I very often see first drafts of theses – and sometimes completed ones – which suffer from quote dumping. A quote dump is when the writer inserts a very large extract of someone else’s words into a text and then does nothing with it. The quote sits there, highly visible in its indented and italicised state, inert, unyielding, impenetrable.
The quote dump often occurs in literature chapters and/or when the thesis writer is discussing theoretical literatures. It’s sometimes used when people are explaining their methodology. It can happen when people genuinely attempt to engage with other people’s words and ideas and either challenge them, evaluate them or make them into foundations for their own research.
While quote dumping might have been the way to get good marks in essays in undergraduate and Masters work, it is a learned strategy that doesn’t fly so well in a doctoral thesis. Yes, the thesis reader wants to know what the thesis writer understands about what they have read, but they want to know as well how the writer interprets and evaluates this material, not merely whether they are capable of finding and selecting a quotation. Thesis readers also want to know what the thesis writer intended them to think about a quotation – is it a key point and if so how? What is so important about these words that they must be separated out from the rest of the text and given a prominent position? How does this sentence or five advance the argument being made?
Using quotations is of course perfectly OK thing to do – I’m not suggesting a ban on quotations, rather a more thoughtful use of them. And one or two quotations without any commentary from the thesis writer can be overlooked. But when a thesis reader finds serial quote dumping – a kind of textual fly-tipping on page after page – then they really do start to worry. Is the writer dumping quotations one after the other because they can’t actually understand the ideas properly, and the quotes stand in for a lack of real comprehension? Or are they afraid to speak out, and are hiding behind the words of important others because they just don’t think that their interpretation will stand up to scrutiny? Is this quote dumping a kind of ventriloquizing act where the thesis writer has their hand metaphorically up the back of the people that they think need to be included? Can the thesis writer not write the ideas in their own words?
Quotations, no more than data, do not speak for themselves. The thesis writer needs to provide some clues to the reader about what they are to make of the quotation they are encountering. Sparely used quotations must be introduced in some way, and the reader given some guidance about what they are to make of them. The quotation needs to flow into the following sentences which in turn amplify and carry forward the idea that the quotation represents. Incorporating quotations into the flow of argument, through appropriate commentary, means that the thesis reader does not feel they have fallen over an obstacle every time they encounter an indented or “…” quotation. They don’t feel that the thesis writer has just dumped the quote because they can’t, or perhaps can’t be bothered, to make clear what the point is, while also making a smooth reading experience.
It is thus very important for thesis writers to think very carefully about when, where and why they use big slabs of quotation. The solution to quote dumping is for thesis writers to be judicious in the number of quotations that are used – and then use the lesser number to effect. A quotation may well be appropriate when the thesis writer wants to show how an idea was elegantly and eloquently put, how a particular idea can be delineated, or how or term is defined, or when a surprising metaphor, an apt analogy or a creative association is made. Quote sparely and to effect!
Reblogged this on unlearningandrelearning and commented:
So it happens at doctoral level as well as undergraduate and taught masters? Fascinating.
Reblogged this on Telling Tales and commented:
Reblogging for myself and anyone else who is currently grappling with the balance of their own voices and the voice of the critic in their thesis. I’ve gotten some very good advice on this issue that I’ll be putting into practice today, but as always Patter hits the nail on the head with why we tend to rely on large quotations.
Yes, yes, yes! Resonates with points I made about over-quoting from data – quotitis – https://nickhop.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/do-you-have-quotitis-how-to-diagnose-treat-and-prevent/
Reblogged this on Nick Hopwood and commented:
Another wonderful suite of insights from Pat Thomson (of course). This one resonates a lot with my post on quotitis – over-quoting from data… https://nickhop.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/do-you-have-quotitis-how-to-diagnose-treat-and-prevent/
Thanks for this, Nick. It resonates for me. The tricky bit is finding the credibility balance – justifying what I have to say. My supervisor suggests paraphrasing, which I try to do (and always referenced) but sometimes I feel I am being a bit sneaky.
A test for bad quotitis is the musical note test. If the writer picks up key pieces of the quoted text and uses them again and again, like a musical note, then the quote is apt. If the quoted text sits outside the main text and is just ‘filler’ then its like discordant and dissonant. With quotes I often think of the quote by the late, great writer Elmore Leonard, “leave out the writing readers don’t read..or something like that… The writer fails the quote test if the reader just (wants to) skip it over..
Reblogged this on shanaligovender and commented:
In the South African context, we tend to to attribute over-quoting and quote dumping to struggles with language and too often forget that these kinds of writing practices are seen in largely first language environments as well. I’ve noticed that while second language writers work is often described as plagiarised on grounds of lack of language competence, first language writers are described as having writers block or being poor writers.
Reading Patter’s “thesis know how – beware the quote dump”, I was reminded that looking more carefully at the causes of a behaviour, essentially, contextualising the practice, rather than simply focusing on the artefact of it, drives us to produce very different support mechanisms for students regardless of their language backgrounds. A first language student, as much as a second, may be struggling with taking ownership of the discourse of a discipline, with the confidence to “rewrite” the greats, and describing their work as writer’s block or poor writing misses the cause.
For a while now, my rule of thumb on quoting has been “If it doesn’t move you to tears, either of joy or anger, paraphrase!” While this is terribly easy to say, finding the courage to rewrite someone else’s words is a struggle for both first and second language writers and cannot be simply attributed to language difficulties.
Reblogged this on firstname.lastname@example.org with a second language comment
Pingback: thesis know-how – let participants ‘speak for themselves’? | patter
Pingback: literature know-how – beware too much naming, not enough framing | patter