posted
I do some work in the field of ancient history. The ancient near east in the bronze and iron ages, to be exact, and chronological issues, to be exacter.
From time to time, I'll come across work by someone else that I consider brilliant, so I incorporate it into my own, giving them full credit.
But sometimes, I'll find that the person whose work I've adopted has repudiated the ideas they once had, for reasons that I don't agree with. So now, they no longer want to be associated with their previous work, even though it's still (in my view) good, solid work.
How do I give proper credit for ideas which I didn't originate without giving the impression that the people who did originate them still hold them?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it really matter? I assume you're saying things like, "In [paper], [author] suggested [something], and my findings corroborate this." Of course, if the other author has since found a weakness in his or her view, you would do well to address the author's concern. Maybe you could add a footnote saying something like, "Subsequently, [author] decided that this view was unsound because of [objection]. However, this objection is not as bad as [s]he thought, because ..."
This is just my guess; I have no direct experience in this area.
posted
I'm a programmer at a law firm. It's kind of hard to make a living with the ancient history stuff.
The problem is, I also don't want to cast a shadow on the idea by pointing out that someone repudiated it, when I think they did so for reasons that are completely irrelevant to the idea itself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is, I also don't want to cast a shadow on the idea by pointing out that someone repudiated it, when I think they did so for reasons that are completely irrelevant to the idea itself.
Hmm...I don't think that's your call, though. If you're using their work to support a point, not also providing the very relevant information that the author repudiated his own work is cherry-picking.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if it's not relevant? What if the reason the person repudiated the work is completely irrelevant to the work itself? The fact is, the arguments in the original work are valid, and I could make those arguments myself without reference to this guy's work. But that would be dishonest. Or would it? If he's repudiated it, does he have any claim on it any more?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's ever relinquished his claim, especially if you attach his name to it.
Perhaps there is someone else who said the same thing you could cite instead?
It depends on what you are writing. If you are writing a scholarly paper, you can't cite his ideas without him and you can't cite them without mentioning what came after - you can't deliberately use outdated sources.
What are you writing, and who is the audience?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'd probably take the time to show that the reasons he used to repudiate the work are irrelevant, possibly in a footnote.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if it's not relevant? What if the reason the person repudiated the work is completely irrelevant to the work itself?
With out examples I'm having a hard time imaging a situation like this. If the author has repudiated his/her earlier work, clearly the original author believes his reasons to be relevant.
As I see it, it would be unethical to present your ideas as original when you know they have been presented previously. Since you know that this idea has been repudiated previously, it would be unethical to present your idea without addresseing the issue.
If this is intended to be scholarly work, you can't just leave something out because it casts a shadow on your work. Such an approach might be considered acceptable in marketing or politics but it violates the ethics of scholarship.
In fact, it doesn't really matter whether the idea was repudiated by its original advocate or someone else. If the repudiation was made in a respected scholarly forum, you have an ethical obligation to address it rather than to hide it from those who read your work.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reminds me of the stuff you posted here: cherry-picked with the intent to deceive. And as with Crichton's fiction, there will be plenty of knowlegeable people who will notice the dissemblence. Willful ignorance isn't a winning debate point except to those already firmly converted. And ones credibility will drop considerably amongst the "people who can't be fooled all of the time" when someone bothers to point out the deletion of relevant facts.
Use a footnote to point out the author's disagreement with his/her previous work, then explain why you think his/her reasoning for that disagreement is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In psychology, there is no ethical or practical issues with not acknowledging someone changing their opinion. However, there is an obligation to honesty deal with criticisms with what you are asserting. If this falls under the second heading, then you should cover it there. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with citing it without then explaining the person you are citing's entire history with the idea. Of course, that's coming from a very different discipline, so take it with a grain of salt.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, here's the context. There've been attempts to revise the chronology of the ancient world based on things more logical than Egyptian chronology.
A guy named Phillip Clapham wrote a brilliant piece on the connection between the Hittites and Phrygians (touching on Assyria and Mitanni as well). His work fits beautifully into the chronological framework I'm proposing. It's detailed, and innovative, and basically, just good solid stuff.
But Clapham got frustrated easily. Since he couldn't figure out every single element of a chronology that would take the entire ancient world into account, he basically threw up his hands and abandoned any radical chronological revision whatsoever. He told me so in a personal letter, and it's clear from some of the stuff he wrote later.
So he hasn't repudiated the details of his previous work. He's repudiated the whole idea of going down that road, because it was frustrating for him. Gah. But of course, writing something like that in a footnote would make him look a bit like a dufus, and that's not okay either.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since he couldn't figure out every single element of a chronology that would take the entire ancient world into account,
It looks like he came up with a theory that didn't all the known facts, and so abandoned the theory. I'd say that is definitely relevant.
It is a scholarly paper, or is it an opinion piece?
I like the idea of citing the theory, the reasons for abondoning it, and then reputing those reasons. That is completely cricket - I think that's what scholarship is supposed to do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, if you can repudiate the repudiation, and make a strong enough case for it, it would lend more credibility to your work.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Phillip Clapham said in (date) (book) that (data data data, theory theory theory). He later became frustrated and repudiated his previous work. However, it appears he was on to something. If you look at (your data data data theory theory theory) you will see that everything fits. Phillip was right. (etc)"
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is anyone but me here talking from an academic perspective? For that matter, Lisa, are you talking about an academic article or what?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
that sounds less like repudiation of any specific ideas and more like his suggesting that it's not worth your time to bother with that area of study (though I could be completely misunderstanding). In that case I don't see why you couldn't just use his original work as is, and potentially mention that further work was not done due to frustrating gaps in the available information (or whatnot).
