Citing record group and repository in subsequent note

By Anonymous on Mon, 11/23/2015 - 14:52

Forums

Dear Editor,

I can't to wrap my head around subsequent footnotes. Is there any logic to when you cite the record group and repository in subsequent footnotes or is it just a matter of personal preference?

For example, in the Quickcheck model for Maps at the National Archives (EEv3, p. 543), the subsequent note cites RG 77, NA-College Park.

But the subsequent note Quickcheck model for State-level Land-Grant register (EEv3 p. 490) only cites the document and omits the series, record group and repository. 

Both are original (manuscript) records, that presumably can only be accessed in that one location, so that can't be it. Are there any specific circumstances where we should cite the record group and repository in subsequent notes, and circumstances where we can safely omit them?

Submitted byEEon Mon, 11/23/2015 - 18:11

Good question, Yvette.  The short answer, as you might suspect, is It depends. More fully: It depends upon how much of the full citation we need to repeat to ensure that our readers don't knit their brows and mutter a few choice words.

In the case of the example p. 543, if we shortened that subsquent citations to read ...

"Map of the Battle Field of Gettysburg, July 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1863," 1876, Civil Works Map File."

... is it likely that most readers of that short citation—if, say, they happened upon that citation in a Google snippet or on an isolated page some other researcher provided them—would have any inkling as to where to look for that map file?

By comparison,  the example on p. 490 is ...

"Warrant to 'Mr. Edward Booker,' 26 October 1662, 'Maryland Patends [sic], Certificates & Warrants, 1662-1664,' 18.

In the Maryland case, even though the short citation doesn't specify an archive or a record group, most researchers know that state-level patents are at the state archive and the collection is easily found there without an identification of the record group.  On the other hand, if those Maryland patents were being held today in some illogical place—say, a private library—then it would be very helpful if our shortened citation included that repository's ID in a short form.

 

 

Submitted byyhoitinkon Tue, 11/24/2015 - 05:11

Thank you, I knew there must be some logic behind it and as usual, your explanation is very helpful.

Dutch citation guidelines by archives and journals always require an abbreviated form of the record group and repository, so I included those elements in my own style guide. Trying to merge the standards in this country with the examples from EE can be an interesting challenge sometimes :-) It helps to know the rationale behind the examples, thank you for explaining. 

But, of course, archivists look at a citation from the standpoint of what they need to locate the document in their archives. A simple set of numbers provides that for them. But researchers need words to identify the document and the collection so they can understand what it is they are citing and how much weight to give to the assertions in that particular record. 

I've learned that from you, but in the Netherlands even reputable journals think "ECAL ora Bvt 418 fol. 88" is a sufficient source citation :-) We've got some educating to do here :-) 

Yvette, we still see that in some American journals also—though not nearly as often as we once did.  A quarter-century ago, a common attitude among those journals was: "If someone's experienced enough to be reading our journal, they know what those codes mean." 

The frequent counter to that logic went something like this: "Why do you exist, if not to educate and inform? Is it not just as valuable to your readers to understand the sources being used—to understand why an author has reached a conclusion and to be able to judge the strength of the evidence on which that conclusion is based?  As is, the message being conveyed is The author has looked at the records, the author has decided what's what, and we expect you to just accept that opinion. End of discussion!"

It all boils down to the purpose of a citation. Do we cite a source just to show we didn't make up something? Do we cite a source just so others can find it? Does it matter whether the source we cite is biased or uninformed? Or do we cite our sources so we and others can evaluate the reliability of our assertions and the strength of our arguments? If we cite only the archival code, we are telling our readers that anything filed in an archive somewhere is acceptable evidence regardless of what it is.