My trade name LegoCogitoScribo, (or LCS for short), is badly corrupted Latin for I Read, I Think, I Write. I probably don't have the tenses correct, but the roots are recognizable. I mentioned, in last month's post, that I really liked the concept of I Read, I Think, I Write and promised that I would explain why in this month's post. To be perfectly honest, having a trade name just makes things complicated and I would be better off just using my real name exclusively. Yet, I really like the idea behind I Read, I Think, I Write.
Let me go back to the late 1980's and early 1990's when I wrote my dissertation. I promise, this will be brief. When you write a dissertation, you must find sources for all the claims that you make. Dissertations are not the place for your own ideas unless they are conclusions at the very end. By the time I finished my dissertation, I felt like I couldn't even have a casual conversation without citing references for any claims I had made. Being a creative person with a robust imagination and a gift for making cognitive leaps, I found this stultifying. Over the next three decades and dozens of scholarly papers, I was very frustrated by editors and reviewers who completely lacked imagination and the ability to make reasonable cognitive leaps. I could go on and on about the importance of imagination and the ability to see more than what is right in front of you, especially in a time rapid technological change, but I will spare you that rant.
Lest I sound like a raving lunatic, of which we have far too many these days, I think it is important to have evidence in support of any claims that you make. Having said that, the word "evidence" is interpreted in a wide variety of ways many of which are counter productive while some of the productive interpretations are dismissed. What constitutes "evidence" is another rant entirely. So, let's get back on track with citations.
When should you cite something? Here is what The Author Learning Center says under Citation Best Practices for Non Fiction:
"The best practice for nonfiction writers is to cite any of the following material:
- Direct quote: Cite the reference whenever text from another source appears in your book.
- Paraphrase: When you rely heavily on another source, even if it's not a direct quote, you should cite the reference.
- Springboard idea: Include a citation for any idea or concept that you use as a springboard to develop your own ideas and theories.
- Obscure fact: When mentioning a fact that's hard for readers to verify, it's helpful to cite where you obtained the information."
You can verify this at https://www.authorlearningcenter.com/editing/basic-editing/w/citations/6967/citation-best-practices-for-nonfiction
That is an appropriate use of citation. It is a quote from somewhere else. Even if I took their four suggestions and reworded them slightly, I should still give them credit. And I have let the reader know where I obtained the information. This is handy for me so I don't have to think of all the reasons why you should cite something. But, I also have some ideas of my own regarding improper use of citations that are my own thoughts. Solid citations enhance the credibility of the writer and provide pointers for the reader who may wish to dig a little deeper. This is all good, but the use of citations can be damaging if they are abused; damaging to the creation and dissemination of knowledge, that is.
First, a word about the environment in which "knowledge" is created. In the past half century or so there has been a proliferation of dozens if not hundreds of new academic fields that range from "not ready for prime time but promising" to "pure crap''. To be kinder I should say that they range from nouveau to pseudo. To be even more economical, I am going to group these fields under a single term and call them wobbly. Some wobble only a little and will eventually become fully respectable. Some wobble so much that they will eventually wobble themselves out of existence. This growth in the number of new fields occurred due to growth in the number of colleges, growth in the number of students, and growth in the public's curiosity to understand all aspects of life as well as we understand gravity. Where is Newton when your dog dies or your girl friend leaves you for a better choice?
In this expanding industry of education, academics are under extreme pressure to publish. This is how knowledge is expanded in traditional fields. People do research and write papers while their peers in the field review the papers to insure that the contributions are legitimate. This is not a perfect system. But, it is not a bad system, unless you are working in a wobbly field in which case the quality assurance becomes as wobbly as the field if not more so. While our base of knowledge has expanded greatly, the base of not really knowledge has expanded much faster. How does this happen? Their are many reasons, but I am going to focus on two that are inextricably tied to citations.
1) People who publish papers abuse citations giving a false sense of veracity to wobbly papers. How do they do this? First, they do a search of any number of article databases to find papers relevant to their topic. Then they put the most popular ones in their bibliography. If they are bold, they may even cite a few of them in the paper. You can see this in statements such as "many researchers have expressed concern about..." [1][2][3], etc. They will rarely explain what the cited paper said and how it supports the author's claims.
2) Reviews are often more concerned with their reputation or the reputation of the field than they are with the quality or veracity of a piece of research. That is, they are more likely to approve your paper if it generally agrees with papers they have written and even more likely if you have cited one of theirs papers.
Once this bit of wobbly knowledge has escaped into the real world, people who have political agendas latch on to the results and present them to support their worldviews. Wobbly journalists who often have agendas of their own, take the baton of wobbly knowledge and carry it to the next step. They inform a wobbling public to reinforce their world views or to ridicule the world view of "the other". Second tier advocates take this baton to the next step and represent it as confirmation. At this point anyone who disagrees becomes dismissed as a denier.
To be fair, I should point out that all this wobbling is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it doesn't get too far out of control. There is no time in recorded history when we have had 100% certainty about anything. There is no chance this will happen in the future. We need our knowledge to wobble a little lest their be no room for improvement. We just don't want it to wobble too much. If it does, it risks shaking itself apart and being replaced by something different whatever that might be. So, we try to strike a middle path between an order that suffocates new ideas and a chaos that makes daily life a struggle. How do we do that? Well, we all just have to do the best can.
For my part, I try to earn credibility though my content. What I say is interesting or makes sense to you or it doesn't. I avoid references unless I feel they are necessary to show the reader where an idea came from. I write what I think. Others may not agree with what I have to say. And that is perfectly reasonable. But they cannot tell me it is not what I think unless they believe that I am joking or somehow being contrary. I read a lot, mull it over and write about my thoughts and reactions. Or, in short, I read, I think, I write. LegoCogitoScribo.
