The Forgotten Art of Referencing

These days, referencing is taught to undergraduate students with fierce intensity, so that in some courses, the cynical observer gets the impression that a student assignment can be full of any old twaddle, providing that the referencing follows the Department’s chosen rules, Harvard, APA or MLA. Getting the references right has almost become academe’s most cherished message, and in the process, what many students fail to grasp is the purpose for referencing in the first place, and the principles that govern when to reference, and when not to. The upshot of this failure is that too often, we editors are sent papers which may do an ok job of adhering to the ‘rules’ of some system of referencing, but which fail to quote and reference appropriately and gracefully. For this reason, some years back, we added the following to our Instructions to Authors on the Journal’s Inside Back Cover.

‘Quotations should be indented when longer than two and a half lines of print. Other quotations should be identified by quotation marks. Quotations should not exceed 50 words. They should be used only when the authority from whom you wish to quote has expressed the idea more memorably and succinctly than you could.’

Here is our attempt to spell out in more detail some of the principles involved in the increasingly forgotten art of referencing.

Reference for usefulness, not to impress. Students learn to ‘support every statement’, and when they come to write professionally, some graduates simply continue this bone-headed approach. This leads to so many bracketed references that the flow of their argument is obscured. The academic convention of the ‘literature review, occupying the opening paragraphs of every article, also plays a part in the multiplication of references, of course. But do we have to be so literal in our adherence to ‘the rules’? Examine your own behaviour as a reader. Do you actually read every bracketed reference? Or do you find that you cope well with one author and date inside a bracketed reference, but simply skip the lot when the writer piles three, four or five inside the same set of brackets? Granted that as a writer you need to indicate your awareness of a good deal of previous relevant work, would it not be kinder to readers to spread the references throughout the paper, and refrain from piling up references when you don’t have to? This is of course, a matter of discretion, a subjective matter, and harder to teach than a set of black and white rules.

Reference authorities, and reference yourself only when necessary. It is very tempting to include references to your own work, and when it is the key work in the field, when no one else has written about the phenomenon you describe, then it is appropriate to reference yourself. But if you are referring to your own work simply to instance information or opinions that appear in many other places, it is more acceptable to cite other people, in preference to yourself.

Finding good sources. Social Science postgraduates are now taught to follow the scientific and medical model, and to quote only the most recent research ¾where recent references are likely to disqualify or supersede earlier ones, of course this makes sense. Yet this is less true of the social sciences, and far less true of the field of therapy! If our authors restrict themselves to referring to material written in the last decade, they often end up attributing greater importance to popularisers and adapters of concepts, rather than to originators. So, for example, it is fashionable to attribute to Michael White concepts like ‘thick description’ (Geertz) and ‘landscape of consciousness’ (Bruner). Further, the fashion for examining only the work of researchers and authors of the last decade is a good way to ensure that knowledge is lost, and valuable contributions have to be rediscovered – something of which family therapy is particularly guilty.

Quote only when the author says something far better then you could. Think of authors who have enunciated an idea, perhaps for the first time, so that forever after, the concept is linked with his/her name. If you want readers to have his/her exact words, because a paraphrase does not capture exactly the feeling of the original, or if it is important to reproduce the exact words because you intend to quote them further, then quote verbatim.

Quote only significant statements. It may be comforting to read an authority pronouncing the same ideas as you, but if his/her words add nothing to what you have to say, beyond an elegant arrangement of words, use your own, and satisfy yourself with a bracketed reference. If Authority Y delights you in 2004 by uttering a ‘motherhood statement’, don’t waste space in your paper by quoting (e.g. ‘Y says “Clients nearly always respond better when asked for their opinion than when they are just given advice” (2004: 89)’. Statements which have become widely acceptable in the field can be made (if you must!!) in your own words. You do not need to reference the obvious! Instead, reference only potentially contentious or arguable statements.

Quote briefly. We have set an arbitrary limit of 50 words for quotations in the ANZJFT. We discovered in discussion recently with a junior academic passionate about referencing, that the code she has to follow sets a limit of 30 words for quotations. Limiting quotations to 50 words is only occasionally restricting. At times we editors concede that a long quotation contains material which comes with far more authority from the original author and that precision would be lost through paraphrase. So, very occasionally, we allow authors to break the 50 word rule, but only after careful consideration.

Quote infrequently. Some authors make a practice of frequent lengthy quotations. Their papers seem to be us like patchwork quilts, where the author cuts out pretty pieces, arranges them, and then stitches them together. This style of writing is at a lower level of expertise, because the author has insufficiently digested his/her material. It is also a faster, more careless style of composition. The ANZJFT deserves better.

As in all our editorial efforts, these guidelines privilege readability over slavish adherence to any set of rules. At the end of the day, your paper is more likely to be read if it references intelligently and elegantly, and surely, that is what really counts?