1

Suppose Jack Smith writes an article proving that Renaissance ideology can exist in the modern era through technology, and that this proves that the ideology can be reconceptualized in other regards, too (through art, literature, etc.).

If I'm writing a research paper that at some point argues that a modern form of Renaissance ideology can exist, naturally I should use Smith's source as evidence.

This is the way that I'm presenting the material in my research below:

Introduction 1. Among the questions that this paper will answer is - can Renaissance ideology exist in a modern setting? 2. In Chapter 2, it will be established that Renaissance ideology and thought is expressed and recreated in the modern era.

Body paragraph/chapter 2 1. Renaissance ideology can exist in a modern setting. 2. Jack Smith proves this in his work entitled _____, scrutinizing the role of technology against Renaissance thought.

So, is this order of presentation credible, or do I need to mention Jack Smith the moment I even touch on this idea of Renaissance contemporaneity in the introductory paragraph and topic sentence of chapter 2? Keep in mind that Smith is talking about specifically technology, while I'm speaking in a more generalized sense of the ideology existing in various capacities of contemporary society. Is it enough to use him as evidence supporting my more generalized argument?

  • 2
    I don't see any problem. Certainly not plagiarism. You aren't claiming Smith's work as your own. If Smith actually defined the concept, then an earlier reference might be warranted. But that is for a different reason, and it still wouldn't be plagiarism. – Buffy Dec 13 '18 at 14:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.