Dissertation Information for Maria Jose Theresa de Amorim
- Maria Jose Theresa de Amorim
- Library and Information Science
- Case Western Reserve University (USA) (1980)
- Phyllis A. Richmond
- Conrad H. Rawski
- Sarah Scott Gibson
- Carolynn Van Dyke
MPACT Status: Fully Complete
Title: Bibliographic references: a critique of style manuals for the preparation of theses and dissertations
Abstract: Although the practice of quoting some previous writer is as old as authorship itself, little is known on the "how" and the "why" of citation. It is not known exactly what the many different formats of bibliographic references are, the causes, sources, and reasons behind them, why they are still used, and what functions they perform.
A speculative analysis was performed on the instructions for bibliographic references in forty-eight manuals addressing the problem of citing in theses and dissertations, as a heuristic procedure in order to obtain an instrument of comparison and evaluation of the different formats. A list of principles extracted by Nancy Joyce Williamson from works on bibliography and actual bibliographies was used for searching the principles, implicit or stated, underlying the formats. Analysis of the manuals according to the categories adapted from Williamson's evidenced a consensus around certain characteristics. The typical manuals gives as explicit reasons for citations: to establish authority: to present evidence; to lend credibility to the work; to substantiate statements not generally accepted as true; to illustrate a divergent point of view; to adopt a position. In the listing of references, designated as "Bibliography," the manual recommends the inclusion of works used or cited, consulted, and found pertinent. The manual is made generally for writings in the social sciences, and its instructions are mostly for bibliographic references to conventional materials: books, journal articles, parts of books, theses, dissertations, and public documents. The footnote-bibliography format is preferred for displaying references, with the items in the bibliography annotated and classified according to types of materials. No credit is given for the rules recommended; for supplementing its own instructions, however, the manual recommends other acceptable formats, library catalogs, cataloging rules, books and journals in the field of interest, other style manuals, and works on bibliography in general. The manual indicates sources from which to obtain one or another of the bibliographic data for the reference. The author should be the first element in the entry; if no author is indicated, entry should be by title. Also recommended are corporate entries, and entries under editor and compiler. Separate formats are given for the footnote and the bibliography, with author's names in normal order in the footnote, and in inverted order in the bibliography, and differences in punctuation and capitalization; however, no explanation is offered of these different formats. There are few rules and explanations; a list of data and/or "model entries" for different types of materials indicate the essential elements in the description. The preferred format of reference is Author. Title. Place. Publisher. Date.
The manuals endorsed the principles of selection, description, arrangement, and authorship, but failed to support the principles of uniform heading, inevitable and probable association, and multiple approach. Different principles for bibliographic references in science and technology were mentioned, but the manuals showed contradictory and inconclusive evidence of applying them.
An examination was performed on fifteen journals in science and technology, social sciences, and the humanities, to illuminate the development of bibliographic references through time, and to ascertain the average number of references per article in the different journals. The number of references per paper is related in recommendations in the manuals to classify items in the bibliography.
Revision of the manuals according to the principles of bibliography and the accepted new developments in bibliographic description is recommended. Distinguishing between the physical form of works and their contents, as well as analyzing the bibliographic level (whole works, parts of works), is considered helpful toward more effective instructions on citation. Topics for additional studies are suggested.
MPACT Scores for Maria Jose Theresa de Amorim
A = 0
C = 0
A+C = 0
T = 0
G = 0
W = 0
TD = 0
TA = 0
calculated 2008-04-07 14:31:47
Advisors and Advisees Graph