A reader writes in by email:
I am currently doing some research … for my dissertation and found that someone else made a distinction I needed… However, in making the distinction, [Scholar X] cited an unpublished conference paper from [Scholar Y] … Unfortunately, I found that [Y] was very much no longer with us. So, I would like to know, what is the consensus on citing deceased folks' unpublished works? Is there a concrete etiquette here? Is it better to leave it out altogether than try to attribute an unpublished distinction to a deceased person, while the only real knowledge I have about the situation comes from a footnote in someone else's work?
I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks about this. I don't know of any clear norm on this, and I guess what one should do may depend on what one thinks the point of citations is supposed to be. I've heard some people say they only cite works that influenced them. But, for my part, I think this approach ignores the demands of scholarship: namely, an obligation to actually read and be aware of what's been written on a topic. Indeed, I've always been inclined to think that part of the point of references is to provide an accurate history of ideas, giving credit where credit is due. And, in this case, I'd personally hate to see someone deprived of credit for an idea simply because they passed on before they could publish it. But two things seem to complicate this case: (1) the work in question is unpublished, and (2) the OP has never read it, doesn't have access to it, and only has a second-hand report of what was in it. So, what should the OP do?
What does everyone think?
Leave a Reply