Citations

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:51 PM
Subject: References and citations


> Dear ADC-LTSN Colleagues,
>
> This post to another list will interest
> some subscribers here.
>
> If you'd like the two documents noted
> at the bottom, the offer applies to you
> as well.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken Friedman
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> We had a brief thread here last July about the issue of references
> and citations. I have been thinking on this since. This is an
> important issue in research training.
>
> This is more than formalism. Learning to manage references well
> involves developing specific skills and knowledge. These skills
> require systematic, critical use of the literature. Students who
> apply analytical skills to the literature of a field develop a deeper
> and more thorough understanding of the field than students who do
> not. What is true for students is true for doctoral candidates, for
> professional researchers and for scholars.
>
> This month, I refereed several papers for a conference on industrial
> design education. My experience mirrored past experiences with design
> research papers. Over the past year, I have reviewed papers for
> conferences, journals, and for books. One of the common problems I
> have noticed has been an inability to manage references.
>
> For this last batch, I wrote the proceedings editor to ask about the
> problem. Of give papers, one was outstanding despite a few formal
> flaws, two have good potential, one had possibilities, and one was
> impossibly bad.
>
> The outstanding paper might get by without proper management of
> references. With them, it would be an excellent paper. More important
> - for the reasons I explain below - better management of references
> would make the paper more useful to readers. Better references help
> the writer to convey information to readers in a way that enables
> them to transform it more easily into effective knowledge.
>
> When I brought these issues to the editor's attention, I received an
> interesting reply. The editor's reply stated her experience that
> problems in design papers are common. All authors for this specific
> project received guidelines on format and how to manage references.
> Examples were given. Hardly, anyone followed the guidelines. The
> editor made a strong effort to get the organizers to agree that
> papers should be refereed to bring a more scholarly approach to the
> design disciplines. Even so, she had difficulty conveying the value
> of this approach to the designers involved in the conference. She
> even experienced difficulty explaining these issues to design
> educators.
>
> She noted that referencing is a serious problem for all papers in the
> book. She and her colleagues teach these skills in the research
> program within their own industrial design course. She notes that few
> design programs in academic institutions do so.
>
> I want to bring this issue forward to the readers of this list.
> Research training requires that these issues be given appropriate
> attention.
>
> The skills we teach to our students become the skills of our
> profession. They also become the skills that influence the growth of
> our field in the university context.
>
> We are now developing a culture for design research and academic
> publishing. Those who teach design research must consider these
> issues. So must those who organize conferences. Those of us who edit
> books and journals should push authors to manage their sources
> properly.
>
> It is important to raise these issues with research students and
> research writers.
>
> I observe two major problems.
>
> The first is a relaxed attitude toward references in the in-text
> citation. The tendency to a relaxed style means that references are
> cited by author and year alone without attention to the location of a
> fact or an argument.
>
> The second problem involves incomplete or inaccurate references in
> the reference list.
>
> The reason for complete, accurate references is easy to understand.
>
> The general rule of bibliographic reference is that a reference must
> offer the complete information that permits a reader to find the item
> cited. If the cited item is part of a larger work, the reference must
> make it possible to locate the exact spot in the larger work where
> the item appears. This enables the reader to consider, evaluate, and
> compare the ideas of the author in relation to their sources.
>
> The reason for attention to the specific location of ideas or issues
> at the proper point where they occur WHITHIN a cited work is more
> subtle, but equally important.
>
> Where a citation refers to the overall theme of a work, a loose
> reference is acceptable. Where the reference is to a specific issue
> stated at a specific point, care is best.
>
> When authors rest methodological choices or evidentiary assertions on
> external authorities, the reader has a right to know who wrote it and
> where.
>
> An author should not ask that readers to leaf through a 275-page book
> to locate an assertion found on a single page within that book. It is
> the responsibility of a scholar to provide the evidence in readily
> usable form.
>
> As a reader, I expect scholarly and scientific authors to do the
> author's proper work by providing complete evidence for the sources
> they cite.
>
> This problem affects many of the papers and presentations I have been
> seeing in design research.
