Harvard referencing...how to reference something cited by an author in an edited textbook?

DanTheMan · 27 Nov 2011 at 19:55

I've just referenced a sentence from an edited textbook with a chapter author, however, he has cited the reference from a previous author in a different book. How do I go about referencing this? Is it a case referencing it in text as ((original author) cited by (chapter author)) and then in the bibliography referencing the original author, the chapter author and the authors of the textbook?

Cheers.

Brookert · 27 Nov 2011 at 19:56

(confused face)

cite the original text it came from?

dfarrall · 27 Nov 2011 at 19:57

Just use the secondary authors reference to the original author?

sigma · 27 Nov 2011 at 19:58

Edit - simply put cited in?

OpenToSuggestions · 27 Nov 2011 at 19:58

If we call the reference you have read A and the reference you have not read B (where A refers to B), then you say 'A discusses the work done by B', then put B in the references (all afaik of course).

Again, afaik, referencing is about people being able to trace your findings, with the emphasis on the reference being correct (as in the correct author, book, year etc.) than referenced in a 100% perfect way.

I have just started a Ph.D and a few post-doctorates said this to me

.

strumpusplunket · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:00

Flowing text: as noted by x (20xx; cited in Y, 20xx)

Cited in text: this was noted previously (X, 20xx; cited in Y, 20xx)

Lots of students trip up on this; just a matter of getting the hang of the conventions.

Castiel · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:01

cite the original and reference the source.

strumpusplunket · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:03

Addition: what mglover says might also work, and tbh lots of us do this (i.e. just citing as though you'd read the original work rather than the second-hand source). However, it's not strictly honest, and if your lecturer strongly suspects you haven't read the original text, it will raise doubts in his/her mind and lead to stronger scrutiny of your overall referencing.

Best practice is to be honest and used "cited in" conventions where this is actually the case.

Naffa · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:10

Go to the bibliography of the edited textbook, and reference the book that was quoted, as well as the textbook. It will also pad your bibliography out.

DanTheMan · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:11

So just reference the actual book that you used in the bibliography but cite the original author in text?

DanTheMan · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:12

Naffa said:
Go to the bibliography of the edited textbook, and reference the book that was quoted, as well as the textbook. It will also pad your bibliography out.

I think the particular reference in question is far to obscure for me to have actually read the original as it only very slightly relates to the overall assignment. I think I would probably be pulled up on that if checked properly.

Salsa · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:13

Naffa said:
Go to the bibliography of the edited textbook, and reference the book that was quoted, as well as the textbook. It will also pad your bibliography out.

Bad form

Naffa · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:14

If I was reading a textbook, and the author of a particular chapter had quoted someone else, I would go to the bibliography and find out who had been quoted. I would then reference both the textbook (correctly, with the editor(s) and the chapter author) and the other book that you found in the bibliography of the textbook.

I'm sure that can be explained more coherently.

strumpusplunket · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:14

DanTheMan said:
So just reference the actual book that you used in the bibliography but cite the original author in text?

Yeah, that's right. In text, though, make sure you do the "cited in X, 20xx" part so it matches your references section. If you're stuck, just let us know the texts in question and I'll show how the ref should go.

Naffa · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:15

Salsa said:
Bad form

I'm reading political science, I'm just practicing for later life.

DanTheMan said:
I think the particular reference in question is far to obscure for me to have actually read the original as it only very slightly relates to the overall assignment. I think I would probably be pulled up on that if checked properly.

If you really think that's the case, then I would simply reference the textbook. That would mean putting the name of the chapter author(s), and the editor(s) in the reference.

DanTheMan · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:18

Naffa said:
I'm reading political science, I'm just practicing for later life.

Funnily enough it's a political science assignment. Well, international relations.

Naffa · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:21

DanTheMan said:
Funnily enough it's a political science assignment. Well, international relations.

In that case, just reference both books.

strumpusplunket · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:22

<sigh>

Future politicians... what you gonna do?

strumpusplunket · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:25

But seriously: correct convention is as I posted. Many try to pad out references/impress markers with the other strategies.

This doesn't work. Showing you can use the appropriate conventions correctly is far more impressive than making believe you've read a text that your marker is unlikely to believe you have actually read...

Naffa · 27 Nov 2011 at 20:34

Perhaps I should point out that I would actually read the chapter, if not the book, that the quote in the edited chapter is taken from, before I would reference it. There's no point (in my opinion) in simply reading books in order to write a single essay. Much better to think of reading as a means of improving your overall knowledge, which in turn will make you smart enough to write an essay on a given subject.