Introduction
One of the most important qualities of any academic
writing is its intellectual integrity represented by the usage of citations and
references. This culture pervades through academia, non-fiction writing, and
university to prepare students for the academia. However many high schools and
below have begun to introduce and uphold this culture as well in their own
curriculum. Teachers now demand students to properly include a bibliography and
sometimes properly cited sources as well.
I too had this experience and still am having as I
am still a high school student as of writing this essay. To prepare students
for college and university, and specifically the thesis and dissertations, my
school includes research project as one of the lessons. As I recall, it is one
of my least favorite lessons because of one chapter. That is the second
chapter, or the “literature study”.
The reason is I hated searching for sources and I
was incredibly lazy to do it. Of course the teachers has explained the purpose
of using proper sources, that is for intellectual honesty and also credibility.
As such, I am certainly aware of the significance of the citation, though my
laziness means I feel conflicted when doing it. Despite my laziness, I managed
to overcome it and searched for sources and used it to the best of my efforts,
which is gratefully enough for my grades.
As time progresses, I develop a new awareness of
this problem and realized the true significance of the citation and the reasons
of my laziness. As would it not be weird for me to remain lazy when I had known
the true significance of it? Of course I was not made lazy purely of my own
accord, rather the extensive complications in doing the task of reference work
and seeking sources. And after evaluating the current situation, I have formed
a judgement relating to it.
I understand and agree that proper citation and
reference work helps guarantee the logical validity of a writing. This applies
for all relevant writings, primarily non-fiction writing, and it apparently
does as well to my essays. At least, that’s what people may think at the first
glance, I think otherwise. My essays may be argumentative and non-fiction, but
I do not think that citations and reference work shall be critical to my
essays. As such I will seek to prove that and explain how it will be used in my
works.
Chaos of the
System of Reference Sources
What are the actual reasons of my laziness in
seeking proper sources? While some people may see it as an “adventure” through
a temple seeking out a single sacred jewel, I see it as more of finding a
needle in a haystack. Of course the needles are easy to find if the topic in
question is not a difficult topic, but what if it is something very specific
and detailed? This is where the problem begins and where I struggle the most.
When I am working for a research project, the sources
I seek can not be any type of source, instead it must be a credible and
trustworthy source, such as a journal article. Relevant news articles,
encyclopedia articles, and uncredible blogspots are easy to find, specific
journal articles are not. They are made even harder when our topic is not a
common topic and perhaps is rather rare.
I know that keywords are the best way to search for
sources, but even then not all keywords related to my topic would bring up good
sources. So, I must look through several results of several different keywords
to find all the “potential” sources. Then I must read through tens of journal
articles which I have accumulated, and scan for any relevant information, only
to find that less than 10 percent of it is useful.
Sometimes it is worse, we find a significant
academic work, which either by the fact that it is not popular enough or not
old enough, it can not be accessed for free. This is not a problem for actual
researchers, but for a young student with no income yet, this is troublesome. With
those complications, searching for relevant sources may take the most time in a
research project and is the most tiring and arduous chapter of all other
chapters. As such it is no wonder that I am lazy to seek them, it is torturous.
This complication, while partly by my own
incompetence, I believe is primarily caused by the inherent chaos in the
systematic organization of academic work in the academia. In fact, I think it
is more appropriate to say that there is a lack of organization in the system
of reference sources. In this context, I believe there are three elements of
organization lacking in the academia, that is classification, authority, and
cooperation.
Classification means the classification of various
journal articles or academic work into their various disciplines, and
specifically inside of their disciplines. We know that an entire field of study
can be divided into multiple sections, then classification is to classify works
into each of those sections. In my opinion, this is what is most lacking from
the system and if this element is present, this essay would have never existed
in the first place.
It is true that there is already a very broad
classification, usually per discipline, but that is all there is. Another
classification is through journals, though I do not know what sort of
difference in content do they imply between journals of similar topics. Aside
from those rudimentary forms of classification, I find academic articles just
strewn about in the search engine, as those are the ones accessible without
payment. Often their titles differ greatly from each other and so does their
content.
