======= Date Modified 24 39 2009 09:39:53 =======
I think I'm thinking too hard and have managed to confuse myself! This may be a silly question but when reading articles with a view to writing and the author of the article cites the work of others, directly and indirectly, who should get credit in your work? The author of the article or those he / she has cited?

I feel a bit like when you write an easy everyday word that you've used for years but suddenly it just doesn't look right or seem to make sense.

======= Date Modified 24 Jun 2009 09:46:13 =======
I don't know the "correct" answer, but that's what I do: I reference the orginal paper/author wherever possible, i.e. whenever I have actually read that paper. In all other cases, sometimes refs are hard to get hold of, or if there is a list of relevant refs in the paper then I just cite that author. I think for review papers that is a fair approach as well.

Thanks Poppy. Just to clarify, so you only cite the author/s of the papers you have actually read and not the authors they make reference to in their paper. I ask because I got slightly lost in your response but it's my fault because I'm not feeling well today and need things explained in A, B, C style!

Correct. I dont know what field you are in and what is standard practice. I was advised to only cite authors I have read as when it comes to the viva, the examiner could ask exactly what x paper was about that I cited. So, to avoid being caught out, I only cite the work that I have read.

I know what you mean though about who's to get credit - it happens (and I seen articles published like that) that a recent article was credited although it was not the first one to make a certain observation. It depends a bit maybe what you are writing on, e.g. if a development of an idea etc is important, it would be good if the refs reflect that, also in terms of the date when they were published.. but I suppose it really depends... and I said before, it is not always possible to obtain all the old papers/grey lit...

The general rule, as already mentioned, is don't cite work you haven't read. But, if the work cited within the article is something quite general eg. a oft-quoted textbook or article confirming a principle/concept, I really don't think it's necessary to go away and read that book/article before you can cite in its own capacity. If the reference is more specialist, I always reference the work I found it in.

If the article/books cites a number of relevant references, I often just reference the article and then put 'and references therein'.

Definitely don't cite works you haven't looked at.

Here's my attempt at an explanation wherein author A is the original author and author B is the secondary author...

If the point that you want to use was made by the original author (i.e. 'A is the major exponent of theory x') then reference the original text and not the secondary text, though include the secondary text in your bibliography. This is because repeating what A has said isn't an original point made by author B, and if you looked hard enough you'd probably find many other sources which cite A in the same way. And then all your footnotes would have to be huge!

If the point is an original point made by the author of the secondary text (e.g. 'No one else has noticed this before, but I think that the correct way to read A would be to see him as an exponent of theory x' or 'Many scholars think that A supports theory x but I think it is a combination of x and y') then cite the secondary author, PLUS the original author where relevant.

That is to say, if what you are really interested in is B's ideas, which she happens to voice through a critique of another author, then it may be possible to talk about B's ideas more generally without referring to their specific views on author A (who is not connected to your work). In this case you could reference only author B. However, if you are interested in author A and author B's view of A then you would reference both.

To summarize(!):
(1) I'm interested in the theories of author A (author A in footnote; author B in bibliography)
(2) I'm interested in theories of author B about author A (authors B and A in footnote; and of course both in bibliography)
(3) I'm interested in the theories of author B which refer to author A, but the bits about author A aren't really relevant to my discussion (find a way of talking about B's theories without reference to A - author B in footnote; or if you can't do that reference them both, but don't spend a long time reading author A).

The only exception to this could be if a source is so hard to get hold of that you can only find it referred to in a secondary text. If this comes up I'd discuss it with your supervisor and take their advice (supervisors often seem to have the most obscure things buried in piles of paper!)

i would try to get the original article too, if I tohught it was important. you might get away with putting x quotes y at a lower level, but not PhD. If you qoute it they will expect you to have read it, or at least maybe the bit containing the passage that x quotes, because you never know, you might think they mean something totally different...and so might the examiners.

======= Date Modified 25 Jun 2009 12:20:27 =======
Thanks for the advice everyone!