>
> Where an author has clear and obvious mastery of subject matter, it
> generally does not represent a major problem. Relatively few of our
> scholars have true mastery of their material, however, and one reason
> for the lack of mastery is the failure to work closely with evidence.
> Poor referencing is a symptom. Since good referencing requires the
> author to read closely and carefully, good referencing is part of the
> cure.
>
> Good referencing does not require people to think well, but it does
> force them to attend to the material with which they work. When
> thoughtful people work carefully with material, they tend naturally
> to think and work better as a result.
>
> There are seven good reasons for good referencing and solid citation
> skills. The first two involve the scholarly standards with the field.
> The next five involve the scholar's own development.
>
> 1) Rhetorical development and narrative
>
> Good references creatively underpin an argument. They provide
> evidence, they help to develop narrative flow, and they anchor the
> argument in the larger body of the field.
>
> This aspect of the reference or the footnote is rhetorical.
>
> A reference should be appropriate and well chosen. The cited source
> must itself meet proper standards of quality and evidence. A document
> to which an author refers must itself be subject to inspection and
> review in just the same way that the document in hand must be.
>
> For a reference to fulfill its rhetorical function, it must therefore
> meet the requirement of evidence.
>
> 2) Demonstration of evidence for public inspection or debate
>
> Rhetorically, well-structured footnotes with proper location of
> source permit the reader to examine for himself the claims and
> warrants of the author. This is the foundation of scholarship in the
> humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences.
>
> I would say this is more important in the humanities and social
> sciences than in the natural sciences. In the natural sciences, much
> knowledge is axiomatic or immediately derivable from well-known
> principles. Many of these are set forth in common books of tables and
> data. While there are disagreements on the interpretations of data,
> the data are generally accepted. This is not so in the humanities or
> social sciences.
>
> In the natural sciences, it is also possible to test. This is
> somewhat true in the social sciences. This is not the case in the
> humanities.
>
> Reasoned discourse in the humanities -- and often in the social
> sciences -- depends more on ideas than on external data. Evidence
> depends on the record of prior ideas and earlier chains of arguments.
>
> When I assert that Papanek says something, and that I base part of my
> argument on Papanek, I owe it to my reader to allow him or her to
> inspect Papanek for himself.
>
> This means I must give a complete and full citation. He or she must
> be able to find the document, and locate the point within the
> document at which Papanek raises the point under consideration. (This
> issue often escapes people in design research. It is not enough to
> get Papanek's book if the issue at hand is located in a paragraph
> that occurs in the middle of a 296-page volume.)
>
> Research in every field demands that anyone who offers a claim must
> provide or give access to the evidence that substantiates the claim.
>
> This evidence must be made available and public.
>
> In axiomatized fields such as mathematics, nearly everyone can be
> presumed to have access or know the prior steps in some kinds of
> arguments. In those cases, it may not be necessary to refer to every
> past author. The data alone are enough.
>
> In any field where people from several fields are likely to enter the
> discourse, it is vital to provide all evidence.
>
> This is particularly the case in design research, where we come from
> so many backgrounds.
>
> Establishing such requirements will improve the field in general. It
> renders material more usable to readers from inside and outside the
> field. It raises the standard of scholarship for the field and
> scholars both. This includes requiring that people read material and
> use evidence more effectively than I have seen in many of the
> conference papers I have been reviewing.
>
> We are seeing a fair number of graduated scholars who have been
> granted doctorates without having mastered basic research and writing
> skills. It is my view that our journal editors and conference
> committees should require that they meet these standards before
> offering a platform for their work.
>
> Proper use of sources and effective documentation of evidence is the
> basis of scholarship and science in all fields. Making evidence
> available is the standard of reasoned argument in every arena where
> we require a higher standard of argument that mere personal authority.
>
> Some people argue that this takes too much time and raises the
> barrier to publication and presentation to an artificially high level.
>
> I argue that the time is the time required is the time that proper
> scholarship demands. These are not arcane skills or difficult skills.
> We master them with practice and coaching. My first-year students
> master these skills as one element in their term paper.