This is what technically inhibits and wastes the
time of research and knowledge seeking. In absence of classification, it is
difficult to identify which theory or section of a science is a certain article
discussing. That entails our difficulties in identifying which articles to use
for our own work. Yes it is still possible to identify the contents by reading
through the sources carefully, however certainly it would be more efficient if
it is already classified beforehand.
The ideal form is that there is a central site which
organizes all academic works not just into each discipline, but within each
discipline as well. We can then classify which works are theoretical and which
works are practical. Then classify practical works with how they relate to
their own disciplines. That way, hopefully the only time we will ever read the
source is to actually extract the information out of it. When we make the
choice, we only have to observe their status of classification and titles which
are already grouped together.
However, that element is mostly not present because
of a second element, that is authority. Authority here is defined as a central
democratic academic body of authority which classifies works and also evaluate
the works, which are more credible than others and so on. This body of
authority would also clear up various conflicts of journals to ascertain which
articles are more accurate to reality than others.
That kind of centralized authority obviously does
not exist yet within our world. There may be localized authorities within each
university or within regional organizations, but I do not see the presence or
influence of a central authority. The consequences are clear, not only there is
a lack of classification, determining which work is more accurate than the
other becomes difficult. As often times we can find two journal articles with
similar topics, be equally supported in evidence, and yet have opposing
conclusions.
I acknowledge and am aware of the process known as
peer review in the academic world, however a question must be raised, who are the
peers? If the peers are from an international central authority which contains
all the perspectives of academia, then we can have trust in their credibility.
On the other hand if the work is reviewed only locally, are not the local
standards different from other standards? How can it be compared with other
similar works from abroad? Without such clear standards and centralized
authority, then it will be difficult in judging these works.
If there is a centralized authority with a global
standard on academic work agreed upon by all sections and members of the
academia, certainly managing academic works would be smoother. The authority
can pass judgement and form the necessary classifications on the international
collection of academic work. With that, the final collection which we, the
general public, or fellow researchers can access already have a guarantee of
quality in form or content. Not only it has quality, it is also classified, so
we may simply choose according to the criteria and what we need.
I must also state that the concept of authority
focuses not on an authoritarian governance in the academic world, far from it. By
authority, I focus on the unity of the academic world and thus having
democratic self authority over itself. There may be a specific body
representing it, but it represents the unity of the academia, not just
governance. This brings us to the third element, that is cooperation.
Cooperation is defined not just as a local and
regional interaction, rather a global scale of teamwork among various parties. I
must again acknowledge that cooperation already exists in a smaller scale,
however it is of course insufficient. Among many articles and journals I find
that there is minimum interaction among wider scales. By this I mean that often
research is done privately by each universities alone, and only in major
projects do they cooperate with other parties.
Why is international and massive scale cooperation
important? The reason is it is the foundation of a centralized authority and
thus to a classification system. Cooperation here is not just individual
projects done together by necessity. It is the continuous relationship between
all sections of the academia to support each other and form common agreements
on their works. This relationship includes forming mutual and common judgements
on works, defining general standards, and also the classification system.
Unfortunately such cooperation is still in minimum
phases, though I am sure that it can be developed, just as authority and
classification can be. If the divided world of the academics begin to will
cooperation, then a centralized authority and the classification system can
finally be assembled. Moreover, in the spirit of massive cooperation and
teamwork, I am certain that the academic world will go beyond just
classification and make breakthroughs in the organization of science and the
scientific community at large.
Despite that, I am aware that my criticisms may be
seen as empty complaints. After all many people have got used of looking for
the needle in the haystack, so much that it is now considered a skill. However,
regardless how much of a minority I am in this problem, I refuse to accept this
handicap in the organization of academic works. I must reaffirm that the
current condition is still unideal and in fact remains a hindrance to academic
work and the effort to seek truth.
We must look back to our true purposes, is it to
discover the truth as clear as it is, or “adapt” to the status quo and become
slaves of the condition? If our devotion is truly for truth, then this system
is certainly no longer worthy and must be changed. Regardless of how many
people can adapt to the condition, let us imagine if it is made easier. This
would save time and we would have more time in perfecting the argument of the
work, and not look for adequate supporting arguments. That is why I still remain
lazy in seeking external reference sources.
