There is often a lot of chat on the various OCA forums about referencing and the Harvard rules. I try not to get too overly focused on these as I have so much to think about and I find it a bit distracting. It’s hard enough for someone who is undoubtedly dyslexic, but can’t officially say as I have never been properly diagnosed. Simply organising thoughts, getting names right, just putting words in the right order is immensely challenging anyway. However, of course, I want to get the citations in the right place too as it would be dreadful to lose % based on that. I knew I would need to address this roundabout now and am lucky enough to know someone with a lot of academic writing experience who has proofed my referencing.
However, I think it would be useful for the OCA to offer a short online tutorial occasionally to cover referencing rules. This would have been especially helpful after they changed, a little while back. Tutors could attend too since they seem to give conflicting, out of date advice, if any at all – even though the guidelines are clear and categorical. When students make enquiries with various non-teaching OCA staff, again the replies can be confusing. The whole thing ends up causing students undue worry about something that we shouldn’t have to get too stressed about – because the rules are actually clear. But! …yes, there is a but – there are lots of them, and if you’re not used to it/dyslexic, it’s too easy to get simple things wrong.
We also all have different learning styles for different types of information. For me, the lack of spoken interaction across the board with the OCA has been one of the biggest difficulties as I pick things up quickly when I hear them, but I can miss relatively straightforward stuff when it’s written down in a dry document. (Youtube videos have been a godsend for me – but having a live person answering questions is always the best.)
- For instance, I completely missed the fact you must put the citation after the surname when it’s in the text,
- i.e. Barad (2007: 49) talks about a “Cartesian habit of mind”.
- But when it’s in not in the text, it goes after the quote, as I had been doing with everything:
- We all live with a “Cartesian habit of mind” (Barad, 2007: 49).
It also took me ages to get it into my head that the full stop needs to be after the end bracket in the previous example – it’s something I should have been getting right throughout the course really. I’m aware, this might seem impossibly simple for anyone who has not spent a lifetime getting their left and right the wrong way round (a typical dyslexic habit).
These things are so simple and so obvious once they’ve sunk in, though. I am sure there are students who get it straight away. But for those of us who don’t – there are several, if the various emails and forum threads are anything to go by – I really think it would be good to have the chance to attend one-off tutorials (with someone who can be trusted) which I mentioned above, just about this topic. By keeping it consistent, so that everyone at the OCA is aware of the same advice, and limited to Harvard Rules, the information would not get buried. And the worry people feel about it would be a relatively easy stress to address or even do away with altogether.
I agree with you about the idea of a tutorial. I watched one the other day (on a different style of Harvard) and it was very much about, put a full stop here and put a comma there, so very specific. On the other hand it does seem so pedantic that everything has to be ‘just so’, especially as there are so many variations of the same Harvard referencing style. Why can’t it just be one! No one has ever explained why they want to be slightly different.
The content is the main thing. That’s the most important.
I’m slow at writing anything up because I am so determined to get everything right first time and then I hate the idea of having to make any alterations even when I know it’s necessary. You are so brilliant at shaping your writing constantly – like a sculptor producing an exciting work of art. I’ve realised how much I’m learning from that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just like this type of thing to be straightforward because it doesn’t need not to be. But apparently it’s interpretive… some aspects are dependent on your tutor’s preferences – i.e. single bibliography vs. Reference list as well as bibliography??? But I do fare better when the basic stuff is itemised and spelt out.
I like your analogy about my way of writing – I thought the other day it’s like drawing with a pencil, shaping, rubbing out, constantly refining. It’s quite labour intensive! It’s the only way I can write though / I do get cross with the typos/misspellings on the way but I have to focus on what I’m trying to figure out. But I’d love a Sarah-Jane Dammit doll to bash periodically as I do!
LikeLike
I’ve never heard of Dammit dolls – there’s loads of choice there or you could make one. https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/201536152053604263/
LikeLike
😂😂 I love them – not sure how healthy it would be to have an effigy of oneself to abuse!
LikeLike
I forgot to mention that. Maybe there could be interchangeable faces or book titles.
LikeLike