Avoiding plagiarism - specific questions on attribution...

August 25, 2006 10:51 AM

I am writing a book - a non-academic, non-fiction book. I am using lots of academic materials as sources, and generally I simply mention the source in the text when I am quoting directly - or summarizing an original idea contained in the source (I use footnotes when the attribution requires more info and interrupts the flow of the story I am telling.) I am, of course, especially concerned with the issue of plagiarism - I am keeping my notes tidy, attributing as above, and otherwise following the various rules I've read in the different handbooks for academic writing I've studied. But here are two questions....

1) In my book, I've come to certain "big picture" conclusions. In my research, I've found a couple of authors who precede me who come to similar - though not exactly the same - conclusions (all our conclusions are somewhat novel, though I also think they'd be fairly obvious to anybody who spent a lot of time thinking through the topic.) I have mentioned both of these authors as above, when I've directly quoted their material or ideas, but what's the best way to present my conclusion, while showing that I sort of stand on their shoulders, but also that this represents my original thinking. All this, keeping in mind that this is very much a book for popular consumption, so whatever I do needs to be readable for a general audience.

2) One thing I haven't been able to figure out definitevely is the issue of quoting quotes from well-known sources. For example, some of the literature I've studied might use a specific quote from the New York Times. The quote is useful for me, as well. Do I have to attribute it to just NYT, to the author of the paper that originally quoted it, or both? I get wildly different answers on this depending on whether I ask journalists and academics...

thanks!

posted by soulbarn to writing & language (11 comments total)

I hope you intend to verify that a quote actually appeared in the NYT rather than taking somebody's word on it.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 10:57 AM on August 25, 2006

2. (From an academic background) - if the source material is difficult to find (like ancient egyptian papyrus or something), then by all means quote the quote (there are MLA and Chicago standards for this). Otherwise, obtain the original article, read it, and absorb the necessary information as you generally would - this is simply tracing a secondary source (the book you read it from) back to its primary sources (the NYT article).
posted by muddgirl at 11:01 AM on August 25, 2006

i work in publishing, but am not a copyright specialist.

first, in answer to #2: quote the original source. so if it's a snippet from the NYT that you want to use, quote them, use them as a reference. make sure you have the original information (the date/section/author of the original article you're quoting). for copyright issues in my job, we ALWAYS have to attribute/get permission from/etc. the original source. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS.

for #1: you could do it as simply as introducing your conclusions with a phrase like, "building on the work of joe and carl, i've come to the conclusion that...". since you've cited and used their work as reference in your book, it should be obvious to any reader that your conclusions are based on their conclusions and that their work influenced yours. phrases like, "while carl feels that x, i disagree and..." or, "my research indicates that joe's conclusions are correct and...". very simple things like that are good.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 11:03 AM on August 25, 2006

Building on what I said, and what misanthropicsarah said - you really can't just take the quote from one secondary source and quote it in yours - that's pretty close to plagiarism. But using the secondary source to locate, absorb, and finally quote the primary source is OK.
posted by muddgirl at 11:11 AM on August 25, 2006

we ALWAYS have to attribute/get permission from/etc. the original source. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS.

Attribute: yes. Get permission: I disagree.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:26 AM on August 25, 2006

I would make a point of describing the contrast between your conclusions and your predecessors. I would begin "In his analysis, Lenny emphasized. . . Carl, however, had a different take on it. . ." and then quote what you found in your research to contrast from Lenny and Carl and why your conclusion is complementary, but with something to add.

I find it strange saying you need NYT's permission for a quote. Assuming it is a brief quote or excerpt, no. Attribute the original source, moreso, as suggested above read the original source. That way you won't be a parrot and you might even find a different emphasis or profundity in the context of the quote.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:36 AM on August 25, 2006

You don't need permission for quotes of a few phrases or sentences. You do need to make it clear to the reader who is speaking. For instance: Talking to a New York Times reporter in 1966, President Johnson claimed to have "an enormous willie" which he referred to as "Jumbo."
posted by LarryC at 11:36 AM on August 25, 2006

i wasn't saying the OP needed to get permission to use the quote--he doesn't.

i just meant that when we have to get perm, we always have to get it from the original--not secondary--source.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 11:54 AM on August 25, 2006

An instructional technology company named turnitin provides a good general overview of the topic. I also recommend that you purchase the manual of style appropriate to the profession and discipline in which you're writing.
posted by NYCinephile at 1:18 PM on August 25, 2006

You said this was a book for "popular consumption." If you are being published by major company, your editor should be able to catch anyhting that you may have not (provided you are documenting properly, which you say you are).
posted by Corbienest at 1:43 PM on August 25, 2006

Quote: Building on what I said, and what misanthropicsarah said - you really can't just take the quote from one secondary source and quote it in yours - that's pretty close to plagiarism. But using the secondary source to locate, absorb, and finally quote the primary source is OK. [ADD APPROPRIATE CITATION, CONFORMING TO CHICAGO MANUAL, HERE.]

Maybe I have a slightly different view. I don't think there's a huge difference, in terms of any wrong done to the author of a secondary source, between taking the quote from the secondary source and using the secondary source to locate etc. the primary source. It's hard to see how the other author's lot is improved by the fact that you expended some (but less) sweat than he or she did. The reason to track down the primary source has more to do with ensuring the accuracy and integrity of your own work.

That said, I think there are limits as to how free one should be about jumping to the primary source (assuming, again, that you ultimately go and look at it yourself). If another author has located 50 NYT articles on which you also rely, or found one to be relevant that you never could have located without her or his help, I think credit is due.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 3:17 PM on August 25, 2006