Proofreading my notes and bibliography and thinking about what I cut or added at the last minute has made me wonder how often the notes in scholarly works are actually a stage (however surreptitious) for personal rather than purely academic in-fighting.
That is, who adds citations just to suck up, curry favor, or show off? And who eliminates citations on the basis of personal grievances?
I will take confessions, dark suspicions, and irresponsible gossip in the comments.
24 comments:
ha ha ha. Not in footnotes, but I just deleted someone from my acknowledgements after seeing that I was not acknowledged in that person's book, in spite of obviously the same relationship at the same period of time and playing a similar role in the lead up to the book. I debated and felt a little petty, but I did it anyway.
I don't think anyone cuts footnotes out of spite. (Or rather, if they do, it's irrelevant given the demands by publishers that we cut cut cut somewhere!)
LOAF: you should have instead even more effusively thanked the person who cut you out, so that you could correct the historical record of the germinal period of both your books. Why be petty, when you can heap burning coals upon their heads?
Historiann:
I don't mean "cut" so much as "deliberately omit." That is, leaving out someone's work so as to pretend not to know it, or to dismiss its importance, etc. I think we all seen or suspected places where this has happened--people who are wishing away the work or a rival scholar or an entire field of inquiry. To me, this is worse than getting snippy in the notes, since it implies the total inconsequence of someone else's work.
LoaF:
Thanks for playing along!
I will admit that I added citations as a response to some individuals' generosity--which then caused me to read works of theirs that I'd originally neglected and go "oh shit! why didn't I cite this to begin with?!"). That's not exactly the same thing, but I was conscious of adding them partly out of gratitude, though their works entirely deserved a place in my notes.
I'll also admit that when I realized I ought to cut one citation for irrelevance--it had always been a dutiful, this-is-the-only-recent-work-on-this-topic-and-everyone-knows-this-scholar-so-I-guess-I-should--I was gleeful.
Why? Because several years ago said scholar had emailed me for help in tracking down a reference related to some specialized work I've done. I gladly helped out, and the scholar wound up using that reference...without acknowledgement.
It wasn't a huge deal, and I was merely a little disappointed when it happend (I was a newly-minted PhD and this an established scholar). I wouldn't ever have done anything deliberately spiteful. But was there a small grin on my face as I crossed out that footnote and deleted the reference in my bibliography? Sure was.
There are two schools of footnotes, the minimalist and the defensive. The defensive includes everything remote,y relevant; the minimalist gives the relevant citations only. I lean to the minimalist, but have at the request of editors been very defensive so everyone knows I read their book! So I haven't added or subtracted for purposes of score-keeping, but I do know footnotes as places to prove bona fides.
I do know a footnote that cites someone and then says "Hir evidence brilliantly contradicts hir argument."
Have I told you before of a prominent scholar in my field who edits a prominent journal, and who copy-edited his/her own works INTO my footnotes when that journal published one of my articles, despite the very tangential relation of the works in question to my own argument? I think I have. I accepted the copy-edits, because it cost very little to guarantee continued good relations with that person, but I have always wondered: why does someone of that stature need a tangential nod in the footnotes of a young and inconsequential scholar? Or maybe that's how one becomes a scholar of that stature.... :)
Ick to RG's experience: when I've been asked to do defensive footnoting, thats what happens. I do, on the other hand, admit to taking umbrage when I see my work ignored, as it routinely is in the UK.
Susan:
Love that footnote!
And yes, "defensive footnoting" is a good term. I did a little of that in response to my hostile reviewer. There's at least one note that says (more or less) "There is a rich body of recent scholarship on X, including A, B, C, and D. However, in this book I am not concerned with X, but rather am investigating Y." Stupid, but probably better to have than not to have.
RG:
Yes! I had forgotten the exact details, but I remembered the scholar and the basic move.
In fact, partly as a consequence, I added an additional reference or two to that exact individual's works. The references were perfectly justified, but I admit to being more scrupulous with this person--and with one other person, also known to you--based partly on your experience and partly on the not-impossible chance that they might be assigned my book to review. Defensive footnoting, indeed.
And speaking of defensive footnoting, I'd be remiss if I didn't footnote Dr. Koshary on this subject.
