I’m hoping some professors or high-level students will shed some light on this for me…
When writing a research paper, the source articles I usually find generally contain a very large amount of information gathered from other sources (it is not unusual for there to be more than 100 references cited).
So, when I find relevant info, it is often merely a quotation or a concept that is being referenced from within the article I’ve found.
Are you with me?
Now I want to use that information. Do I cite the article I’ve come across, or do I cite the original source of the info?
And, does it not seem that many journal articles are merely a summary or compilation of tons of other, already-written articles? In other words, the information is already out there; the author merely compiled it into a single article.
If I get a piece of info that’s cited from another paper in the intro or discussion section of a paper, I usually read and cite the original paper (ok, well I usually at least read the abstract…). The idea is to give credit to the person who came up with the idea or who produced the information you’re presenting. If I’m reading Smith et al 2007 and it says “Lard makes good pie crust (Doe et al, 1977),” in my thesis on the science of pastries I would write “The tastiness pie crusts made with lard has been established for over three decades (Doe et al. 1977).” It was nice of Smith et al. to point me to Doe et al’s paper, but they don’t deserve a citation for it anymore than Web of Science does.
The exception I sometimes make is for review articles, which are those compilation papers that you mentioned. A well-written review article will bring the reader up to speed on the topic at hand, and are great if you need to cite something that everyone in your field would accept at face value anyway (example: Chesapeake Bay is in a much more eutrophic state now than it was 100 years ago. Any estuarine ecologist knows this is true, but you still have to cite it. Rather than citing 20 papers on primary production, nutrient loadings, etc, I’ll cite a review article and be done with it.)
I agree that this is fine for anything but the most rigorous scholarly work. You can find this in most nonfiction books, even by academic authors.
If you are doing historic research that involves primary sources you have to be cautious. I find an amazingly high percentage of “quotes” to be wrong or wrongly cited. Well, that’s really a few percent but it shouldn’t be anywhere near that high.
Given the way you asked this question, it sounds more like you’re a student than an academic. Any book that is good enough to be quoted on its own is good enough to quote a quote.
I usually go and find the original citation. This, in my humble opinion, is just how I do things. However, sometimes I can’t find the original, and in those cases I cite where I found it. There are a couple of reasons for this.
*Some people cite really, really badly, and I don’t like to.
*Often there is a lot of good info that I can use surrounding the cite.
*It gives the appearance that I’m great at finding cites (although I’m sure no one but me really cares).
*You don’t necessarily want to rely on what may be a misinterpretation.
*Hi, Opal.
Now, none of this is required. if you’re an undergrad and this is a course paper and it’s due soon, just cite where your citing your cite to cover your ass, and then move on with life.
No, as long as you have tracked down Doe and confirmed that s/he in fact said what Smith claimed s/he said. How you got to the primary source is irrelevant, but you should be quoting primary sources.
When I was in grad school using secondary sources was frowned upon.
Id find a nice second source, and try to chase down it’s source, which oftentimes were many. I then chased down those source, read them, ad 1600 sometimes.
This was just before my PhD proposal, when I had what I believe is euphemistically called a “nervous breakdown.” Young man let this be a lesson.
PhD candidate here. It is a good idea to check the primary sources because I have found some quotations are correct, but taken out of context, and so the full implications are not represented in the secondary source. Plus you need to have all the major writers on a topic in the bibliography. Many journal reviewers will check the bibliography before anything else.
BUT … and for me this has become an enormous BUT … your bibliography can grow substantially. For the PhD thesis, this is not an issue, but it is for journals which include the bibliography in their word limit. I am working across multiple disciplines. To make my argument in the discipline of the journal, I have to first establish the robustness of what I am bringing in from the other disciplines. If I quote all the primary sources I feel I need, the bibliography is so long that I am already approaching the word length maximum for the entire article.
Plus I’m having other stresses because of a multidisciplinary topic when journals tend to be very narrow in their topics. But that is beyond the OP. I’m just totally stressed out over it at the moment.
I am getting the feeling there is no consensus here. Maybe I should clarify that this is for an undergraduate paper.
Let me ask another way:
Upon doing research, I find a journal article, written by Anderson, that contains a wealth of relevant information, including:
-a quote from an article written by Brown
-a quote from an article written by Cooper
-a paraphrase from an article written by Duncan
I want to use all three. Am I correct that, ideally, I should cite Brown, Cooper, and Duncan individually? And that, if I do so, I should actively seek out their original articles? Is it considered unacceptable to cite them without actually reading their stuff (in other words, just by reading Anderson’s article and using his references)?
