Monuments to Academic Carelessness

Abstract

In 1942, Katherine Frost Bruner published an article titled “Of psychological writing: Being some valedictory remarks on style.” It was published in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, the journal for which she served as editorial assistant between 1937 and 1941. Her collection of advice to writing scholars has been widely quoted, including by several editions of The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The most frequently quoted message in Bruner’s article deals with the importance of making sure that references in academic texts are complete and accurate. Exploring the citation history of this particular message reveals an ironic point: the great majority of those who have quoted Bruner’s words on reference accuracy have not done so accurately. The case may serve as a reminder of the importance of the basic academic principle of striving to use primary sources. The most startling finding in this study is how frequently this principle is violated, even by authors who advise and educate academic writers.

Academic Carelessness, Bootstrapping, and the Cybernetic Investigator

“…A feature of perceptual creativity and bootstrapping may be a development of the ability to overlook or ignore one's lack of understanding or familiarity with a term. Rekdal's (2014b) reminder that striving to use primary sources is a "basic academic principle" (p. 744) is correct, but still, secondary citation offers a space for "boostrapping." Likewise the "feverish linguistic atmosphere" (Csicsery-Ronay, 2008, p. 26) of genres such as cyberpunk fiction might offer cognitive training grounds for dealing with unresolvable levels of novelty and ambiguity, whether for the apparent dislocations of contemporary techno-culture, or perhaps working in transdisciplinary research environments where ambiguity is often criticized, but may have its own benefits.…”

“…Whether careless, lazy, or outright dishonest, the examples that Rekdal examined in his work are troubling, both given the effects of a misapprehension with the scale and influence of the myth about spinach, and how apparently endemic this type of inaccuracy appears to be (Rekdal, 2014a;2014b). However, as the following discussion will suggest, apart from as failure, the academic urban legend can also be read in another way-as evidence of a particular kind of creativity-for which misunderstandings, assumptions, and failures of diligence are mechanisms by which potentially influential ideas manifest.…”