There are three important scholars in one of my sun fields who know me (we have been on multiple panels together) and are fully aware of my work in that field but have never yet cited any of my work, even when it is very relevant. This ticks me off immensely. I recently reviewed a book by one of these people and am currently reviewing a collection to which another contributed. I have been scrupulously fair, but it is very difficult not to point out the omission. I figure that would look petty though. Still, so tempting!
I have definitely omitted relevant citations from my research manuscripts just to be a fucken dicke.
ntbw (and Susan):
Yes, I really think omissions are the worst. The offender almost always has plausible deniability (they just hadn't come across your work. . . or they didn't have room to include everything in their citations) while mentioning or complaining about it sounds petty and self-important -- even if the offender was almost certainly either shockingly remiss or actively aggressive in leaving you out.
Best. Thread. Ever.[1]
[1] Unable to cite source for this peculiar syntactic innovation, which I nonetheless glibly steal.
CPP:
I knew itte!
I am reasonably certain that someone whom I *probably* should have footnoted (not because his/her work was directly relevant, but because one of my chapters was very generally on hir turf) chose to take revenge in a review. But perhaps s/he would have had the same response no matter what.
But I have also been publicly taken to task in print for a footnote that was deemed insufficiently-respectful of a major scholar in my field.
I cheerfully acknowledge the citation, Flavia! I'll make sure to repay the favor soon. ;)
I should write another post on this anyway. The citations that are going into the final draft are ever so slightly bizarre in their breadth, both to give a hat tip to some friends of mine, and to, um, amuse myself.
I feel a mad urge to cite my own book on . . . The Footnote . . . here. Must . . . resist . . .
Well, we've all been thinking about that book, Tony. We've just refrained from mentioning it, out of spite.
There is a review article I hate citing because they interpreted my work incorrectly.
This is only somewhat related, but I really hate when I am told by a reviewer that I need to include certain references that are "important" (translation: theirs) and they are only VERY loosely related. I think the only circumstances under which I would recommend my own articles be cited would be as if they were actually relevant!
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst_Episode_Ever
The footnotes in the JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY border on the absurd. They are so long and exhaustive that they smack of academic posturing.
I also enjoy this thread. In my field of old, old literature, defensive footnoting is pretty much the only option. I would *love* to be minimalist and just to cite the relevant things, but I have twice had reviewers recommend rejection of an article at least in part because a secondary text I briefly discussed so to shed light on the main text did not come with a full bibliography. In one case, the reviewer mentioned specific works I had not consulted, and of course when I read them, they were of no relevance whatsoever to the point I was making. In the other, I did a nearly full bibliography and some of the reading did, indeed, help me to improve my point and expand the relevant section in a meaningful way.
I'll admit to indulging in a bit of footnote porn myself -- I am, after all, of the field -- but I just didn't think those were appropriate reasons to recommend rejection. That's the kind of thing you suggest *fixing*. Also, the childish part of me thinks it's a bit unfair to have me do a full biblio on something for a journal using MLA style citations, because then the resulting footnote will be so, so short. If I do the work, I want the footnote to take up the whole page, thank you very much.
Re: why a senior scholar would insert their work into your footnotes, maybe citation indices? Maybe a dean from the sciences who wants to see numbers?
Tony Grafton's comment is the Best. Comment. Ever.[1]
[1] Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst_Episode_Ever, as cited in scr, comment 3:43 PM.
Now that I'm done being meta...I don't recall taking out a citation out of spite, but I'm sure I've added way to many out of sheer duty.
However, I did take a senior scholar to task (in a review) for how many significant works of scholarship he left out of his bibliography in a high-level student edition of a literary text. Surprise, surprise, most of the works he left out were either by the wymmyn folk or took approaches that he obliquely (or sometimes not so obliquely) trashed in his introduction and explanatory notes. What a jerk.
On the topic of citation, and self-citation, see this article the Guardian just sent to my inbox:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21584316-women-may-fail-win-chairs-because-they-do-not-cite-themselves-enough-promotion?fsrc=nlw|hig|8-29-2013|6517989|37427739|
This echoes the idea earlier in this thread that there is also a gender issue at play.
This thread is kind of amazing. Thanks, all, for participating.
Post a Comment