Generally speaking, yes. If you want to cite the views or findings of Brown, Cooper, and/or Duncan, you should read their papers (not that people always do this in reality, but they should, and most of them probably do). Even direct quotes can be erroneous or misleadingly taken out of context, and paraphrases can never be fully relied upon. I have certainly had my work cited, more than once, in such a way as to that suggest that I support a position that I was actually at some pains to reject and criticize.
If you can’t get hold of Cooper’s paper, it is acceptable to say “Cooper (1823), as quoted by Anderson (2004).”
On the other hand, if Anderson is saying something like: “Due to the research of Brown, Cooper, and Duncan, the accepted view in the field is X,” then you should probably say something like “The accepted view is X (Anderson, 2009).” After all, when Brown, Cooper, and Duncan did their research it may not yet have been apparent (even to them) that they were the guys who would turn out to be right, and that the quite different views of of Ellis and Frankenstein would turn out to be erroneous. It might not even have been apparent to Brown, Cooper, and Duncan that their findings all pointed towards the same conclusion.
Don’t cite anything you haven’t read, so cite Anderson’s conclusion. Then read the other three and cite them. Look at it this way- if Anderson has screwed up, you’re just citing his conclusion. If he mis-cites the other guys- and this happens a lot- you’re demonstrating that you haven’t read the things you’re citing.
Say Glen Beck says that Obama is the Antichrist, and he cites Hilary Clinton, the Pope and Dan Quayle.
When you reference this after having read Beck, “Barack Obama is the antichrist” (Beck 2010) is fine, but, “Barack Obama is the antichrist” (Beck 2010, Clinton 2009) is going to look bad when your prof points out that she said “Many internet morons believe that Obama is the antichrist, but free socialist healthcare should increase their access to antipsychotics”.
Unless you are confident that Beck is accepted as an authoritative source on such issues, it should probably be: “According to Beck (2010), Barack Obama is the antichrist.”
[Hey, I wonder how long it will take before this thread becomes a top Google pick for “Barack Obama is the antichrist” ? :)]
In my thought experiment Beck was a scholar, a writer, a deep thinker, and the authority on many many things, due to his sagacity, perspicacity and insight. Obviously completely hypothetical.
I realize that, but even when it really is someone you recognize as a sound scholar, it is not always appropriate to accept their conclusions uncritically.
If it’s for a paper that’s not going to be published, then it wouldn’t hurt for you to cite secondary sources. I doubt the professor will go digging through your sources unless you bring up a concept he or she disagrees with.
For work that has a chance of being published, then I would cover all my bases and cite the primary sources whenever possible.
I learned to do it otherwise. I thought you were supposed to cite the source you actually found the material in as expressing a quotation or paraphrase from some other source, such as "The tastiness pie crusts made with lard has been established for over three decades (Doe et al 1997, qtd. in Smith et al 2007). This helps the reader understand where you got the material in case Smith was mistaken as to the source of the quotation or was out and out lying. Imagine I made up a (falsified) scientific paper where I needed more support for my thesis, and decided to fabricate some findings and attribute them to Stephen Hawking. You then come along, doing your own paper on quadratic jigglypuffs, and see my paper and you think “Wow, I didn’t know Hawking did research on jigglypuffs”, and then write in your paper, "Quadratic jigglypuff behavior is significantly altered by proximity to large gravitational wells (Hawking 2005). Your paper ends of being deceptive. If you had said "Quadratic jigglypuff behavior is significantly altered by proximity to large gravitational wells (Hawking 2005, qtd. in robert_columbia 2010), some people would be tempted to pull up my paper in search of the source, and, finding no support for my quotation, would realize that I was the source of the misquotation, rather than blaming you.
Then, if you are writing a paper targeted at Estuarine Ecologists, wouldn’t you treat this as “common knowledge”, in a similar way that you don’t have to cite E=MC^2 in a Relativity paper or that Paris is the capital of France in a High School history paper?
You should quote Hawking in this case, BUT you should actually read the Hawking paper to confirm the content for yourself. If you can’t find the purported Hawking quotation, then you can’t just say “Hawking 2005”.
I was surprised to see this:
because I thought a clear consensus was being presented: always cite the primary source when you can. (Perhaps you are interpreting the terminology backwards? In the above example, Hawking is the primary source and Columbia is the secondary source. That is, the primary source is the oldest one in the chain, not the one you found.)
Like I said, I would pretty much always read the original paper before citing it (unless I was being really lazy, in which case I might just do the ol’ “read the abstract and look at the figures”). In your example, I would have hopped on Web of Science, tried to track down Hawking’s paper, realized your citation was wrong and wouldn’t have used it. The whole “X et al, qtd from Y et al.” convention you describe seems to imply that one wouldn’t actually read X et al’s original paper. As others have mentioned that’s lazy and dangerous scholarship - you never know how well Y represented X’s findings. It’s not that uncommon to discover that different researchers interpret a papers findings in completely opposite ways.
