Forums
I have had to sub-contract to a few researchers out of the country to obtain documents for me. They have also provided citations for those documents the way they do it in their country. My question is should I use their citations or try to convert those citations into EE format for my client reports?
Kelly
Kelly, the starting point for
Kelly, the starting point for your decision is this: Do you understand those citations? Will clients or other users or readers of your research understand those citations?
If we subscribe to the EE principle that citations have two purposes (1-To enable relocation of a source; and 2-To understand the source so that we and users of our work will be able to appraise the validity of what we're asserting), then our citations need to be understandable.
This is not just a U.S. vs. Other Cultures issue. In years past, Americans typically cited, say, journal articles as Podunk Quarterly 3:33, with no indication of author/contributor, title of article, or time period of publication. Some still do. That style of citation fulfills Purpose 1, enabling someone to refind the item; but it's totally useless for Purpose 2. (Is it a full transcription of someone's will? Is it a query in which someone made assertions with no evidence provided? Or ...?)
Today, internationally, researchers are realizing that, for research to be reliable, Purpose 2 is just as important as Purpose 1. Old conventions linger. Old habits die hard. But, as researchers, each of us has to decide what our standards are and then do whatever is necessary to meet our own standards.
As one case at point: A recent book published by a university press contains a number of citations to records in French archives. The French researcher who was engaged by the author to do "leg work" there used the traditional, cryptic French style. The author went back to the researcher, more than once, with questions about the nature of the records and eventually created citations of the EE style so that readers would understand what kind of records were used.
Beyond this, there is also the issue of consistency in citations? When a research project involves records from several countries, do we feel comfortable using several different styles or would one consistent style be more understandable to those who use our research?
EE users: What practice do you prefer?
Kelly,
Kelly,
Ms. Mills gets right to the point. Is it understandable and could the research be followed?
This is an issue I deal with daily. In fact, I often have to explain the concept of citations to many of the foreign researchers I deal with. I've taken to telling them upfront what kind of information I need on each document to create an appropriate citation.
Melanie
I believe the citations may
I believe the citations may not be completely in the EE format, however they came from a Ireland by a fellow BU Alumni for Birth and Marriage records. The difficulty I'm having is documenting the 1901 Irish Census as there is no ED, etc. that is on the U.S. Census. I'm a black and white person and find citations a gray area I'm not completely comfortable with yet. Any suggestions or directions for a foreign census?
Kelly,
Kelly,
EE's chapter "Fundamentals of Citation" starts this way: "Citation is an art, not a science. ... Records and artifacts are like all else in the universe: Each can be unique in its own way. Therefore, once we have learned the principles of citation, we have both an artistic license and a researcher's responsibility to adapt those principles to fit materials that do not match any standard model." (EE 2.1)
Having a formula to follow in every case might alleviate our angst, but it would not result in quality research. There simply is no one citation format that would cover every census in existence. The 1901 census of Ireland differs from the 1900 census of the U.S., and each differs in some particular ways from those that came before and after it.
As researchers, we first study the principles for working with historical sources in general and, as the need arises, for each particular type. Once we understand a type of source and understand why their citations include certain basic things, then each time we use a source we thoughtfully consider (a) what may be peculiar about this particular source; and (b) how we should adapt a basic model to include details that would effect our judgment about the reliability of the information it supplies—and, of course, the details needed to relocate the source if necessary.
As researchers, if we just used published books and articles, citation would be easy. A few basic formulas do fit. But, again, the quality of our work would suffer greatly. You are choosing to ground your research in original records. That's a wise choice. Each time you apply it, citation will become easier for you. In the meanwhile, don't worry unduly about "making mistakes." Just study the principles for whatever type of source you're using, apply your best judgment, and then keep chanting: Citation is an art, not a science. ... Citation is an art, not a science. ... Citation is ...
When dealing with foreign
When dealing with foreign records that don't belong to a commonly-cited record group (like unpublished vanity press manifestos, which Italians claim as "published" simply by donating them to the local library, even when it is just an unpublished op-ed piece they're donating), I stick to the breakdown of what we are trying to say with each citation, as listed in Mills' "Citing Your Sources" article in OnBoard. It says:
"Source citations have their own basic elements that we must learn. They differ somewhat, according to the type. To strip them down to the barest essentials:
Book:
Periodical article:
Original record:
Source: OnBoard 1 (September 1995): 24.
I hope this helps! :)