Skip to main content

What and how to reference

References can serve several purposes; they are needed both to provide support for your arguments by citing evidence and the work of scholars and to acknowledge your debts to published scholarship for ideas and arguments. All references must be:

  • relevant to the point that they're supposed to support
  • accurate
  • sufficiently comprehensive to enable the reader to look up the source for him-/herself

Think back to the passage used in the discussion of effective note-taking:

N. Morley, Theories, Models and Concepts in Ancient History (New York & London, 2004), 66.

Ecology 'is concerned with the relations between plants and animals and their non-living environments, and in particular with the exchanges of energy which result in the population dynamics of different species'.39 Humans are involved in these relations, as part of the 'ecosystem', but it is only subjective prejudice to regard them automatically as the most important part and to present everything from their point of view.

39 Simmons, I.G., Environmental History: a concise introduction (Oxford, 1993), 48.

Are the following acceptable ways of using and referring to this passage? If not, why not?

1
Is this an acceptable reference?

Ecology sees humans as just another part of the ecosystem, and not necessarily the most important part.(1) (1) Morley

a)
b)
Correct: without bibliographical information and page numbers, the reference is inadequate.Without bibliographical information and page numbers, the reference is inadequate.Your answer has been saved.
Check your answer

2
Is this an acceptable reference?

Ecology is 'concerned with the relations between plants and animals and their non-living environments'.(1) (1) Morley (2004), p.66.

a)
b)
Correct: the form of the reference is fine, but it references the wrong source - it should cite Simmons, or Morley quoting Simmons, not Morley alone.The form of the reference is fine, but it references the wrong source - it should cite Simmons, or Morley quoting Simmons, not Morley alone.Your answer has been saved.
Check your answer

3
Is this an acceptable reference?

Humans are considered in the general context of relations between animals and plants, but it is 'mere human prejudice to see everything from their point of view'.(1) (1) Morley, Theories, Models and Concepts, p.66.

a)
b)
Correct: the form of the reference is fine, but the quote is inaccurate.The form of the reference is fine, but the quote is inaccurate.Your answer has been saved.
Check your answer

4
Is this an acceptable reference?

According to Morley (2004: 66), humans are considered by ecology as part of the ecosystem, but it is only subjective prejudice to regard them automatically as the most important part.

a)
b)
Correct: the form of the reference is fine, but the sentence does not properly distinguish between quotation and paraphrase - the second patrt is a direct quotation and so should be in quote marks.The form of the reference is fine, but the sentence does not properly distinguish between quotation and paraphrase - the second patrt is a direct quotation and so should be in quote marks.Your answer has been saved.
Check your answer

5
Is this an acceptable reference?

Ecology offers a radical but politically suspect perspective on the place of humans within the environment (Morley 2004, 66).

a)
b)
Correct: the reference does not actually support the statement. The writer may have confused this source with another, or failed to distinguish his/her own ideas from those of Morley in taking notes on the passage, or may simply have made up the reference in the hope that no one would notice. None of these is acceptable.The reference does not actually support the statement. The writer may have confused this source with another, or failed to distinguish his/her own ideas from those of Morley in taking notes on the passage, or may simply have made up the reference in the hope that no one would notice. None of these is acceptable.Your answer has been saved.
Check your answer

Remember that you don't always need a reference - but you always need to think about whether or not you need one. Consider this passage:

Ecological approaches are concerned with the relations between plants and animals within what is termed an 'ecosystem'.1 Humans count as a type of animal.2 They are therefore involved in the exchanges of energy within the population dynamics of the different species, but they are not the most important part of the ecosystem and should not be presented as such.3

1 Simmons, Environmental History, quoted by Morley, Theories, Models and Concepts, 66.

2 Morley, Theories, Models and Concepts, 66.

3 Morley, Theories, Models and Concepts, 66.

The first footnote is okay, though this isn't exactly what Simmons is quoted as saying; it might be better to provide a more general footnote like this:

1 Introductions to the basic concepts of ecology include Simmons, Environmental History and Morley, Theories, Models and Concepts, pp.66-70.

The second footnote is almost certainly unnecessary; this sort of basic statement can usually be taken as read. In certain specific contexts this may not be the case - for example, if you were involved in a philosophical discussion about the definition of 'animal' and 'human' - but then you would need to cite a more relevant work than this one.

The third footnote might not be necessary; since it follows closely on note 1, the reader could reasonably assume that the same sources can be used. However, it comes very close to being made up of direct quotations from Simmons and Morley; either it should be re-written so that it doesn't copy their phrases, or the quotes should be marked out and the exact page references given.

Key Points to remember

For every statement you make, you should be thinking: Do I need to provide a reference for this? Where did I get this idea from?

With every reference, you should be thinking: Does this reference support that statement? Is it sufficient? Does it give enough information?