However, do not misunderstand me, I do not say that
using proper citations and references are not important. They are indeed
important and necessary for any academic or non fiction writing. What I am
saying is the way the academic world is organized makes it difficult to achieve
this efficiently and effectively. Nevertheless, it is also true that I also
have my own perspectives on why the citation and reference are important, and
where exactly are they important.
Significance of
Citations and References
One reason often socialized on why citations and
references are important is intellectual honesty and to avoid plagiarism. I
agree, however that is one of the least of my concerns. If we put aside the
problem of ethics and focus on the true purpose of essay writing or academic
work, we will find a greater concern. For me, as the purpose is to seek truth,
then citations and references are much more important for credibility and
accountability. This may be applied generally, but there are types of writing
which need it much more.
These types of writing have a common theme, they
make an empirical claim. By empirical claim I mean a claim which is based upon
sensory experience and sensory data. If we are making original research as
scientists, then we are taking that sensory data firsthand, but what if we are
deriving our data from previous observations? Then certainly we must make sure
that the truth and reliability of that previous data can be trusted and
guaranteed, thus being credible.
The citation and reference serves that specific
purpose, to ensure whatever supporting arguments we use are valid and can be
trusted. However it is also to ensure that we can be responsible for that data,
by referring back to the original source of information. That is the part of
accountability, meaning we can explain how we can have that supporting
argument, and so refer it to the source which would explain itself. As such the
citation and reference is critical for empirical credibility and
accountability.
In the proper usage, citations and references do
make the task of truth seeking more efficient. Without needing to replicate an
experiment or observation all over again, we can simply borrow or use another’s
already done observation, granted that their observation is of course
trustworthy. It also summarizes said observations without having to explain the
full context all over again. As such using citations and references properly is
akin to saying, “According to these previous observations and reports, we can
infer that ....”
While empirical writings deal with citations and
references the most, rationalist or non empirical non fiction writings may
still require citations and references. This is the problem of intellectual
honesty and integrity and avoiding plagiarism. However it is not simply an
ethical problem, it is also the problem of truth and truth seeking. As I am
primarily concerned with truth in writing, I will discuss the truth side of
plagiarism.
Citations and references, other than providing
credibility and accountability, also provide identification of the person who
provided those ideas. More importantly it creates a distinction between things
which we are saying and things which we did not say and instead borrow from
someone else. This is of course to differentiate between the main argument and
the supporting arguments. What is being argued and what supports that argument.
Sometimes, it is not just supporting, it may be
being criticized. If we criticize an argument, it is good that we describe
exactly whose argument is being criticized, as certainly we wish to criticize
the actual argument as stated and not a secondhand interpretation. Citing helps
us understand that the argument we criticize is part of a larger system and for
readers to be able to compare what we criticize with the original argument
being criticized.
Without citations and references, it becomes
somewhat difficult to detect whether an idea is original of the author or is
instead borrowed from the original thinker. Except if one unintentionally
reaches the idea from a different point, and then it can be treated as multiple
discovery. Otherwise, it may be unclear which is a new idea and truth and which
is just a summary of an older truth.
How that relates to truth seeking is on how it
inhibits progression of truth. When one rewrites an idea from another and
claims it as theirs, without any accountability, not only it is unethical it is
also counter productive to truth seeking. For they do not make an effort to
seek a new truth, rather only summarize and rewrite an already existent truth. In
that case, they have contributed nothing to the purpose of truth. In contrast
to one who properly cites their sources, they show that they are not just
repeating old words but giving contribution to new truths, no matter how small.
With that I have provided two reasons on why
citations and references are indeed important. First, is the empirical
accountability and credibility, and second is identification of old ideas and
new ideas, related to the purpose of truth itself. Surely they apply to all non
fiction writing, right? Why of course, those writings that are concerned with
such reasons do require citations and references. However what of writings that
do not follow this line of reasoning?
Defense of
Philosophical Essays
To avoid misunderstanding, I must reemphasize that
properly citing sources in a text is important, but only in texts where they
are relevant. I will now defend that my philosophical essays are not as liable
to this problem as with other forms of writing which may require heavy
citations. There are two characteristics of the philosophical essay which makes
this possible, that is originality and rationalism.
