Accessible version | Skip to content | Change your text size

Table of contents

Previous pageNext page

Ordering citations

All approaches to ordering citations should move toward the specific focus of the author's own study:

  • distant to close
  • chronological
  • different categories of approach
  • a combination of the above

Example 1

The general text for the area of information retrieval is more than 10 years old (Salton and McGill, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, 1983). Yet, the methods of information retrieval mentioned are still relevant today. Van Rijsbergen (1979) describes probabilistic retrieval, which is the model that the Bayesian network implementation of information retrieval system is based on. Of the implementations of such systems, Turtle's (1990) implementation appears to be the most well-known and demonstrates superior performance compared to Boolean and vector space methods. Ghazfan et al. (1994) have produced a different implementation which has not been tested in an actual information retrieval system. It is the purpose of this investigation to obtain performance results in an actual information retrieval system.

Note how this example moves from distant to close (in terms of relevance and applicability as well as chronologically). It moves from 1) the broader historical context to 2) the implementation which demonstrates superior performance, and then to 3) the implementation which provides the model to be tested for the study.

Example 2

The situational approach was very much a product of the 1960s, one of its pioneering achievements being Neile Osman's work with Australian immigrants (Osman, 1959). As a movement, however, it did not really survive the attack made on it by Wilkins in the early 70's (e.g. Wilkins, 1973). Wilkins' main objection therefore is that the situational approach is superficial. [...] Widdowson, for instance, observes that 'The danger of such analysis is that ...' Recent work by Ventola (1983; 1984), Martin (1985), Coupland (1983) and others opts for [...] Current trends are towards reconstructing accounts that include...

Speech community has been an evolving concept [...] and the variety of [...] criteria has been discussed by Hudson (1980), Saville-Troike (1982) and especially by Braithwaite (1984). At the outset, a speech community was seen as being composed of those who share similar linguistic rules (Bloomfield, 1933) [...] Later, Labov will emphasize 'shared norms' [...] (Labov, 1966:7). Finally, there are those such as Hymes who argue for multiple criteria.

Note how this example too is structured chronologically, but its real achievement (as well as covering a great deal of ground very concisely) is to compare and contrast a number of scholars, applying a clear and consistent personal perspective.

word outputDownload a printable version of this page (.doc)
Problems? Questions? Comments? Please provide us feedback.