Form the article provided by Goodwin in response to her disputed referencing, it can be concluded that she had an intention for deliberate deception. During her research, she deliberately ignored the use of citation marks, “I failed to give quotation marks for phrases taken from verbatim” it was however ironical to ignore such a vital tool in an academic literature work. Goodwin goes ahead to exposes her intentional negligence at the time of inserting her citations. She quotes, “Having assumed that these phrases, drawn from my notes, were my words, not hers”. This was Goodwin’s response to Lynne Mc Taggart who questioned about her plagiarized work without proper citation marks. From the response given by Goodwin, she justifies that in as much as she did not use quotation marks; there were various quotations in her footnotes. Her deliberate omission of the quotation marks was thus an intentional act.
Another point of justifying Goodwin’s deliberate mistakes in referencing can be traced from her introductory statement.”I am a historian . . . . . . . . .there is nothing I take extra seriously.” As far as her statement is concerned, she clarifies that nothing is so serious in her undertakings. After several comments from other historian writers, Goodwin say that she takes nothing serious” there is nothing I take extra seriously”. It can be concluded that she did not even take her referencing work serious. In return to carelessness, she committed deliberate referencing mistakes.
Goodwin took a lot of pride in her research work. As a result of herself contentment, she did not use books to confirm about the correct citations of the materials. In her reaction article, Goodwin acknowledges that if she could have used the actual books,” If I had to use the books rather than personal notes” no error could have been realized “I would have caught mistakes in the first place”. The quotations above shows that even during the time of book development, Goodwin was aware of the possible resulted to her presumed pride of using only notes for references.
One other main issue confirming that Goodwin’s actions were deliberate is found in her pride. Instead of confiding in other people’s article so as to develop history from where initial authors had reached, Goodwin feels proud of her own findings. “I acquire great pleasure in the depth of my research and my citations”. It is therefore clear that Goodwin deliberately failed to recognize the key authors in her research work. This is because she wanted to feel more of the initiator of the ideas. She additionally quotes, “Having assumed that these phrases, drawn from my notes, were my words, not hers”. This was in response to Lynne Mc Taggart who questioned about the incorporation of her citations. The point of dispute was that the findings were done without proper citation marks.
Based on Doris Goodwin’s historical work of art, it is relatively ironical to be referred to as an “a professional historian author.” Through her research work, she was very keen in taking details about all the articles encountered” I wrote books and took notes, believing I could not reflect well using the keyboard.” Due to all these strategies laid down to check on accuracy, Goodwin’s work ought to reflect her efforts in data tapping. From the response given by Goodwin in many cases, she justifies for not using quotation marks. In conclusion to Doris Goodwin’s historical work, it can be remarked that she had an intention for deliberate deception.