>
> Graduated doctors cannot argue that they are unable to master skills
> that are expected of first-year students at university. They may
> argue that their knowledge is so great that these skills are
> superfluous, but the evidence of three papers in four suggests
> otherwise.
>
> It seems to me that requiring these skills sets a platform, rather
> than raising an artificial barrier. Right now, too many design venues
> are publishing people and permitting presentations that would be
> considered below standard in most other fields.
>
> 3) Learning to read effectively
>
> Learning to manage sources accurately and well is the foundation of
> good research.
>
> A student who is required to cite properly must learn to read
> effectively to do so. He or she thus masters the relevant literature.
> This does not ensure breadth or a broader view, but it does require
> that he or she learn to read accurately, and argue correctly from
> source literature.
>
> 4) Learning to argue from evidence
>
> In learning to write a proper citation, a scholar also learns
> essential skills in constructing argument from evidence.
>
> 5) Learning to evaluate evidence
>
> In learning these skills, a scholar also begins to understand what
> another author intends in using evidence.
>
> 6) Critical thinking and analytical skills
>
> Understanding how to cite, and understanding what one reads when
> reading a citation also teaches scholars to read with greater
> analytical and critical attention.
>
> Writing a citation is a technical skill. Learning to read a citation
> involves technical skills and critical thinking.
>
> Using these skills as steps toward critical thinking and analytical
> attention is more than a technical skill. This involves scholarship.
> These technical skills help those who master them to become better
> scholars.
>
> 7) Breadth of knowledge
>
> Finally, these skills promote breadth of knowledge.
>
> A scholar who begins to think critically and analytically is no
> longer satisfied with a single source of evidence. A scholar who
> thinks critically is unsatisfied with the kinds of weak evidence that
> uncritical readers accept.
>
> To think critically requires more evidence in addition to better use
> of evidence. Scholars who develop these skills tend to read more
> widely than scholars who do not. As a result, they master their field
> better.
>
> 8) General improvement to research skills
>
> Scholars who have these skills do better work.
>
> These are simple skills. They take work and practice, but they are
> not difficult to understand.
>
> We all face this problem. We write up our research to communicate and
> share ideas. The skill with which we communicate affects the impact
> we have.
>
> I will offer a specific recent case to make my point.
>
> The conference on doctoral education in design at La Clusaz, France,
> attracted a reasonably high level of quality in submissions. One
> reason for this was our care and insistence on applying the
> guidelines. There were a few problem areas nonetheless, comparable to
> those I have seen elsewhere.
>
> The reason these problems do not affect the proceedings is that we
> insisted that deficiencies be remedied before publication. Diligent
> engagement by skilled referees was one important factor. Another was
> outstanding editorial management by David Durling and his colleagues
> at Staffordshire University.
>
> As a result, we have a uniformly high standard among the published
> papers. There are a few examples of loose reference style, but this
> is a general problem in all fields. In many cases, this involves a
> matter of judgment, and where papers are clear, comprehensible, and
> well argued, a wise editor defers to the author's judgment. In every
> other respect, references are accurate, complete, and correct.
>
> The quality of the proceedings has given the La Clusaz proceedings a
> level of impact far beyond our expectations.
>
> We expected and we have had great interest among design research
> programs and among design departments involved in or planning
> doctoral programs. We have also had requests from senior university
> officials at the rector and vice chancellor level, government
> officials in ministries of education, and research centers
> investigating issues of doctoral education and advanced research
> training in the professions.
>
> The impact of this book clearly rests on the quality of contributions
> by many outstanding authors. Part of this quality is the clarity of
> writing and communication. This clarity was encouraged by attention
> to editorial quality and by attention to format, and to proper
> management of references, and citations.
>
> If any subscribers to this list wish to pursue these issues further,
> Ellen Young and I are developing a reference guide and I have been
> writing an article on the logic of good referencing. The guide is not
> done, but an earlier version that I developed with the librarians at
> my school contains many of the basics. If you would like copies of
> these to share with your students and colleagues, I would be happy to
> send them over as attachments.
>
> Just send me an email with the word
>
> Citations
>
> in the subject header.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken