What belongs in your bibliography


I have my toe dipped into the biblical studies blogging world, where there has been a fairly extensive teapot-tempest about citations recently. First Michael Bird complained about students using Matthew Henry's eighteenth-century Bible commentary as an authoritative source (it's in the public domain and therefore frequently bundled with Bible software, as well as available online). Then Jim West offered a list of references and authors and even an entire publishing house which should never be used as sources. This provoked the aforementioned flaparoonie, as readers and fellow bloggers took Jim to task for his opinionated and ideologically-driven list. Jim retaliated by suggesting (acidic tongue in cheek) a whitelist of blogs that would be legitimate sources, leaving most of his critics out in the cold.

Now I have no doubt that Jim's outburst was driven by understandable frustration at students who think that inspirational books aimed at laypeople or resources for pastors in ministry are as valuable in the academic discipline of biblical studies as works by scholars. I'm struggling myself with the question of how to pitch my class on scripture to the students who will arrive with no experience in the academic field of biblical studies. How much boundary-setting needs to be done up front? How to distinguish the work of scholars in the academy (whose goal is to pursue knowledge, regardless of what that knowledge consists of or where it leads) from those working in church settings (whose goal is to support and advance the work of the church)? I should be in an ideal position to demonstrate those distinctions -- I'm a theologian (meaning that my scholarly goal is to explicate and explore the implications of one particular faith) teaching in a secular public university (in which my goal is the pursuit of knowledge as an intrinsic good). But maybe that fact just confuses the issue even more; it certainly makes it no easier to explain the matter to students.

In any case, I want to return to the impetus of the original post in the kerfuffle: What counts as a legitimate source in an student paper? Undergraduates are understandably confused on the matter, since every department and even every professor seems to have incommensurate rules. Learning how to tailor one's output to the specifications of multiple standard-setters is part of the salutary experience of college -- it teaches flexibility and attention to the niceties of form. But when reasons are given for commandments on the topic that are mutually exclusive, students wonder whether there's anything behind sourcing but caprice.

So here are a few of my guidelines, with explanations.

1. Wikipedia is not evil. I use Wikipedia all the time. It's a great first pass to get an overview of a topic -- just as any encyclopedia would be. But ...

2. Wikipedia is not a source. Nor is any other encyclopedia. Do not put them in your bibliography. Use them to lead you to real sources -- then cite those.

3. Quote the Bible, but don't list it as a source. The Bible is a cultural resource, not (in academia) an authority. When you quote it or paraphrase it in your paper, give the citation (chapter and verse) along with the abbreviation of the translation you're using. But do not list the Bible in your bibliography.

4. Beware of ideologically-driven sources. The main difference between scholarly works (in general) and non-scholarly works (in general), as I indicated above, is that the latter are beholden to other standards than pure inquiry. (We could argue about whether there's any such thing as pure inquiry, but we're talking here about papers written in academic settings and being judged by academic standards -- it's immaterial in that situation whether the claims the academy makes for itself are entirely accurate, and besides, I'll go so far as to say that there is a qualitative difference between the freedom of inquiry in the scholarly world and the freedom of inquiry in seminaries where professors must sign loyalty oaths to creeds. Sure, academia may have its own creed and yada yada, but that kind of social pressure is a wholly different animal than the explicit politico-theological litmus tests that govern the world of conservative Christian writers and teachers.) I'll never forget using the study notes in my personal copy of The Open Bible as sources in an exegesis for an undergraduate class on Paul's letters. The professor wrote in the margin: "Beware of fundamentalist Bibles." It had never occurred to me before that a Bible could be fundamentalist. Similarly, it has never occurred to many of my students that the books in the inspirational section of the bookstore aren't equally as authoritative for the purposes of their university classes as articles in scholarly journals.

5. Know the difference between an authority and a source. Take ideas and direction from an authority. But cast for sources more widely. Use the comments and interpretations of many people as jumping-off points for your own analysis -- just don't assume that their agreement with you strengthens your case. Cite those people -- be they pastors, bloggers, out-of-date commentators, page-a-day Purpose-Driven Life calendars, or whatever -- to avoid plagiarism and demonstrate the range of your academic imagination. Do not use them as evidence to support your argument. That's where academia puts its foot down -- only scholarship counts, and only academia certifies scholars. You're in its court seeking its certification. There's no profit in trying to buck its rules, and much benefit in learning and appreciating them.

Posted: Sun - May 20, 2007 at 07:54 PM         |

©