Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Titling those you cite: a brief research project

As mentioned here, I wanted to figure out when the practice of titling those you cite stopped. I thought I could just go to the stacks and page through old AERs or something. Turns out, the old ones are no longer in the stacks, or have been moved elsewhere. But JSTOR is wonderful. My brief examination turns up the following two article titles which indicates that this is a poorly defined research question:
So yes: here we have two articles five years apart in which the older one uses the "modern" form and more recent one uses the "older" form. Additionally, they both refer to the same person, are both in the context of books reviews, and both maintain that style throughout the article (except in Bloom's article when he introduces Hicks as "Mr. J.R. Hicks"). I had hoped to discover the issue in which the convention changed. Apparently, I'll either have to plot ratios, or else give up. I give up.

Of historical interest: Bloom, when he published the article, was a Lieutenant in the Navy (he thanks various professors at Princeton), and thus the disclaimer is that "Opinions or assertions contained herein are the writer's own and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Navy department or the Naval Service at large."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home