Emphasis on the document or the provider?

By cwhermann28 on Sun, 04/03/2022 - 16:56

Forums

Looking for guidance on when to place the emphasis on the document or the provider.

I started a project to clean up and bring more consistency to the sources/citations in my database. My first pass was to focus on consistent names for the names of websites I use often. Almost all of these are layered citations involving digital images of documents. As I went through them, I noticed that sometimes I created the citation with the emphasis on the document and other times the citation lead with the provider. Not surprisingly, I even found inconsistencies within the same type of a record/document.

Before I started making changes, I did a review of EE 3rd ed., QuickLeson 19, and various forum topics. Each provided numerous examples of layered citations and how to structure them where the emphasis (first layer) is the document or the emphasis (first layer) is on the provider.

What I have not been able to locate is a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, or guidance on what circumstances would lead me to chose one approach over the other. Is it dependent on the type of record being cited or is it just personal preference?

Thanks,

Submitted byEEon Mon, 04/04/2022 - 08:51

Curtis, here's a simple answer:

  • If we have numerous citations to a particular database but those citations refer to a number of unconnected records—say, the database corrals a number of different record sets into one collection with a central theme and a formal title—then it's logical to lead with the database and put the identification of this-and-that item in the "specific item" field. This also simplifies data entry if we maintain our findings in a relational database that automatically populates everything needed for a citation except the "specific item" field.

But

  • If we have numerous citations to a particular record set—say, county-level court files, or the registers of a particular church—then it's logical to cite the original record set in Layer 1, with the online provider(s) relegated to second-place in Layer 2.

As you work your way through that "clean up," keep reminding yourself of EE 2.1: Citation is an art, not a science.  We learn a set of principles—the "common language of citation so we can communicate clearly—then we adapt them to fit the circumstances. Historical documents are not stamped from a manufactured mold. They are, themselves, highly individualized works of art.

 

re: This also simplifies data entry if we maintain our findings in a relational database that automatically populates everything needed for a citation except the "specific item" field.

 

This is me. 😁

Because a lot of my ancestors where in one place for long periods of time (Ohio and West Virginia for my maternal line; Indiana for my paternal line) I end up with lots of entries from particular databases. But even other collections like the New York Passenger Lists I use multiple times so I often choose to lead with database first.

I use the WVCulture site a lot for WV records, so I lead with WVculture instead of the document (county birth/marriage/death).

For newspaper articles that I access via newspapers.com, I also choose to lead with Newspapers.com with the actual article secondary. My reasoning is that 1 - it simplifies my citations as I created a template that works and 2 - that is how I accessed them.

Of course, I also have plenty of other sources where I lead with the physical document too!

 

Submitted bycwhermann28on Mon, 04/04/2022 - 21:14

Thank you.  The two broad categories make perfect sense, recognizing that not everything will fit neatly into one or the other, and provides a set of guidelines to base decisions on.  This also helps to create the templates in the database.

One of the confusing issues, as I see it, is that with the increased use of online images, the providers put everything into collections and then use that as the lead elements of their suggested citation.

Thanks again

Submitted byEEon Tue, 04/05/2022 - 19:34

Naturally, Curtis, they are going to cite themselves. That supports their cause. But we, as consumers, have to consider what is best for our cause: i.e., the best possible identification of a source so that we can base our conclusions on the best possible source.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 04/10/2022 - 15:49

I've been actually wondering about this question, myself and have a few thoughts to offer for consideration.

I create my own templates for my database program, this allows me to organize the citation elements in any order I please and still mimic most EE style citations quite well. Even unusual formats are not all that big an issue. The big problem is to decide what to emphasize and why.

It appears that if information from the same source-of-source is presented as an image copy on several websites or at several physical locations, then the specific website or location may not be of particular importance. Whether one considers the information to be formally published or not may not be so important as whether it is generally available. To me, when the source is generally available, it makes some sense to lead with the physical layer (in the approved format for the source) and relegate all or part of the electronic layer to ones research notes. I must be clear, though, that it still bothers me to loose full visibility into exactly how to re-locate the material I consulted. Trying to do so from the physical layer information alone, while possible, is not always that quick and easy. So, I do struggle with this.

If the information is not widely available in physical or electronic form, then I believe one has to decide which presentation will best aid the reader to locate the information within the website or physical location in which it resides. So this typically results in the information being organized to reflect the way I accessed the data and not to any predefined sequencing. I've found this approach to be needed on some European websites, which have some very "creative" ways of storage/access.

Hope this helps.