In the first essay,
it is written, “The general contents of
the essay which includes the starting points and the conclusion of the essay
will be purely new and original.” (Prasetyo, 2019). This establishes
the fact that my philosophical essays will indeed be wholly original. Of course
I am referring to the essays actually describing the system, not the ones
preparing for the system, such as critiques or metaphilosophical essays.
As my philosophical system will be wholly original,
new, and personal, it means that the source of information is only myself. As
such the essays depend only on themselves to have credibility and
accountability, as the source of information, myself, is always available for
scrutiny. However, what happens if my ideas are similar to other peoples? Would
it not look like as if I write down various philosophical ideas which I merely
read and claimed them as my own?
Certainly not, as I will not write just chunks of
ideas, but rather a whole philosophical system of ideas. This system will be
derived from my own observations of philosophy, and so any observer or critic
can not see just a similarity between my idea and another’s ideas and say that
there has been a case of intellectual fraud. One must judge fully based on the
context, specifically the relationship between my idea and my other ideas, and
how it is discovered, how it is proven, and how it is treated. I and Descartes
may begin with similar foundations, but the final form of the structure may be
radically different.
In fact, it is only natural that chunks of my ideas
will be similar to chunks of other philosophers’ ideas. In the realm of the
natural sciences, there is a concept known as “multiple discovery”. It means
that in history, various inventions or discoveries are often made simultaneously
by several independent groups at once or in a similar range of time. In
reality, highly significant discoveries are indeed multiple discoveries.
Calculus was discovered by both Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz
independently, and evolution was studied by both Charles Darwin and Alfred
Wallace also independently. (Giddings, 2018)
The reason for this phenomena is the essence of
reality itself. Assuming reality is constant in the eyes of all observers, that
means a constant of the entirety of reality must be observable by all
observers. These constants, known as the laws of nature of physical laws as
science describes them, should be discoverable by all observers if they are
truly constants. It is then only natural that multiple people would end up with
similar conclusions even if they work independently. It would rather be odd and
disturbing if they arrive at different conclusions despite similar methodologies.
I believe this concept may apply in philosophy as
well. Considering philosophy as some sort of science, a philosophical truth
must be able to be known and found by all peoples assuming they use similar
methodologies. Perhaps, some truths are so foundational and binding that even
if we use opposite methodologies, we may still reach the same truths. It means
that philosophers may too encounter this conundrum, I may have similar ideas
with my predecessors, but they are still not identical.
It is true that multiple discovery often implies
discovery done by multiple people independently in a similar time frame, which
means they are not aware of each other. I am instead doing this far after the
time frame of those philosophers and in the age of the internet, I am highly
aware of their existence, their influence, and too their ideas. However, I
insist that this does not change anything and does not reduce the validity of
my statements.
As even if I am aware of the ideas of old, my
purpose was never to examine their ideas and judge whether they are true or
not. It is also not my purpose to adapt their ideas into my own personal system
or modify a previously existent system. My purpose is in absolute terms, to
create a wholly new and original philosophical system independent of the ideas
of old. This means I will not even look at their texts and ideas to construct
my system. The final implication is referring to them would be irrelevant to my
purpose.
Which means from the character of originality,
citations and references are wholly or almost wholly irrelevant in the
construction of the new philosophical system. Of course destroying the old
system will require citations and references to destroy the correct blocks
instead of imaginary ones. However my defense is for the majority of my
philosophical essays which must not contain these objects. Any similarity then
is not by intentional or ignorant plagiarism, rather an intentional consequence
of the nature of truth.
The character of originality dismisses the problem
of identification, while the character of rationalism dismisses the problem of
accountability and credibility in my essays. I have written, “...I hold that philosophyis inherently rationalist,” (Prasetyo, 2019), meaning that it can
not be discovered using empiricism, that is the sensory experience. My
rationalism also differs with the standard forms of intuitive rationalism, and
instead is much closer to phenomenological methods.
