Record relevant context - Engaging sources - Part I. Research and writing: from planning to production

A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations, 7th edition - Kate L. Turabian 2007

Record relevant context
Engaging sources
Part I. Research and writing: from planning to production

Those who misreport sources deliberately are dishonest, but an honest researcher can mislead inadvertently if she merely records words and ignores their role or qualifications. To guard against misleading your reader, follow these guidelines:

1. Do not assume that a source agrees with a writer when the source summarizes that writer's line of reasoning. Quote only what a source believes, not its account of someone else's beliefs, unless that account is relevant.

2. Record why sources agree, because why they agree can be as important as why they don't. Two psychologists might agree that teenage drinking is caused by social influences, but one might cite family background, the other peer pressure.

3. Record the context of a quotation. When you note an important conclusion, record the author's line of reasoning:

Not: Bartolli (p. 123): The war was caused . . . by Z.

But: Bartolli: The war was caused by Y and Z (p. 123), but the most important was Z (p. 123), for two reasons: First, . . . (pp. 124—26); Second, . . . (p. 126)

Even if you care only about a conclusion, you'll use it more accurately if you record how a writer reached it.

4. Record the scope and confidence of each statement. Do not make a source seem more certain or expansive than it is. The second sentence below doesn't report the first fairly or accurately.

One study on the perception of risk (Wilson 1988) suggests a correlation between high-stakes gambling and single-parent families.

Wilson (1988) says single-parent families cause high-stakes gambling.

5. Record how a source uses a statement. Note whether it's an important claim, a minor point, a qualification or concession, and so on. Such distinctions help you avoid mistakes like this:

Original by Jones: We cannot conclude that one event causes another because the second follows the first. Nor can statistical correlation prove causation. But no one who has studied the data doubts that smoking is a causal factor in lung cancer.

Misleading report: Jones claims “we cannot conclude that one event causes another because the second follows the first. Nor can statistical correlation prove causation.” Therefore, statistical evidence is not a reliable indicator that smoking causes lung cancer.