A little help with academic referencing ...

[XmisterIS]

Normally I am pretty good with academic referencing, but I find myself in a pickle!

Here's an exerpt from my paper:

... this is commensurate with the findings of Jones (2000), who states, "Smith (1990) has demonstrated that ... etc".

Now how do I reference that? Should I put the reference to Smith in the quote by Jones (as shown) and then give both Jones and Smith in Jones in the bibliography? The trouble is, I can't quote Smith directly because Jones has summarised the findings of Smith. I could re-word Jones and reference Smith directly, but I want to use Jones' quote because it is very succinct and I like it.

I am confused ....

 

[Fnaar]

If the quote is taken from Jones, only put Jones in the bibliography.

 

[montage]

If you take the quote directly: "smith (1990) has demonstrated etc" (Jones 2000)

If you are using the information smith demonstrated then reference Smith:....It was demonstrated that etc etc (Smith 1990)

Something a long those lines

 

[Gromit]

That quote is good however you need to include the page number in the reference, so it will be

Jones (2000 p?), states that Smith (1990), in his work on ****** "has demonstrated that.....

Hope that helps. :-)

 

[XmisterIS]

That quote is good however you need to include the page number in the reference, so it will be

Jones (2000 p?), states that Smith (1990), in his work on ****** "has demonstrated that.....

Hope that helps. :-)

That's the badger! Thanks

 

[Gromit]

Your welcome I glad I could be of help.

 

[XmisterIS]

Actually, it's an NVQ in fluffing ...

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Ideally you should read Smith and find out what they actually said rather than relying on Jones. Sure you can pretend you have read Smith, but it will be pretty clear to the person grading, if they know their subject, whether you have or not.

And I would say that you do have to reference both. You can either quote directly as Montage says, or just say what the argument is and then, depending on what system of referencing you are using write something like: (Smith 1990, in Jones 2001, p.287)

And both Jones and Smith should be listed in full in the reference list / bibliography.

 

[XmisterIS]

Quite so! I have indeed read Smith, but I like the way Jones succinctly sums up his research.

Anyway, back to the fluffing ...

 

[ufkacbln]

Ideally you should read Smith and find out what they actually said rather than relying on Jones. Sure you can pretend you have read Smith, but it will be pretty clear to the person grading, if they know their subject, whether you have or not.

And I would say that you do have to reference both. You can either quote directly as Montage says, or just say what the argument is and then, depending on what system of referencing you are using write something like: (Smith 1990, in Jones 2001, p.287)

And both Jones and Smith should be listed in full in the reference list / bibliography.

I thought you only read the abstracts and then assumed......