The rationalist method investigates my own thoughts
and the nature of those thoughts and its contents, instead of investigating and
observing the natural world through our senses. What this means is that the
final object of observation is myself and my thoughts, analyzed and judged such
to form abstractions of reality. Therefore there is no need to provide rigorous
empirical accountability, or refer it to previous observations.
Some rationalist philosophers do refer to
rationalist observations of their predecessors, and while it is their right and
choice to do so, I see it as unnecessary. Unless our observations are highly
complex and far removed from daily life, perhaps reference to similar
observations are required. My observations are simple observations of the
conscious experience which I guarantee must have happened to everyone else, in
their daily lives no less.
This means that through the careful understanding of
my language, one can verify it themselves, without moving out of their chair or
where ever they are. It is an observation confirmed everyday and through mere
existence, as such I do not see how citations and references are necessary for
something this ubiquitous.
With that I can conclude that by the nature of my
philosophical essays, citations and references would be irrelevant in the main
body of essays. This is due to the property of originality, meaning that my
essays would not use anyone’s ideas but my own, and so external citations and
references would be unnecessary. The property of rationalism means my essays
would not require empirical justification as it is not empirical in the first
place. Therefore there is no need for citations and references in my
philosophical essays. However, would it fare better in my general essays?
Defense of
General and Personal Essays
For personal essays, it would be completely
unnecessary to have any external citation and reference for two reasons. I
would not publish it and the object is only myself which I report through the
essays. As such there is no need for me to discuss them at all. For general
essays, the problem of citations and references becomes a bit less strict and
has less clear limits or usage.
What I mean is in the end whether a general essay
contains citations and references depends largely on my mood and what I want to
do with that essay. Some essays may be filled with citations and references and
some others may be devoid of it. The reason for this lack of “discipline” is
because there was never any need of discipline in the purpose of the general
essay.
I have written, “... the general essay is
specifically my opinion and commentary on a topic ...,” “It has its value in
expressing myself and my temporary opinions on various subjects that I have to
comment at that time ...,” and “... most general essays will be partly
recreational and expressive instead of professional and assertive ....” (Prasetyo, 2019). What all of this
means is that my general essays have a sole purpose of expressing my opinions,
not to establish some truthful or critical evaluation on anything.
This means that citations and references which have
the highest purpose of ensuring truthfulness, validity, accountability,
credibility, and attribution or identification, becomes completely unnecessary
for the general purpose of my general essays. As truth is never meant to be the
purpose of the general essay, and so general essays do not demand such
intellectual rigor. However, unnecessary does not mean it will not be used at
all or it will not be needed at all.
By unnecessary I mean that it is not needed to
construct a general essay using citations and references. It can be used with
or without it, but making a general essay without citations and references will
not affect its quality or the fulfillment of its purpose that much. This means
I will sometimes use citations and references if I feel it is needed, but if I
feel that it is not needed then I will not include it.
Of course “feeling” is an improper description, by
that I will probably use citations and references if the problem or topic needs
understanding of external sources to comment on properly. Sometimes I want to
make the general essay a bit more valid in truth, and so I may research more
and equip it with citations and references, not for the actual purpose of
truth, but as said, for “recreation”. As such, it can concluded that my general
essays do not need citations and references as its purpose never demands it in
the first place.
Final Defense
I shall tie up my defense on why I will not use
citations and references in my essays. First is by the chaos of the
organization of academic works. As I have mentioned, this chaos becomes so
problematic that it will make my process of writing wholly inefficient. It
would take months simply to finalize all research and even more time to finally
write the essay and properly cite the sources. This is made worse when I am
still in high school and must balance everything on a fine thread.
There is a specific reason why I am rushed in time
to write essays, of course I am not as rushed as in the previous era, however my life purposes demand some speed and
haste. Of course this haste is controlled and still produce quality work, but
my purpose if of course constructing a complete philosophical system as
complete as it may be. If writing a single essay can take months, it may be
difficult to construct a system fully before I die. Therefore essays must be
written quickly but still in consideration of quality.
Aside from chaos, the actual reason is that
citations and references are simply irrelevant for the topic of my essays. As I
have stated, general essays do not need truthfulness at all, and philosophical
essays have properties which addresses the problems of credibility,
accountability, and identification immediately. In the end, even if the
systematic organization of academic works is properly done with classification,
authority, and cooperation, due to problems of relevance citations and
references will still not be used.
