Citation for E-Books & Dissertations

By RobynR on Thu, 01/27/2022 - 23:51

Forums

Referencing to 12.61, E-Books & Dissertations (3rd Ed Revised/Kindle).

I am looking for an opinion on the following citation, as it is my first one relating to this type of source. The WWW is such an amazing place to find so many helpful and different things when researching!

the Recommended Citation is:

Merrill, Emily, "Judging Empire: Masculinity and the Making of the British Imperial Army, 1754-1783"
(2015). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1893.
https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1893

but in EE style from 12.61, I have crafted:

Emily Merrill, "Judging Empire: Masculinity and the Making of the British Imperial Army," (PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2015), 37-38; digitised as Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations (https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1893/ : accessed 28 January 2022). Cited as WO 71/81, pp. 27-28.

There are minor differences between the suggested style in EE and the above, and these are:

1. The direct URL link to the article, instead of the main website address and naming the paper (which I presume is 1893).

2. The addition of the citation reference used by the author that relates to the statements I am referring to.

I do know that EE is a guide and the citation styles provided can be tweaked by whoever uses EE 's style of citation. However, I would be very grateful to know what you think about my little tweaks and also if the: digitised as Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations is actually correct or not.

Sent from Down under on a Summers day of 26 degrees (C).

Thank you and best wishes,

Robyn

 

 

Submitted byEEon Fri, 01/28/2022 - 08:56

Thanks, Robyn, for citing the EE section you are working from. In answer to your questions:

1.

Whether we cite the website's home page and then say what to look for there (as in the EE example) or whether we cite the exact URL depends upon what works at that particular website.

2.

The reason you are discomfited with this added-on citation is that it is misplaced. My first thoughts when I read it was

  • What is "cited as WO 71/81, pp. 27-28"?
  • Where is it cited as that? 
  • Who cited it—the dissertation author or the website?
  • Why is this in a separate sentence, as though it were a different source? 

I scrutinized the webpage and could not find a reference to WO 71/81, pp. 27-28. That, of course, is because what you are citing is the source that Emily Merrill herself cited on her pp. 37-38. Therefore, the “citing ….” statement should be part of Layer 1 in which you are citing her dissertation.

Emily Merrill, "Judging Empire: Masculinity and the Making of the British Imperial Army" (PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2015), 37–38, citing WO 71/81, pp. 27–28; digitised as Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations (https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1893/ : accessed 28 January 2022).

But, of course, this leaves another issue unresolved:  What is “WO 71/81, pp. 27–28" and where is it found?  For that info, we have to go back to Merrill’s p. 17 to find the first reference to the initialism WO. From that, we can create this citation:

Emily Merrill, "Judging Empire: Masculinity and the Making of the British Imperial Army" (PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2015), 37–38, citing National Archives of the United Kingdom, War Office (WO) 71/81, pp. 27–28; digitised as Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations (https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1893/ : accessed 28 January 2022).

Re the website’s suggested citation:  Like almost all citations created by libraries and archives, this one gives us a citation in Source List format, not Reference Note format. Researchers who cite in scientific style (where everything is cited to published papers and footnotes aren't used) can just copy the citation, paste it into their source list, and be done with it. Researchers who work in the humanities, where every assertion that is not public knowledge is supposed to carry a footnote or endnote to identify the source, are expected to make the adaptation.

And now, I'll close with a question: Know why I added yellow highlighting on a spot in Layer 1?

Submitted byRobynRon Fri, 01/28/2022 - 14:59

Ah ha. My answer is:

I should have left out the comma, as (PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2015) is a description of the degree, place of study and year of the dissertation, and therefore shouldn't be separated from the title?

And yes, it certainly makes more sense to add her citation to layer 1.

Many thanks, EE.

Submitted byEEon Sat, 01/29/2022 - 09:17

Got it! A comma between the title and the parenthetical data that modifies the title is a comma splice, separating what should be joined.