- This topic has 2 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
The last day and two days I was scrambling to get work done for my presentation I had to make in one class last night. Then today I had to turn in a draft paper for another class. I still have to turn final papers in for both classes next week. It's crunch time, the weather's getting nicer, and I'm looking towards summer. By the way, what's the most number of footnotes anyone here has used in a paper for a class?
About 50 in a 30 page paper. It was my paper on post-modernism I did for my Historiography class.
It's interesting how different people do research in different ways. For me, a paper of 30 pages would normally be close to twice that number of footnotes...I am not sure why that is the case, and I am not saying that I do it correctly. Also, it seems to take me an overly long time to complete my papers. Speaking of, just turned one paper in, and have one more to go. I'm not sure how many questions people might have on the topic I did it on, but it deals with certain American commercial structures of the 20th century.
I generally only cite quotes and specific statements of fact. I have found that papers can get too heavy with citations, which I think takes away from the value of the narrative. 4 or 5 citations per page becomes distracting.
I rarely use footnotes for comments, using them mostly for quotations and paraphrasing of sources. I think you are probably further along in your area of specialty and so you don't need to use secondary sources/citations as much. When I research a topic I am not familiar with, I'm using other sources as my guide and that leads my analysis. I think as I write on topics I'm already well-versed in, the number of footnotes I use would not be so great.
I think you are probably further along in your area of specialty and so you don't need to use secondary sources/citations as much.
I dont think that is it, I just dislike using so many notes. I think they detract from the narrative. I am also very careful to avoid paraphrasing, I try to make my papers as original as possible.
Then I wonder what your papers look like if they are very original and low on paraphrasing. This goes back to an earlier comment about how it's interesting how different people have different ways of writing papers.I feel like footnoting isn't much of a choice for me since I need to get the information from somewhere and I'm reporting on things I sometimes know little about on my own. The situation where I don't need footnotes is generally only when I'm doing my own analysis.I have the mindset that my papers should be based primarily on other sources so as to build up evidence, and only bring in my analyses/conclusions after the bulk is already done. I guess it's just the way I've done things.....not saying this is the only way, just the way I am used to doing it.
Then I wonder what your papers look like if they are very original and low on paraphrasing.
I could shoot you one to read if you like. I just finished a 15 page paper on the Prussian Revolution of 1848 that was heavy on footnotes for me with 25 footnotes.After further thought I have to say that I only cite a piece of information once and not subsequent references.
Sure, it would be neat to read your paper.Minutes ago I just sent in a 33-pager on Roman domestic architecture which is my last for the Spring semester. I start my summer class this week. It's a little nerving when you get homework for the next semester's class while you're still swamped in work from the previous semester. 😮
Agreed. I decided to take a month off in June for vacation. We have friends from the states coming to visit for two weeks and I am going to take the opportunity to try and get my back yard presentable. I start up again in July and then I will only have three classes and my thesis left to be finished with my MA. How far are you from being done?I will get the paper emailed off this evening when I get home.
Phid,I just sent the paper off to you. I am curious to know what you think. Let me know if there are places within where you would add cites or if I cited enough.
Thanks again for sending the paper to me. You know, I'm not sure there are any huge differences that I'm detecting. I did see that you included what I might call narratives of single events more frequently than I probably do (e.g. the Schlossplatz incident), and that might account for some of the citation differences. Also, I think that I try to end each paragraph with a footnote and then put “Ibid.” if I continue with the same source in the next paragraph. Otherwise, there probably aren't too many differences in our approaches with footnoting.
I would love to get a look at one of your papers as well.To me the narrative is the soul of history. Don't get me wrong analysis of cause and effect is important but what has always attracted me to history is the story of the past. Reading about real events entertains me more than any fiction story ever could because it really happened. Without the narrative history has no meaning because it is the actual events that historians try to discern the causes for.
I didn't mean to sound like I was against narratives at all. I like them as well and I include some of them in my own works when I can. But our fields are not quite the same, and it's easy for me to see how narratives are more suitable in your papers than in mine. I think this explains some of the differences.
