I am writing a secondary school archaeology and history textbook. I'm inspired to adjust the book based on two types of students:
- Some are excited about what they are studying, and tell their career counselors they want to be archaeologists/historians.
- Others have grown up believing scientists are liars, and are just messing around creating a big conspiracy of "Fake News".
Based on this, I don't simply want to have a textbook that says "this happened" or "this is how they lived", but I want to also show students what steps the scholars actually too to arrive at their conclusion.
That means I'm digging through journal articles to identify which scholars came to those very detailed conclusions, and converting their "Methods" section into easy-to-read narratives:
Sam Spade was an associate professor at the University of Arizona. He wanted to find out when the Hohokam switched from eating big game to farming. He sent graduate students to collect thousand-year-old samples human feces from various archaeological sites. The Hohokam people tended to leave this in areas near... Back at a lab, Sam used a machine called a radiocarbon dating...
In a traditional textbook, Sam Spade's research would merely receive a footnote, but here he's considerably elevated in status, and his work presented in narrative form. This unknown scholar is presented as someone important.
Given how I'm using this information, is a simple citation of the work still sufficient, or do I need to be sending each and every scholar a detailed letter asking permission, and describing how their name and work is going to be used?