Johannesburg - A Psychologist has accused her PhD thesis supervisor of plagiarising her ideas but has allegedly failed to get two universities to fully investigate the matter.
Dr Penny Webster worked on her PhD thesis at Rhodes University between 2002 and 2004 under Dr Zelda Knight’s supervision.
Years later, in 2009, Webster found an article written by Knight in the American Journal of Psychotherapy in January 2005 that she said were her ideas, stolen without acknowledgement.
Knight had in the meantime moved from Rhodes University to work as a senior lecturer at the University of Johannesburg’s (UJ) psychology’s department.
“It is my opinion that professor Zelda Knight has plagiarised my PhD thesis, my case study and earlier essays that were written while I was a student at Rhodes University,” Webster wrote in her complaint to both universities.
“Professor Knight used the ideas from my thesis and published them in the American Journal of Psychotherapy in January 2005.
She did this without referencing my work and blatantly passed the ideas off as her own.”
In 2005, Knight contacted Webster, saying she believed her material should be published. Knight said she would rework the ideas and would be the first co-author and Webster the second co-author.
“I thanked her, but explained to her that I did not consider her to be a co-author of my work… because she was so aggressive in her approach to this. However, I decided to keep an eye on her publications and became aware (in 2009) that she had already published my ideas in 2005,” Webster wrote.
Webster said Knight had used her idea that the patient’s attachment to “bad objects” can be useful in therapy.
This was an idea Webster said was innovative at the time, and an external examiner of her PhD had described her ideas as “adventurous and creative”.
When she discovered the alleged plagiarism, Webster contacted both Rhodes University and UJ to investigate the matter.
Webster said it took Rhodes University two years to respond to her complaint, and she found its response disappointing.
The university indicated in an e-mail that it had no jurisdiction over the matter because its plagiarism policy applied only to students, and Knight no longer worked at the university.
UJ responded to Webster’s claims in 2009 in a letter by Professor Angina Parekh. The letter said it had asked colleagues in the department of psychology to provide their opinion, and it had found Webster’s claims to have no foundation.
Webster found this response unacceptable, wanting to know why UJ had allowed colleagues to investigate Knight.
She also approached the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) to investigate the matter, but the council concluded that the alleged plagiarism was an academic matter.
Knight responded to the allegations at the HPCSA, stating that at “no time did I plagiarise any of Dr Webster’s work”.
Knight responded that Webster’s allegations that she had copied three essays which were written before her thesis was impossible as she had not seen the essays.
“Dr Webster claims I plagiarised from her PhD thesis. This is vehemently denied. Based on the timelines and the publication process, this would have been impossible.”
Knight said her American Journal of Psychotherapy article was written before drafts of Webster’s thesis were submitted.
“Such allegations are insulting to my professionalism and reputation. I am an academic of standing… I would not play Russian roulette with my academic reputation by plagiarising from students,” Knight wrote.
But Webster said Knight had been corresponding with her about the thesis since 2002, had seen her essays in 2003 and had her draft thesis from June 2004.
In her response to the HPCSA, Knight attached an external examination into the allegations by Professor Rex van Vuuren, who said the ideas in the thesis were not unique and plagiarism had not taken place.
However, Webster said Van Vuuren was, in fact, a colleague of Knight’s husband and thus not independent.
Universities respond:
*Dr Peter Clayton, deputy vice-chancellor of research and development at Rhodes University, said it was true that Rhodes had a plagiarism policy for students.
“But it is not true that Rhodes is unconcerned about plagiarism if committed by a staff member,” he said.
“For disciplinary purposes, staff members fall under national labour legislation, and any plagiarism issues would be handled using this family of legislation.”
Clayton said Rhodes followed its policy “as far as it could”. The institution lacked jurisdiction in terms of labour legislation as Knight was no longer employed at Rhodes.
He said Rhodes had gone further and contacted the University of Johannesburg, and had been told that the university found Knight had not acted unlawfully.
Clayton said that because the allegation involved plagiarism of an idea, they would need both parties’ input in an investigation, and as Knight no longer worked there, Rhodes could not bring her to a hearing and could not proceed further.
*Professor Angina Parekh, deputy vice-chancellor: academic at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), said the university regarded plagiarism as a very serious matter.
“All allegations are investigated rigorously. If such allegations are found to have substance, the matter is referred for disciplinary action. The university would not hesitate to take appropriate action, even dismissal,” Parekh said.
She said attempting to “cover up” the theft of intellectual property would cause serious reputational damage and would never be considered as an option.
Parekh said UJ had referred the allegations to an external, highly regarded academic in the field to assess the evidence. This academic had found there was no substance to the allegations.
She refused to divulge who the external examiner was, citing confidentiality.
Numerous phone calls, e-mails and an SMS to Knight for comment elicited no response.
The Star