{"id":107480,"date":"2019-12-17T18:03:29","date_gmt":"2019-12-17T17:03:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=107480"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:24:37","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:24:37","slug":"commission-does-not-find-plagiarism-in-van-der-booms-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2019\/12\/17\/commission-does-not-find-plagiarism-in-van-der-booms-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Commission does not find plagiarism in Van den Boom\u2019s work"},"content":{"rendered":"

The former dean of ESHCC Dymph van den Boom did not plagiarise other people\u2019s work. This was concluded by an independent commission of inquiry appointed by the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Over the past few months, this commission investigated the accusations of plagiarism first published in the daily NRC Handelsblad<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Former ESHCC dean Dymph van den Boom<\/span><\/p>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDani\u00ebl Rommens (Folia)<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

In June,\u00a0an article in NRC Handelsblad<\/em><\/a>\u00a0accused Van den Boom of committing plagiarism \u2013 among other instances in her orations as rector of UvA and in her dissertation. The daily alleged that she had copied large swaths of text without citing the source. At the time, EM<\/em> also reported that Van den Boom had appropriated passages without citing the author<\/a> in a policy memorandum about the future of Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication (ESHCC).<\/p>\n

The commission of inquiry, made up of professors Ton Hol (Utrecht University) and Marc Loth (Tilburg University), concluded that while Van den Boom had been \u2018sloppy\u2019, she had not committed plagiarism according to the then-prevailing standards for scientific integrity.<\/p>\n

Review of the literature<\/h2>

In her 1988 dissertation, Van den Boom copied fragments of other people\u2019s texts without citing the source. According to the commission, the passages in question are included in a review of the literature, in which it should be obvious to the reader that Van den Boom is not attempting to pass off other people\u2019s insights as her own. \u201cAlthough it is not always made clear \u2013 or sufficiently clear \u2013 in the dissertation which sections of text were written by the author and which have been taken from other people\u2019s work, it is sufficiently clear throughout that the author is describing others\u2019 contributions and has not appropriated and presented them as her own work.\u201d<\/p>\n

No plagiarism in \u2018dies\u2019 orations either<\/h2>

Nor has the commission encountered any instances of plagiarism in Van den Boom\u2019s orations during the opening of the academic year at UvA. \u201cThe commission has established that the subject has not taken any ideas or unique insights developed by third parties that can make any claim to originality without explicitly referring to their source.\u201d The commission excluded two orations from its review that were never published in written form. These orations are alleged to have contained longer passages of other people\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

Nor has the commission looked into Van den Boom\u2019s policy memorandum about the future of ESHCC, written in early 2019. According to anonymous staff members, this document also incorporated third-party passages without citing the source.<\/p>\n

\u2018Huge reputation damage\u2019<\/h2>

In September, EUR\u2019s Executive Board commissioned an investigation of ESHCC staff members\u2019 e-mail exchanges<\/a> in an effort to locate the source of the claims in the disputed NRC<\/em> article. \u201cThis article has given rise to discussions, created an unsafe atmosphere and is highly damaging to the individual in question. Indeed, the Executive Board takes this matter extremely seriously,\u201d stated the Board in its announcement of the investigation. On Tuesday, an EUR spokesperson informed us that the Executive Board feels no need to respond to the contents of the UvA report.<\/p>\n

Van der Boom herself did respond<\/a> to the report, in the Tuesday edition of de Volkskrant<\/em>. Throughout the inquiry, she was subject to a gag order. \u201cI lost a lot of sleep over this \u2013 it\u2019s one of the worst accusations that can be levied against you as a scientist,\u201d she told the newspaper. \u201cIt has inflicted huge damage on my reputation.\u201d The rules for citing sources were less strict in the 1980s, says the former dean. And as UvA rector, she did not write her own orations \u2013 this was done by the university\u2019s Communication department.<\/p>\n

NRC Handelsblad<\/em> has also responded to the report: \u201cDymph van den Boom has [\u2026] repeatedly copied other people\u2019s texts without including a correct source citation. It is curious that the commission does not qualify this method of working as plagiarism. Everyone else does.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

De redactie<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t