You make an interesting point about future readers, Mike. It is hard to know what they will have read, believe, or "know." On the other hand, over-citation (of the obvious) can undermine the credibility of a writer as easily as under-citation. I don't think there's a single "right" answer here, but the old advice to undergrads that you should have at least on citation for every claim one makes is obvious overkill in the actual published literature. There is a judgment call to be made.
I think you may have misread what I said in my example about James: viz., if I mentioned his participation in spiritualism in an article intended for a history of psych journal, I might not provide a citation for the claim because it is well known in that readership. (Of course, if the article were centrally about James' spiritualism, then I probably would cite because I would be likely be adjudicating among the details of various accounts and interpretations of that fact.) On the other hand, if i were writing for non-historians, I would probably provide a citation or two because the claim would be new and perhaps startling to many members of that readership. Neither of these are hard and fast "rules." Context is king. They were just illustrative examples. Best, Chris ----- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 Canada [email protected] > On Sep 1, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 08:42:39 -0700, Christopher Green wrote: >> Many good points, Dap! You even have these kinds of differences >> among different subfields of psychology, not just different nationalities. >> For instance, every historian of psychology knows that William James >> was highly active in the spiritualist movement from the 1880s until >> his death, but many non-historian psychologists don't know it. So, >> I would be unlikely to cite this fact if I were writing for a history of >> psychology journal. > > Chris, what you say above is somewhat confusing. Are you saying: > > (1) You would not mention that Williams James was into spiritualism in > a history of psychology article, > > or > > (2) If you mention that William James was into spiritualism in a history > of psychology article, you would not cite a specific source or provide a > reference. > > Point (1) is puzzling because you are stating this as general rule but > one has to make the inference that relevance and context would determine > whether or not you state that James was into spiritualism. Moreover, > it is understandable if you are making a minor point or offhand comment > and do not cite a source and do not provide a reference, but surely > you would cite a source if you are making a substantial point, right? > This leads to point (2). Again, if you are making a minor statement > about James's involvement in spiritualism, it is understandable that > you might not cite a source but students who read your article and > are surprised about James involvement in spiritualism would wonder > what the basis is for this statement. I guess this comes down to who > one thinks is one's audience -- only historians of psychology or a > much larger readership of both professional psychologists, professionals > in other areas, and students. I understand that one could limit how > one writes so that one writes only for the group that one has the greatest > "common ground" (i.e., expert to expert presentation instead of > expert to novice presentation) but I am then reminded of my experiences > reading articles in mathematics and math statistics journals where > one might come across a statement like the following: > > "It is well-known that the basis of the Cholesky decomposition of a matrix > is most efficient and ...." > > The old joke, of course, is that one uses "it is well-known" when one > is too lazy to find a reference that actually supports the assertion. > Not that I am saying Chris is guilty of such a thing or even other > psychologists -- it's a lot easier to get away with such a dodge in math. ;-) > > So, I guess it comes down to how narrow or how broad the > audience is that one is presently writing for. However, one should > keep in mind that what is "common knowledge" today may not be > so in the future, for example: > > "It is well known that Underwood and colleagues have shown that > a single store model of memory is most consistent with the results > of memory studies and that proactive interference is the primary > mechanism of forgetting." > > In the 1950s and early 1960s, most experimental psychologists > and even "ordinary" psychologists ;-) would be familiar with this > perspective, primarily because of the following article: > > Underwood, B. J. (1957). Interference and forgetting. > Psychological review, 64(1), 49. > > And the devastating demonstration that the Brown-Peterson memory > task's results could be explained purely by proactive interference and > there was no need to assume decay as a process of forgetting (see: > > Keppel, G., & Underwood, B. J. (1962). Proactive inhibition in > short-term retention of single items. Journal of verbal learning > and verbal behavior, 1(3), 153-161. > > I won't bother citing sources for the well-know research by Wickens > with the Release from PI procedure that demonstrated that semantic > processing occurs in short-term memory, supporting the theoretical > position that a duplex model of memory was unnecessary and a > single store model was to be preferred. ;-) > >> I might do so, however, if I were writing for a generalist journal or >> an experimental journal. The issue isn't so much how I came to know >> it as it is whether my readers are likely to be aware of it as part of >> their general knowledge. > > I think you mix up two different issues in the statements above. > First, your concern with common ground (i.e., shared knowledge > between writer and reader) is appropriate but the problem is > that you will never really know what your reader knows, either now > or in the future. What is general knowledge today may be forgotten > a decade from now. Similarly, what is specialized knowledge today > may become general in the future -- consider the 1959 paper by > Deese that Roddy Roediger & Kathleen McDermott made famous > with false memory inducement procedure (the DRM procedure). > > Second, I think it is important to know what source a writer is > relying upon for the assertions he/she is making. Again, the > classic example is Freud's iceberg. People who have presented > this metaphor cite sources that do not support their claim. Indeed, > we still don't know who originally claimed that the mind is either > 7/10s or 9/10s unconscious. Why? Was it considered common > knowledge, hence, there was no need to cite a source? And such > an attitude leaves us where now? > > When in doubt, cite a source and make sure it's the correct one. ;-) > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=51313 > or send a blank email to > leave-51313-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51315 or send a blank email to leave-51315-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
