I watched a video recently about a book (Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"), and I am going to use that video as a source in a paper I am writing. Do I need to cite just the video or Kuhn's book as well?
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Generally speaking, cite what you use. If you haven't made reference to the book, then the video is enough. Presumably the video itself cites the book.
However, it might be worth the effort for you to actually read the book as it likely has more information than the video. Then the problem resolves itself.
Also, in general, not necessarily specific to this book and video, a video can be an interpretation of a book and the author of the book might disagree with the interpretation. This would be unlikely if the book's author was closely connected to the production of the video, but could occur otherwise. So, again, cite what you use.
-
12I would have read the book but unfortunately I'm an idiot who procrastinated until the last day. The essay is due in a few hours. Thanks for the answer!! Commented Sep 25, 2022 at 18:48
-
9Just want to add some emphasis: Cite only what you use. If you did cite the book you would create the untrue impression that you have read it. (or at least some parts of it)– bluesCommented Sep 26, 2022 at 9:47
-
@blues I disagree. Citations can also be used to help readers track down things more easily. When phrased carefully, OP could cite both the video and the underlying resource (the book), importantly, without creating the untrue impression of OP's work being based directly on the book.– ComFreekCommented Sep 26, 2022 at 12:07
-
4@ComFreek Citing a source you haven't used is called reference padding and is considered academic misconduct. You can mention the book, but you can't cite it if you haven't read at least the relevant parts of it. Commented Sep 26, 2022 at 13:54
-
1@ajd Nope, you cite the material you've used, and only the material you've used, as blues has already said. You can write "The video (citation here) describes Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' and says..." You've mentioned the book but cited the video, and only the video as your source of information. As Buffy has pointed out, the video might represent the book in a way other than Kuhn has intended, and it is important to make the source(s) of information clear. Commented Sep 26, 2022 at 14:49
You only have to cite the video. But in the case where you're referencing a work that quotes or paraphrases another work it is fairly common to say something along the lines of "In Useful Widgets, John Doe asserts widgets are useful, backing up his claim by <paraphrasing/quoting/alluding to> John Widget's seminal work On Widgets..."
The caveat is that I've seen multiple errors propagated where someone didn't go back to the original and the intermediary work fundamentally misunderstood the argument they were trying to paraphrase (the worst case being the passage paraphrased started with "One could say..." and the next passage said "But it is clear that this is wrong because...", and so the original author was outright arguing the opposite of what they were said to be arguing). Or the intermediary work attributes the quote wrong. Or the intermediary author was paraphrasing but it gets taken as a direct quote because they weren't following the same style guide.
Of course those mistakes aren't necessarily your fault, but because you didn't do the diligence you're propagating them. I'd strongly recommend going back to the original as a best practice and an opportunity to engage with both authors.
