Help Finding Citations, Please

[Garrette]

Perhaps this should be in Education, so I may duplicate this question there.

I am helping my wife on the logistical aspect of writing her PhD. She is very near completing the proposal portion, but in compiling the bibliography she discovered the lack of proper citations for some items.

She has been unable to find the proper information at her University Library or online using the academic libraries to which she has access or using the academic/article searches she is familiar with.

My google-fu has failed.

So now I'm here.

Does anyone know or can anyone find proper citations for the following?

1. Sulzby, Barnhart, and Hieshima have a 1989 preliminary report entitled "Forms of Writing and Re-reading from Writing." She is fairly certain that the report was actually published letter, possibly under a different title. We can't find anything but the preliminary report.

2. The STOPA (Screening Test of Phonological Awareness), by Joe Toregesen (and possibly Peter Bryant), possibly in 1991.

3. The MAT (Metropolitan Achievement Test), 1976 version. It is easy to find other versions, but not this one.

4. An article whose name we do not know but whose subject is brain-based reading disabilities. 2003. Anthony and Francis.

Any help at all will be appreciated.

[volatile]

Just a question: How did she consult them if she can't cite them? I'd get hell from my supervisor if I included sources in my bibliography that I hadn't had access to directly.

If they are primary sources quoted in the secondary literature, it should be sufficient (and, indeed, more transparent for readers) if she just quotes the secondary source.

[Giggywig]

Sulzby, E., Barnhart, J., & Hieshima, J. (1989). Forms of writing and re-reading from writing: A preliminary report. In J. M. Mason (Ed.), Reading and writing connections (pp. 31-63). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Torgesen, J.K. & Bryant, B. (1994).
Test of Phonological Awareness.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Publishers, Inc.

[Giggywig]

For the Anthony and Francis reference, here is Anthony's CV. He didn't publish anything with Francis on 2003, but he did on 2005.
http://cli.uth.tmc.edu/cv/6.pdf

[drkitten]

Just a question: How did she consult them if she can't cite them? I'd get hell from my supervisor if I included sources in my bibliography that I hadn't had access to directly.

You may not have looked closely at the list of requests.


1. Sulzby, Barnhart, and Hieshima have a 1989 preliminary report entitled "Forms of Writing and Re-reading from Writing." She is fairly certain that the report was actually published letter, possibly under a different title. We can't find anything but the preliminary report.

She's got the preliminary report and wants to know if and where the final version came out. Seems decent scholarly practice at least to mention this even if she's never seen it; other scholars will be more interested in seeing the final version if only to do a comparison.



2. The STOPA (Screening Test of Phonological Awareness), by Joe Toregesen (and possibly Peter Bryant), possibly in 1991.

She's probably got a copy of the test but not the publication information on it. I've got a copy of the Meyers-Briggs on my computer, too.... but that doesn't mean I know where I got it from or where other people can get it.



3. The MAT (Metropolitan Achievement Test), 1976 version. It is easy to find other versions, but not this one.

Ditto.



4. An article whose name we do not know but whose subject is brain-based reading disabilities. 2003. Anthony and Francis.

Sounds exactly like a primary source quoted in the secondary literature, but standard practice here is to write a citation like:

Flintstone, F. 2003. "Some results on foot-powered vehicles" Bedrock Transportation Studies 16:3 [Cited in (Rubble, 2004).]

Unfortunately, she doesn't have enough information (even the article title) to do it -- sounds like Barney didn't give enough information in his own publication.

[Giggywig]

She's got the preliminary report and wants to know if and where the final version came out. Seems decent scholarly practice at least to mention this even if she's never seen it; other scholars will be more interested in seeing the final version if only to do a comparison.

From Sulzby's CV it doesn't look like it went any further than a preliminary report.
http://www.sulzby.com/resumevita.html

[volatile]

You may not have looked closely at the list of requests.

Well, I did get the impression that she was trying to cite things she hadn't actually read. That seems like sloppy practice to me, or at least it could be misconstrued that way.

She's got the preliminary report and wants to know if and where the final version came out. Seems decent scholarly practice at least to mention this even if she's never seen it; other scholars will be more interested in seeing the final version if only to do a comparison.Fair point, but I'd say it was more open to cite the prelim and leave it at that. I don't think you should put things in the bibliography that you haven't consulted.

