Once you have made sure that the all the works in your references also appear in the text (see part one), the second stage of the process of correcting the references is checking that the publications referred to in the text are included in the List of References.
This second stage is a slightly trickier process, and needs some concentration. This time you cannot leave all the work to the computer! Bring your text up on screen and work your way through it, stopping each time you come across a textual reference (such as "Bottery 2000") and checking that it is on the list you printed out for the first stage. If it is not, highlight it so you can find it again and track down the publication for inclusion in the list.
The concentration is needed in order to remember accurately what you have checked and what you have not, so that you avoid either checking the same reference 10 times, or assuming you have cross-checked it when you have not. Remembering different publications by the same author can be a challenge; you may have checked Bottery 2000 for example, but not Bottery 1999.
By the time you have gone through the whole text and chased up the missing bibliographical details you will need a cup of tea and a rest to stop your head spinning. You will be sure, though, that the text and List of References agree, and that there is only one more stage to complete before the references are perfect!
17 August 2009
13 August 2009
Fewer? or less?
A few months ago there was a newspaper story about a major UK supermarket, which decided to change the signs above some of the tills because they had received so many complaints about grammar. The signs read, "10 items or less". The supermarket spokesman admitted no-one could agree whether the signs should say "less" or "fewer", so they simply avoided the issue and put up new signs reading, "about 10 items".
Unless you know the rules, choosing between "less" and "fewer" is hard.
There are many ways of explaining it, but Bill Bryson describes a simple rule of thumb in Bryson's Dictionary for Writers and Editors (Black Swan, 2008: 151): "Use less with singular nouns (less money, less sugar) and fewer with plural nouns (fewer houses, fewer cars)."
So one says "classes with fewer students", but "teachers set less homework".
This is a far easier way to explain the difference than the one I was taught, that "less" is used qualitatively and "fewer" quantitatively. This explanation does shed a little further light on the reason for the choice, though, and may appeal to the sense of humour of anyone who is interested in social sciences research methodology.
So now we know what the supermarket signs should have said. If anyone wants me to correct corporate signage in exchange for a trolleyful of groceries, do email!
Unless you know the rules, choosing between "less" and "fewer" is hard.
There are many ways of explaining it, but Bill Bryson describes a simple rule of thumb in Bryson's Dictionary for Writers and Editors (Black Swan, 2008: 151): "Use less with singular nouns (less money, less sugar) and fewer with plural nouns (fewer houses, fewer cars)."
So one says "classes with fewer students", but "teachers set less homework".
This is a far easier way to explain the difference than the one I was taught, that "less" is used qualitatively and "fewer" quantitatively. This explanation does shed a little further light on the reason for the choice, though, and may appeal to the sense of humour of anyone who is interested in social sciences research methodology.
So now we know what the supermarket signs should have said. If anyone wants me to correct corporate signage in exchange for a trolleyful of groceries, do email!
3 August 2009
The secrets of taming references - part one
Organising references is like herding animals. It is straightforward once you know how, but meanwhile you spend a long time chasing the strays!
Referencing is worthwhile paying some attention to, though, because accuracy of referencing features explicitly in many universities’ criteria for marking EdD assignments and PhD and EdD theses. There are even mildly sadistic external examiners who pride themselves on their almost psychic ability to home in on missing references.
Over the course of many months’ research references can easily get into a truly impressive muddle. Even the most meticulous person overlooks the odd error. I can make such a sweeping statement because I have never – ever – edited a text without finding a few referencing mistakes. Occasionally there is almost total confusion.
Ideally, as every academic writer knows, every work referred to in a text is included in a List of References at the end, with all the bibliographical details necessary to allow the reader to identify it. What goes wrong? There are the references that appear in the text but not in the list. Then there are the references in the list that have not been included in the final version of the text. Finally, there are the inconsistencies in the layout of the bibliographic details of the books, chapters and journal articles.
It is a well-kept secret that correcting a list of references can be easy if it is approached methodically. Over the course of the next few posts I shall cover the method I have found works best, describing the three stages one by one.
First, this is how to make sure that the all the works in the list of references also appear in the text:
1. Print a single-spaced copy of the list of references.
2. Use the computer’s ‘Find’ facility to search all the chapters for the name of every author in turn.
3. Check the date of publication and tick off the author’s name on the list, from Adomssent to Zuber-Skerritt.
You do not need me to point out that anything that is not ticked off on the printout is not in the text either! (I did say that it was easy.) Once any discrepancies have been addressed, you can be sure that all the listed references also appear in the main body of your research.
The next stage will be blogged in due course.
Referencing is worthwhile paying some attention to, though, because accuracy of referencing features explicitly in many universities’ criteria for marking EdD assignments and PhD and EdD theses. There are even mildly sadistic external examiners who pride themselves on their almost psychic ability to home in on missing references.
Over the course of many months’ research references can easily get into a truly impressive muddle. Even the most meticulous person overlooks the odd error. I can make such a sweeping statement because I have never – ever – edited a text without finding a few referencing mistakes. Occasionally there is almost total confusion.
Ideally, as every academic writer knows, every work referred to in a text is included in a List of References at the end, with all the bibliographical details necessary to allow the reader to identify it. What goes wrong? There are the references that appear in the text but not in the list. Then there are the references in the list that have not been included in the final version of the text. Finally, there are the inconsistencies in the layout of the bibliographic details of the books, chapters and journal articles.
It is a well-kept secret that correcting a list of references can be easy if it is approached methodically. Over the course of the next few posts I shall cover the method I have found works best, describing the three stages one by one.
First, this is how to make sure that the all the works in the list of references also appear in the text:
1. Print a single-spaced copy of the list of references.
2. Use the computer’s ‘Find’ facility to search all the chapters for the name of every author in turn.
3. Check the date of publication and tick off the author’s name on the list, from Adomssent to Zuber-Skerritt.
You do not need me to point out that anything that is not ticked off on the printout is not in the text either! (I did say that it was easy.) Once any discrepancies have been addressed, you can be sure that all the listed references also appear in the main body of your research.
The next stage will be blogged in due course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
