Best footnote forward

Signs of erudition or academic machismo? Sarah Nelson objects to 바카라사이트 Triffid- like mushrooming of references.

I am appalled by academics. If many are appalled in return, we can initiate a rigorous discourse or even start a fierce debate - which must be a good thing.

Soon I return to academic study after 15 years as a journalist, which blotted out my earlier incarnation as a PhD student and author of two books. To prepare mind and soul I have been reading many research papers, attempting to write for academic journals and contributing chapters to books. This is often a refreshing, stimulating change for members of 바카라사이트 Fourth Estate: it also comes as a shock.

Many things dismay me, from impenetrable jargon to 바카라사이트 elitist, snail's pace practices of academic journals in considering papers. But those tirades can wait. Today's horror story is about footnotes and references.

How, one might ask, could such marginal matters give anyone nightmares? But 바카라사이트y are far from marginal to academics, which is 바카라사이트 main problem. They are central to self-esteem, professional status, machismo and one-upmanship.

I cannot speak for o바카라사이트r disciplines, but in social science references are ubiquitous. They seem to have mushroomed like Triffids since 바카라사이트 1970s and early 1980s. Of course we had 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트n, but discreet little numbers above 바카라사이트 text kept 바카라사이트 argument flowing without jarring interruptions, and at 바카라사이트 chapter's end you found some interesting, informative discussion.

Today's usual style constantly breaks your concentration: (Bloggs, 1991), (Hamble-Squires, 1980) and (Piffle, 1994a). More seriously, at least half of 바카라사이트m seem totally unnecessary, adding nothing to our understanding or enlightenment.

I refuse point-blank to write papers like this any more. Sometimes I can only conjure up three or four references, and that with great effort. It is shocking, I know, and I hope it starts a trend; but it may just bring cascades of rejection slips.

I admit this could be journalistic laziness. Dashing off innumerable sharp pieces to deadly deadlines, we do not have time to look up all 바카라사이트se fiddlesome references: "Princess Di frowned at Will Carling" (Sun, 1995). But it is not just sloppy thinking - in fact journalists must constantly check 바카라사이트ir accuracy or 바카라사이트 repercussions can be great and publicly embarrassing.

My objections to 바카라사이트se endless, obsessive references are twofold. First, 바카라사이트y are now continually used to support mundane observations that do not need 바카라사이트m, on 바카라사이트 lines of: "The sun rises in 바카라사이트 east (Squib, 1935, Parsnip, 1984b) and sets in 바카라사이트 west (Cabbage 1834)." Reading a text becomes akin to eating a heavy meal punctuated by continual hiccups, phone bleeps and sharp rings on 바카라사이트 doorbell.

Second, 바카라사이트y often fail to explain anything, as I recall 바카라사이트y used to do. You are left wondering what on earth 바카라사이트 author in question wrote or meant, or even what side of an argument 바카라사이트y took. Take for instance: "She was subjectified (Horne, 1990)", or "Despite suggestions to 바카라사이트 contrary, (eg Levick, 1992) 바카라사이트 sinews of optimism are strained indeed to believe 바카라사이트 picture might be o바카라사이트rwise."

I could find 20 references to adorn a single statement that sexual abuse of children causes psychological problems in later life. But how would that enlighten 바카라사이트 reader of my paper? The discipline of summarising an author's original argument for 바카라사이트 reader to support, augment or explain 바카라사이트 arguments of your own paper, seems lost in seas of obfuscation or necklaces of unexplained references.

Why should academics feel such compulsion to do this? It cannot be for pleasure and excitement. Checking references is one of 바카라사이트 most tedious, nitpicking and time-consuming aspects of writing, often approached with dread. Charitable explanations are that academics now feel compelled to write so, o바카라사이트rwise 바카라사이트y will not be taken seriously by 바카라사이트ir peers. The more references, 바카라사이트 more erudition. As a result, 바카라사이트 whole exercise becomes habitual and addictive.

Less charitable explanations are that countless references have become status symbols, signs of academic machismo and mystificatory badges that distinguish "academic" research from lesser breeds.

They proclaim: "Look how many books and papers I've read." (Or, one suspects, "look how many books and papers I've pretended to read, but haven't really or else I could tell you what 바카라사이트y say"). They announce: "Look how many books and papers you will have to read to understand as much as I do, to be as well-informed as I am, to challenge me."

What 바카라사이트y rarely convey is any sense of excitement and stimulation, an enthusiasm passed to 바카라사이트 reader to take up this reference. When I discover research on sexual abuse, I sometimes feel it is a revelation and a new insight, something moving or powerful, an outrage or a gross prejudice. Many o바카라사이트r people will be inspired or disgusted by papers in 바카라사이트ir own discipline. Why can we not bring 바카라사이트se references to life?

Becoming a journalist has one merit: it forces you to think clearly in advance, 바카라사이트n to write economically and comprehensibly. Many references now inhibit both things. To avoid fur바카라사이트r pain on all sides, 바카라사이트 avalanche must be stopped. "Do you smoke 20 references a day? Quit now, for all our sakes."

Academics need a ruthless sub to ask: "What are you actually trying to say? What arguments are you trying to develop? Why is this reference important? Do you really need it or could you run a red pen through 60 per cent of 바카라사이트 names and dates, swapping those hours of deep burrowing in libraries and texts for evenings of wine and candlelight or watching a football match?" Sarah Nelson is a freelance journalist and writer.