Referencing Query

Mclean_414

Apologies if this seems like the most basic of question.

I am currently doing an Msc, my undergrad degree involved a lot of public policy so citations could be taken directly from Government policy documents with little concern of their origin.

If i take a point from an academic journal say;
Flow regulation that reduces flood frequency may increase the stability of downstream aquatic and riparian ecosystem domains (Risser and Harris 1989, Sedell et al. 1989, Johnson et al. 1995).

If the Journal is written by the author of the name Lawrence, is it sufficient to say; ''Lawrence (2001) mentions that flow regulation.......''

Or should I reference Risser and Harris 1989, Sedell et al. 1989, Johnson et al. 1995, even though i do not have access to their text nor have i read their text. I know i can get a full reference to this text through the bibliography that Lawrence has in his journal.

I'd appreciate your advice on this.

StephenM_smc

Mclean_414 wrote: »

Apologies if this seems like the most basic of question.

I am currently doing an Msc, my undergrad degree involved a lot of public policy so citations could be taken directly from Government policy documents with little concern of their origin.

If i take a point from an academic journal say;
Flow regulation that reduces flood frequency may increase the stability of downstream aquatic and riparian ecosystem domains (Risser and Harris 1989, Sedell et al. 1989, Johnson et al. 1995).

If the Journal is written by the author of the name Lawrence, is it sufficient to say; ''Lawrence (2001) mentions that flow regulation.......''

Or should I reference Risser and Harris 1989, Sedell et al. 1989, Johnson et al. 1995, even though i do not have access to their text nor have i read their text. I know i can get a full reference to this text through the bibliography that Lawrence has in his journal.

I'd appreciate your advice on this.

Off the top of my head I think its:
Risser and Harris 1989, Sedell et al. 1989, Johnson et al. 1995, cited in Lawrence (2001). Its always been a bit of a blurred area for me with different lecturers giving different answers. That seemed to be the most common result though.

pwd

I do somethign like this:

Risser and Harris (1989), Sedell et al. (1989), Johnson et al. (1995) say that flow regulation that reduces flood frequency may increase the stability of downstream aquatic and riparian ecosystem domains (Lawrence 2001)

which seems to be acceptable.

I think that as long as you are consistent in your document, and the publisher does not outline specific requirements, there are a few different ways are acceptable for this.

Roro4Brit

You gotta be careful with this one. I know from experience that genearlly lecturers can be tolerant of some 'inaccurate' referencing but some may not.

Risser and Harris (1989), Sedell et al. (1989), Johnson et al. (1995) say that flow regulation that reduces flood frequency may increase the stability of downstream aquatic and riparian ecosystem domains (Lawrence 2001)

The above example there is wrong as you are not directly indicating that you have not read the three initial texts and what this referencing only indicates is that all four articles say the same thing. This to me says you read all four.

The way StephenM_smc has shown you is the best..you should include 'as cited in' if you are using the authors names of the articles....

Alternatively you could try something like...

Lawrence (2001) illustartes the concensus among many authors, who contend that flow regulation that reduces flood frequency may increase the stability of downstream aquatic and riparian ecosystem domains............. that way you're only indicating you have read the work of Lawrence (2001)

pwd

oh right...well I'd read the texts being referred to tbh. You can sometimes find that your interpretation of what is being said is different to someone else's - sometimes authors tend to take the meaning they are looking for from what they refer to.

Roro4Brit

pwd wrote: »

oh right...well I'd read the texts being referred to tbh. You can sometimes find that your interpretation of what is being said is different to someone else's - sometimes authors tend to take the meaning they are looking for from what they refer to.

oh yeah absolutely if you can get the text and have time to read them then that is clearly the best option...

Lawrence (2001) illustartes the concensus among many authors, who contend that flow regulation that reduces flood frequency may increase the stability of downstream aquatic and riparian ecosystem domains

I suppose my comment refers more to the situation of a literature review...in the sense that it is the nature of literature reviews that you are simply examining the work of someone else...so even if Lawrence (2001) is wrong it doesn't matter