third component of integrity (Erickson, 1998, p. 318). Faithful librarians often refer to God as faithful, as confirmed by passages such as Deuteronomy 7:9, which states, “Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love Him and keep His commandments, to a thousand generations….” The most familiar connection we have with this kind of faithfulness may be the faithfulness exemplified in a marital relationship, between a parent and a child, or between two friends. What does this have to do with research?

While integrity is often seen as a state of being, faithfulness is frequently the outworking of integrity: faithfulness to the text one is researching, faithfulness to the results generated from a survey (and what the results do and do not say), and faithfulness to what an individual expresses in an interview (both verbally and non-verbally). In all aspects of research, faithfulness is a critical dynamic of good research and faithful librarianship.

While the concept of faithfulness applies in numerous contexts, including research, writing, teaching, and librarianship, I would like to suggest that it assumes an even more critical tone for faithful librarians. Why? In many respects, Christian librarians inhabit two communities: the community of their profession, librarianship, and the community of their faith. I believe that faithfulness to these two communities demands integration; specifically, part of a Christian librarian’s “task is to think biblically about how to connect research, teaching, and service in the academy to the progress of the gospel in all of its dimensions, bringing shalom and blessing to all the earth” (Gould, 2014, p. 168). Faithful research done with integrity involves asking unique questions that align with a faith perspective. For example, in librarianship, my faith has led me to ask questions such as “How does the idea that ‘the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7) impact librarianship?” Questions of this nature often lead other disciplines to ask, similarly, “What is the role of forgiveness in international relations?” Or, “Can the biblical framework of redemption impact fiscal strategies?” These questions spur faith-driven research, which can be seen as a faithful endeavor, and must be conducted with faithfulness and integrity.

The introduction of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and the subsequent ease of integrating them into various areas of life, including research methodology, calls for librarians to respond with integrity. While I do not dismiss the value of integrity for its own sake, it is worth remembering that educational ventures, of which faithful librarians are often a part, are frequently viewed as learning opportunities. To lack integrity in research endeavors often forfeits educational opportunities. In her work, Loving to Know, Esther Meek (2011) eloquently states that “knowledge is transformation, not mere information” (p. 6). Lacking integrity in an educational journey sacrifices the opportunity for transformation: to learn, grow, and become more Christ-like. Subsequently, integrity is crucial for a faithful librarian who desires to see their role as part of a patron’s transformation.

References

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1999). John (2nd ed.). Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2024). The Craft of Research (5th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Engstrom, T. W., & Larson, R. C. (1987). Integrity. Word Books.

Erickson, M. J. (1998). Christian Theology (2nd ed.). Baker Book House.

Gould, P. (2014). An essay on academic disciplines, faithfulness, and the Christian scholar. Christian Higher Education, 13(3), 167-182.

Meek, E. L. (2011). Loving to know: Introducing covenant epistemology. Cascade Books.

Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel According to John (Rev. ed). W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.