Reference Lists: An analysis of Three Cases Following
American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) Conventions
When writing academic
pieces, writers are expected to develop their own work based on their own
critical thinking. Yet,
the writers' unique analysis must find support on grounded theory in the field. This implies
that writers are expected to cite other authors in order to develop a profound
discussion of the topic. In this respect, Robilliard (2006, as cited in
Hartley, 2008) suggests a number of reasons
for citing references when it comes to academic papers that, in general terms,
relate to the possibility of providing the reader with more information and the
writer with support to his claims. As well as that, another evident reason is
to avoid plagiarism by citing the original source, author and publication date,
an idea which is shared by Robilliard too. Not complying with the inclusion of
this basic information would discredit the work and consequently, its author.
Even though there exists a great numbers of sources to which writers can resort
to in order to be well informed about conventions, there has not been a
comparative analysis of three examples in which the regulations are not
complied with. The purpose of this paper is to analyse and exemplify academic
writing conventions according to APA (6th ed.) in three concrete
cases in which the conventions are not accurately applied.
As stated in APA
(2010), references must basically follow the following pattern: begin with the
authors surname(s), following with the initial letter of the name preceded by a
comma and followed by a period. APA also explains that the title moves to the
initial position when there is no author for a web page. However, none of the
examples under analysis respect this convention either because they do not
include the names properly, as expressed in the following example: Clinton, Bill or because they wrongly
include the title within inverted commas and in title case format instead of
sentence case format. This second problem can be seen in the example that
follows: "Blueprint Lays Out Clear
Path for Climate Action." As well as this, no publication date
is mentioned in the correct place, which should go immediately after the
author's name, in parentheses according to APA. All the three cases show this
problem when they include the dates at the end of the reference entry and
including the specific date rather than just the year of publication as it
should be. A clear instance of this problem is Web. 24 May 2009. In reference to the source, the three examples present
problems as well because they fail to include the retrieval address so as to
allow the reader direct access to the original source.
Having carried out a
comparative analysis of three examples of reference lists from the perspective
of APA (2010) conventions, it can be concluded that none of them fully adjust
to these conventions. A probable consequence of this might be that the reader
be left with no information where to refer to if he wishes to expand his
knowledge on the original sources. The information is presented in a disorderly
fashion preventing the readers and the community from fully trusting the
credibility of the work.
References
American Psychological Association, (2010). Quick answers – References.
Retrieved from http://www.apastyle.org/
Hartley, J. (2008). Academic
Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook. New York
No comments:
Post a Comment