Some of the standard practices for referencing can indeed obscure
whose idea something is. Also, some students' modesty or even
their anxiety to avoid using the first person means they bury
their own ideas. A clear declaration usually indicates that
that the point you are making is what you, the author, believe
and there is no need to preface it with "I believe that".
However, sometimes a statement of opinion is ambiguous, especially if there is a reference near it to the literature.
Often, a good idea is to put the name of the author you are discussing or, in particular,
evaluating in your text, not just in brackets at the end of the sentence or paragraph.
You can then indicate much more clearly what that person has devised, argued, proved,
criticised, postulated, or overlooked. These and other strong verbs, for a start,
convey your interpretation and assessment
of their work. Also, to begin a sentence with words or phrases
such as "Clearly, In other words, Indeed, In contrast, Of equal
importance" usually signals your voice in summing up,
making a judgement, or providing an interpretation.
To illustrate this point, let's work through the following example:
|
However, by the mid-1970s the optimisation approach
was clearly judged to suffer from a number of deficiencies (Baker,
1974; Baker and Freeland. 1975).
[The credit for pointing out the deficiencies is only obliquely
attributed to Baker and Baker & Freeland.] These deficiencies
ranged from problems in methodology to more fundamental concerns
with the overall approach. For example, the fundamental inadequacies
in data representation, and the lack of explicit recognition and
incorporation of experience, knowledge, and non-monetary aspects
are some of the objections (Baker, 1976). [Too oblique. Try
"Baker (1976) identified the deficiencies as ranging
from …] In addition, the data for analysis are usually
not available or may be of questionable validity (Dumbleton, 1986).
[Same problem!] Furthermore, many models did not consider
essential aspects related to R & D decision making. [This
sentence looks as though it could be your opinion, but
…?] The essential aspects include (a) adequate treatment
of risk and uncertainty, (b) the continuous nature of investment
in, or expenditure for the projects, ( c) the need for multiple
criteria, (d) the interrelationships among projects, (e) the continuous
nature of project selection, and (f) the role of experience and
intuition in decision making (Lee et al., 1986). Lastly, most
of the models did not allow decision makers to have a priority
structure associated with the multiple objectives. [Is this your insight?]
|
To get away from the problems of ambiguity of
attribution try rewriting:
|
However, by the mid-1970s, Baker (1974) and Baker
and Freeland (1975) had already judged the overall optimisation
approach as well as its methodology to be deficient. … Even
in 1986, Dumbleton pointed out the still existing problem of the
availability and questionable validity of the data. [If the
following is what the writer thinks, then it could read as follows.]
The critiques of the approach offered still fail to address
the neglect by many models to consider essential aspects related
to R&D decision making. [If, however, this was Lee et al.'s
opinion, then it would need to read as follows.] Lee et al.
(1986) pointed out that many models ….
|
An even better way might be to start from the top and introduce
the paragraph by giving some overall assessment of the current
state and then providing the specific points brought to light:
| For a decade since the mid-1970s, researchers have
been pointing to a range of deficiencies in the optimisation
approach which are still not currently addressed.. Methodological
problems were first highlighted by Baker (1974) ……
|
If you set out to analyse and assess other people's work and to
put it into some framework, then it is much more likely that distinguishing
between your opinion and the opinion of others will not be a problem.
|