She's probably got a copy of the test but not the publication information on it. I've got a copy of the Meyers-Briggs on my computer, too.... but that doesn't mean I know where I got it from or where other people can get it.That's fair.


Sounds exactly like a primary source quoted in the secondary literature, but standard practice here is to write a citation like:

Flintstone, F. 2003. "Some results on foot-powered vehicles" Bedrock Transportation Studies 16:3 [Cited in (Rubble, 2004). Unfortunately, she doesn't have enough information (even the article title) to do it -- sounds like Barney didn't give enough information in his own publication..That's an appopriate citation for a footnote, not a bibliography. In any case, if Rubble didn't include the full citation in his bibliography, you shouldn't either. Rubble might well be making the whole thing up, and if you haven't seen the original nor have no direct way of checking you shouldn't include it.

It's sloppy research, IMHO, to add unconsulted primary sources to your bibliography via second-hand information, and it's a little mendacious to boot as it adds an air of primary research where none has been done. This is especially true for PhD theses.

The bibliography of the thesis is not a "Further Reading" list, where such practice might marginally be appropriate. It's meant to be a full and complete list of sources consulted in order to produce the piece of scholarship to which it is attached.

[volatile]

From Sulzby's CV it doesn't look like it went any further than a preliminary report.
http://www.sulzby.com/resumevita.html

And if that's true, it underlines my point. That someone could be close to submitting a PhD thesis and not have researched this if it's important enough to go in the bibliography, is worrying.

[Garrette]

That someone could be close to submitting a PhD thesis and not have researched this if it's important enough to go in the bibliography, is worrying.And misplaced.

Confusion is probably a result of my wording in making the request.

She is highly conscientious about proper citation, else she wouldn't be making the request. Her library of references is huge; only those things actually and correctly cited will go in the bibliography.

She has the preliminary report of Sulzby.

The two tests (STOPA and MAT) need to be referenced because studies she covers in her literature review used them in their analysis. Her chair wants all mentioned tests cited. Unfortunately, the initial authors did NOT cite the original sources.

On the last one, I'm not certain enough of the circumstances to relay a scenario.

All that said, you might trust the chair to find any errors or misrepresentations when it is submitted.

--

To all those who provided references, many thanks.

[volatile]

And misplaced.

Confusion is probably a result of my wording in making the request.

She is highly conscientious about proper citation, else she wouldn't be making the request. Her library of references is huge; only those things actually and correctly cited will go in the bibliography.

She has the preliminary report of Sulzby.

The two tests (STOPA and MAT) need to be referenced because studies she covers in her literature review used them in their analysis. Her chair wants all mentioned tests cited. Unfortunately, the initial authors did NOT cite the original sources.

On the last one, I'm not certain enough of the circumstances to relay a scenario.

All that said, you might trust the chair to find any errors or misrepresentations when it is submitted.

--

To all those who provided references, many thanks.

Thanks for the clarifications! I'm not the most conscientious note-keeper myself so I can understand how these things arise.

Apologies for coming off confrontational, it wasn't my intention at all.

[Giggywig]

I'll sidestep whatever discussion volatile and drk are having and say that there seems to be a 1970 and a 1978 edition of the MAT. Maybe there is no 1976 edition and that's why it's hard to find?
In any case, if she has access to online journals, a google search for Durost Bixler will toss out a few papers that cite the 1970 edition, and Balow Farr for the 1978 edition.

[Garrette]

I'll sidestep whatever discussion volatile and drk are having and say that there seems to be a 1970 and a 1978 edition of the MAT. Maybe there is no 1976 edition and that's why it's hard to find?
In any case, if she has access to online journals, a google search for Durost Bixler will toss out a few papers that cite the 1970 edition, and Balow Farr for the 1978 edition.Thanks. I wondered this, too. Maybe the original study simply misspoke.

[Garrette]

Apologies for coming off confrontational, it wasn't my intention at all.Not a problem. Apologies from me if I overreacted.

If I were asking on my own behalf, I would let any perceived criticisms go. My back gets up more quickly when it's my better half.