With that, I can conclude why I will not use
citations and references for the most part of my essays. The primary reasons is
problems of relevance and the secondary reason is the chaos of the organization
of academic works. In fact, it can be argued that the sole reason is relevance
issues. I mention the chaos only to illustrate how inefficient it is to scour
through the haystack of works and search for the single needle. This
inefficiency only made me more determined not to use citations and references. Now
that I have discussed fully on how I will not use citations and references, I
will now discuss how I will use citations and references in my works.
Resolution of
Citations and References in My Essays
In the end, most of my essays will not use even a
single citation or reference source, but there will be some essays which will
use it. In fact some of the essays are actually important foundational essays
in my system of essays, such as early philosophical criticisms or
metaphilosophical essays. In these essays, the citation and reference will
indeed be necessary and be critical to the success of the essay process. Though
there are also other less critical usage of citations and references which will
also be discussed.
There are three usages of citations and references
in my essays, that is critical usage, correlative usage, and clarificative
usage. Critical usage means using citations and references when I wish to
criticize external sources or ideas and information from external sources. This
not only shows who exactly expressed the idea but more importantly it will aid
me in criticizing the argument in its proper and full form. As without using
proper citations and references, it is possible that I may unintentionally but
negligently attack a straw man, this is certainly something I wish to avoid.
Critical usage of citations and references will most
often appear in philosophical essays, so I may criticize the actual ideas
behind the modern society. Meanwhile correlative usage is the usage of
citations and references when some external information correlates with my own
topic and I wish to compare it with my own thoughts. This may also apply in
philosophical essays, as I may mention some philosophers and their ideas in
comparison to mine, though I plan that this will happen only in the first essay
of the system.
In general essays, the common usage will be the
clarificative usage, that is when I use external sources to clarify the topic
at hand. Sometimes I will discuss a problem, which while has elements present in
my experiences, the full scope of the problem is present in external sources. In
that case I must certainly use citations and references so I may properly
express the topic and so I can express my thoughts properly as well. However,
it is also possible that critical usage of citations and references will also
occur in general essays.
Other than those three usages, I do not plan on
using any more citations and references as it is irrelevant to my purposes and
even detrimental to it. The critical,
clarificative, and the correlative usage is sufficient in my opinion for using
citations and references. It is also used in a manner that it does not take too
much time, but is still effective for my essays. With that I believe I have
said all I have in this essay and I can begin to close this essay.
Closing
Answering the purpose of the essay, I will not fully
citations and references in my essays for two reasons, it is irrelevant and it
is inefficient. For general essays, it is irrelevant as I do not even have a
desire to write with a high degree of truth, only express to my desires. As
such problems of credibility and accountability fades away. For philosophical
essays, the property of originality and rationalism means that citations and
references are inadequate and ineffective in providing justification for the
truth of my essays.
Finally, the chaos of the organization of academic
works solidifies my position and adds the burden of searching for external
sources. As such I reemphasize that due to the nature of my works and others’
works, my usage of citations and references of external sources will be limited
to the critical, correlative, and clarificative usage. Let this essay be a
justification for all subsequent essays, and may readers understand my reasons
as expressed in this essay so that may not produce a faulty counter argument
against me.
For subsequent plans, I will write a short essay
about my steps of writing so people may know how I write my essays and how they
are produced. This is in concordance with original plans,
and it will mostly be me sharing my experiences and plans of writing to people,
instead of an assertive essay. It will also be the last essay on the mechanics
of my essays before I begin on my actual body of essays, such as philosophical
essays, general essays, and personal essays. With that I close this essay, I
hope it may be useful to you readers and to me as well, God bless you.
Bibliography
Giddings,
M. (2018, August 30). Multiple Discovery. Retrieved December 31, 2019,
from Indiana public media:
https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/multiple-discovery.php
Prasetyo, I. C. (2019, December 15). Essay. Retrieved January
5, 2020, from Burning Thoughts:
https://pemikiranmembara-en.blogspot.com/2019/12/essay.html
