John, 

I don't agree that the issues being quite complex - although I think 
they are being (unncessarily) complicated. 

you ended your message to Julian with
"If/When greater clarity around the conventions is achieved, ..."

Clarity for whom? For students? for staff? for university policy 
documenteers?

You state that students are often 'confused' and distressed' 
because
"the guidance they are given is often contradictory and unclear ... 
The inconsistency in advice may be between two or more members 
of teaching staff on the same programme, or even from the same 
person! "

Is this really the case, or is it what students report? Could the 
students be confused simply because they have misheard, or 
misread the 'guidance' / 'advice'? If so, that's a different problem 
from **actual** inconsistency and lack of clarity in such 'guidance' / 
'advice', and different again from inconsistency and lack of clarity in 
**instructions**. In the latter two cases (wrt **actual** guidance/ 
advice and instructions), then there is a need for policy ('all 
instructions wrt citations and referencing must be clear, consistent 
etc') and/or staff training ('let's have a look at some examples of ...- 
what do you tell students about ... have a go now with your partner 
at revising  ....etc'). 

Unless such policy is decided and/or staff training given, then this 
year's confused and distressed students will be replaced by next 
year's lot, and so on eternally (I'll resist the suggestion that this 
would be useful for job creation in the 'learning development'/ 
'student support' field ;-)   ...)

If, however, students are just not doing their part in reading/ 
listening to what is actually clear instruction and/or advice/ 
guidance, then there will no doubt be other indicators of them being 
'at risk', many of which will be much more basic than citations and 
referencing.

I do find the notion of "apparent mysteries" wrt the conventions 
highly problematic. There are no 'mysteries', just a range of 
different ways in which the practices of citation and referencing are 
carried out in different specific contexts. Take any journal, read the 
instructions on what authors are required to do, look at examples 
of actual published articles (ie they have met with publishers 
instructions), then do likewise if you want to be published in that 
journal. If you want to publish in a different journal, check out how 
**that** publisher wants it done. In some fields of enquiry/ 
disciplines, there will be considerable similarity (eg various 'flavours' 
of Harvard/ author-date or of Vancouver/ numbered), but just be 
careful you don't overlook the slight but key differences.

I get the impression that much of the heat created on this might 
reflect anxieties on the part of staff (perhaps because they have 
limited experience in producing text for publication) - transferred 
onto some unspecified set of staff who are confusing and 
distressing students, or a disembodied academia that is 
supposedly anarchic about the practice. 

So, in order to re-balance the heat/light ratio, I suggest:
- no more discussion about which is 'better', Harvard or Vancouver 
(or whatever name you want to use)
- no more requests for the **definitive** policy
- no more complaints about what are actually the requirements set 
by publishers 

- more consideration of what is the nature of the problem 
experienced by students, compared with how they present the 
problem (and to whom)
- more discussion about how non-publishing staff in HE can be 
rehearsed in the practices that their colleagues who are publishing 
work encounter as part of their everyday experience (well, whenever 
they get around to finishing texts) 
- more information about institutions that have adopted WriteNote 
for **all** students (or even EndNote, ProCite, Biblioscape, 
BiblioExpress etc) - does this make matters better or worse?
- any evidence about links between 'problems' reportedly 
experienced by students on this matter and wider problems they 
may be experiencing
- suggestions on how to keep bureaucratic policy documenteerists 
out of pedagogic matters.

Well it is Monday!


cheers

Len







On 6 Feb 2006, at 12:39, John Hilsdon wrote:

> Hi Julian, and All
> 
> Re Julian's message:
> 
> ... but the issues are actually quite complex! Here are some of the
> most obvious ones again:
> 
> 1) students do not (in my experience) normally 'choose' (the word you
> used) which system to use (if only they did - that might help a lot!)
> 2) the guidance they are given is often contradictory and unclear (at
> least here - and, given the contributions of others on the list, this
> problem is clearly not confined to Plymouth.) The inconsistency in
> advice may be between two or more members of teaching staff on the
> same programme, or even from the same person! 3) this issue may be
> further complicated when students are taking modules in differing
> subject areas if different referencing systems are required - i.e.
> they might be being given two or more sets of (sometimes
> unclear/inconsistent) guidelines for two or more referencing systems!
> 4) in assessment, grades are frequently affected by referencing - and
> it is not always clear to students how exactly their referencing will
> be assessed.
> 
> My interest in this is to promote improvements in practice;
> rationalisation of the conventions; clarity and consistency in
> guidance to students etc. This is a result of having spent several
> years, along with my colleagues, trying to help the numerous students
> who come to our service confused and sometimes quite distressed by the
> apparent 'mysteries' of these practices.
> 
> The best idea I have come across so far is to encourage programme
> leaders to choose an academic publication whose style they approve and
> to ask their students to follow the conventions of that publication
> when writing in that discipline.  If they are using Endnote or similar
> software, this can help them immensely.
> 
> If/When greater clarity around the conventions is achieved, we can
> then all concentrate on the much more important business of, as you
> suggest, "engage(ing) critically with their relevant discourse
> communities"
> 
> All the best
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> John Hilsdon
> Co-ordinator, Learning Development 
> University of Plymouth 
> Drake Circus 
> Plymouth 
> PL4 8AA 
> 
> 01752 232276 
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/learn
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: learning development in higher education network
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Ingle
> Sent: 06 February 2006 12:03
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Academic Referencing Conventions
> 
> I couldn't agree more (with Len).  The discussion seems to be going
> round in circles.  My concern is that students engage critically with
> their relevant discourse communities and this, for me, is what
> referencing shows.  The system they choose is not relevant.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Julian Ingle
> 
>
Dr Leonard Holmes
Principal Lecturer in Human Resource Management
Luton Business School, Putteridge Bury Campus,
Hitchin Road, Luton LU2 8LE
tel. 01582 743111 ext 5014
email [log in to unmask]
websites: http://www.re-skill.org.uk
          http://www.odysseygroup.org.uk

email: [log in to unmask]

websites: www.re-skill.org.uk
          www.odysseygroup.org.uk