Citations, References, and Sources

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