Dissertation references

Having found a really good book I'd like to use in the background of my introduction, pretty much everything I'd like to say is in it.. That's the problem, can I reference it say 3 times in a row?

Reply 1

Origami Bullets

Original post by richccfc

Having found a really good book I'd like to use in the background of my introduction, pretty much everything I'd like to say is in it.. That's the problem, can I reference it say 3 times in a row?

Yes, but after the first time you'd refer to it as ibid., which means the same source that I used immediately before i.e.
blah blah (Smith, 2012, p.5), blah blah blah (ibid., p. 27), blah blah blah blah (ibid., p.1).

If you wanted to refer to the same page twice in a row, you'd just say (ibid.)

If you were to use another source and then revert to the first, it would be blah blah (Smith, 2012, p.5), blah blah blah (ibid., p. 27), blah blah blah blah (Jones, 1997, p.615), blah blah (Smith, 2012, p.29).

I hope that makes sense! If not say something :smile:

Reply 2

Origami Bullets

PS I'm assuming here that you're using Harvard Referencing.

Reply 3

richccfc

Thanks, what about in the reference list itself? Should I mark it down 3 times or just once?

Reply 4

tehforum

Original post by richccfc

Thanks, what about in the reference list itself? Should I mark it down 3 times or just once?

Once.

And you mean the bibliography

Reply 5

King Leonidas

Original post by Origami Bullets

Hmm.

Normally I will say Smith (2001, pp. 10-15) and then after that I just say Smith (2001) until I use another reference/page, I suppose that's ok as well right?

Reply 6

xDave-

Doesn't your department have a referencing guide? Sometimes they don't follow Harvard exactly. Mine doesn't. You'd be better off looking there.

Reply 7

Origami Bullets

Original post by King Leonidas

Hmm.

Normally I will say Smith (2001, pp. 10-15) and then after that I just say Smith (2001) until I use another reference/page, I suppose that's ok as well right?

I don't think you're meant to - Smith (2001) refers to the whole document, whereas ibid. specifically means the exact same references as before.

Reply 8

King Leonidas

Original post by Origami Bullets

I don't think you're meant to - Smith (2001) refers to the whole document, whereas ibid. specifically means the exact same references as before.

Perhaps it's just my department that prefers it to be done like that :dontknow:

Reply 9

Origami Bullets

Original post by King Leonidas

Perhaps it's just my department that prefers it to be done like that :dontknow:

Do they explicitly tell you to do it like that? If not, it could just be that no one has ever bothered to deduct marks from you, rather than it actually being right as such :dontknow:

Reply 10

King Leonidas

Original post by Origami Bullets

Do they explicitly tell you to do it like that? If not, it could just be that no one has ever bothered to deduct marks from you, rather than it actually being right as such :dontknow:

Not sure if I should bring to department's attention :holmes:

Reply 11

Origami Bullets

Original post by King Leonidas

Not sure if I should bring to department's attention :holmes:

I've just had a look and it's more controversial than I thought - though places that don't like people to say ibid want them to write out the citation again in full, rather than just author and year

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 12

King Leonidas

Original post by Origami Bullets

What so it would better to say:

Smith (2001, p. 10) states.......................................Furthermore, Smith (2001, p. 10) emphasises...........................

Surely that would just congest a piece of writing?