I'm picturing it like me personally trying to hold back a breaking dam. when I give up and stop doing it that doesn't mean I think that holding back the dam wasn't a good idea. or that my next steps to evacuate the people that might be swept away by the torrent repudiates my previous goal/actions...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
errm...no. Pointing out problems in proving ones own ideas strengthens ones credibility. It's the egotism of assuming that others are incapable of solving the problem or of proving that the problem is insurmountable because "if I can't solve it, nobody can" which causes possible assistants to dismiss the idea's originator, and possibly even the idea.
I mean good grief, it took over 350years of input from lots of truly brilliant minds to work away the barriers to proving FermatWilesTheorem and over 100years for proof of Poincare'sConjecture.
Nobody can expect the far more complex problems associated with history to be solved by one person.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since he couldn't figure out every single element of a chronology that would take the entire ancient world into account,
It looks like he came up with a theory that didn't all the known facts, and so abandoned the theory.
Not really. Here... let me try and explain better. Let's say there are two schools of thought. One school of thought says that the Iron Age started around 780 BCE, and another says that it started around 980 BCE. So along comes a guy who is pretty much convinced that the 780 school of thought makes sense. He sits down to work within that context. And within that context, he finds a lot of stuff that goes together very well.
At a later date, he decides that despite the good stuff that he found, he thinks, overall, that the 980 school probably has a better chance of working out, so he puts a big X through all of the work he did in a 780 context.
His work isn't about whether 780 or 980 is better. And his repudiation of that work isn't about it either. You see?
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is a scholarly paper, or is it an opinion piece?
Semi-scholarly. Not peer-reviewed, or anything. The entire field is outside of the current scholarly consensus, so it's technically amateur work.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I like the idea of citing the theory, the reasons for abondoning it, and then reputing those reasons. That is completely cricket - I think that's what scholarship is supposed to do.
<sigh> I know, but I don't want to have to waste time every time I write something rehashing the whole 780 vs. 980 thing when I'm clearly working in a 780 context.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Is anyone but me here talking from an academic perspective? For that matter, Lisa, are you talking about an academic article or what?
Maybe eventually. Here's my article: Link. One of them, anyway.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: "Phillip Clapham said in (date) (book) that (data data data, theory theory theory). He later became frustrated and repudiated his previous work. However, it appears he was on to something. If you look at (your data data data theory theory theory) you will see that everything fits. Phillip was right. (etc)"
quote:Use a footnote to point out the author's disagreement with his/her previous work, then explain why you think his/her reasoning for that disagreement is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Everything else in the post aside, this is exactly what I would do keep the paper academically honest and accurate. It will save time for readers who have read the later studies but not the earlier ones and get confused as to how that person would have said such a thing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At a later date, he decides that despite the good stuff that he found, he thinks, overall, that the 980 school probably has a better chance of working out, so he puts a big X through all of the work he did in a 780 context.
His work isn't about whether 780 or 980 is better. And his repudiation of that work isn't about it either. You see?
First, an assumption about his work. Is it structured as:
Subconclusion 1 + Subconclusion 2 +Subconclusion 3 support conclusion (780)?
If so, which parts are you using, and which parts did he refute?
If you want to use Subconclusion 2, and he didn't refute subconclusion 2 in his repudiation, cite him for subconclusion 2 and mention that he later repudiated his larger theory but not this part - as single sentence and citation will do.
The legal analog is when a case is overturned by the Supreme Court because of a particular issue. That case can still be cited to support another proposition of law, but we have to add (overturned on other grounds) to the citation and cite to the overruling decision.
If my assumption about the structure of what's going on is wrong, ignore this post. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you need to cite his work, mention he has repudiated it, and then rebutt his repudiation. However, all of that needs to be with the evidence. You can't say he repudiated it because he got frustrated - that does come off as not cricket. You said some things didn't fit - you cite those things, and then show how either they do fit, or else why their not fitting is not important.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
The best advice I can think of is to ask an academic in the field your writing the paper in, preferably someone you know of with a good ethical reputation at your local college/university.
Other than that, I think you're definitely going to have to explain what this author thinks of his theory, and why, and why you think his theory works. A footnote might work.
The one thing I'm pretty sure of is this:
quote: "Phillip Clapham said in (date) (book) that (data data data, theory theory theory). He later became frustrated and repudiated his previous work. However, it appears he was on to something. If you look at (your data data data theory theory theory) you will see that everything fits. Phillip was right. (etc)"
I'd highly suggest not saying this. No offense, Pixiest ^_~ But saying he "became frustrated" is probably not a good idea. Say "He later revised his previous work, and discarded it." Then explain why you think it still works. It's a much...nicer...way of saying you think he's dead wrong ^_~
As a warning, I'm only an undergraduate senior. I haven't had the chance to publish anything yet. So I think going to a unversity professor or dean you know is the best idea. But if you can't, the above is what I'd suggest.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
David Carlson
Posts: 17 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the footnote idea, with a one-liner explanation. Simple, gets the job done, keeps the paper smooth.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
