Chapter 2: Summarizing Sources

In this chapter, you will learn:

how to fairly summarize and represent another author’s work

what kind of information to select about a source to summarize

how to contextualize a source

how to arrange the pieces of a summary for a reader

strategies for documenting and citing sources

Summarizing is one of the most important writing skills that you can learn. In college classes, you’ll have to tell your professors what experts say. In professional settings, you’ll have to explain to your coworkers what experienced professionals do. In public writing, you’ll have to say what other citizens believe. In scientific or engineering reports, you will have to succinctly describe your processes and summarize existing work to demonstrate your work’s significance in relation to it. Effective writing is always situated in a conversation and articulating that conversation helps you to establish your credibility and your writing’s significance. It signals to other people why they should listen to what you have to say.

In this chapter, we will introduce you to some basic principles and practices of summarization. This will prepare you to map a controversy which requires summarization of many different experiences and viewpoints. These summary skills will be useful to you long after you’ve finished this assignment.

Selecting

Summaries condense information by leaving some ideas out. When mapping a controversy, you will have to select the information that best shows your readers why and how people disagree. Deciding what is most important, however, can be difficult. The “most important” information can be found by asking two questions: (1) What would the writer most want the audience to remember? (2) What do you want to show in your map of the controversy?

Most Important to the Writer: Since you cannot directly ask the writer of an article what is most important to them, you have to look at the source itself. Certain features in the writing will signal importance. Writers make important information stand out. Look for these qualities that most writers will give to important information:

Important ideas are often found in the title or subtitle of an article.
Important ideas are often at the beginning and/or end of an argument, the parts that the reader is likely to remember. If an idea appears both at the beginning and at the end, it is certainly important.
Important ideas follow a phrase or sentence that indicates a conclusion: “Based on my experiences, I feel that . . . ”; “Our research leads us to conclude . . . ”; “The data demonstrate . . . .”; “The above analysis proves…”

In a complex argument, the author may bluntly state their principal claim and then summarize the reasons that should lead the audience to accept that claim. For example:

“The U.S. tax code is overly complicated and can be replaced with something simpler and more effective [the writer’s principal claim]. I will demonstrate, first, by exploring some of the needless complexities that you can see in your own income-tax return forms [the first reason that supports the claim]. Then, I will compare our system of collecting income taxes to the much simpler and more effective systems in two other countries [the second reason that supports the claim]. Finally, I will point to the income-tax laws in New York, Arizona, and North Dakota to show that some of our own states have recognized the problem and have begun to explore its solutions [the third reason that supports the claim].” Later in this book, we will discuss this kind of “partition” in greater detail.

For now, while we encourage you to look for such statements, we also want you to understand that writers don’t always say what they’re going to say. Sometimes, especially when writing to an audience who are likely to disagree, a writer will wait until the end—after they’ve explained their reasons. For instance, “It’s time to file your income-tax return forms, and you may have noticed that explaining to the government what you owe is quite complicated.” After such an introduction, the writer can explain that income-tax complexities are not present in other countries. And then, the writer can explain that many states, in their local income-tax forms, have done away with these complex formulas. Finally, the writer can reveal their main claim, in the conclusion: “If our income-tax forms are so complicated, and other countries and states have found ways to simplify this process, why can’t the U.S. government do the same?” But notice that this last sentence doesn’t directly state the writer’s principal claim. The question lets you arrive at the conclusion. You’re supposed to answer the question, “Yes, of course, the U.S. government can simplify the process!” Our brief example is meant to illustrate a very simple but important point: Some writers explicitly state their principal claims. Others implicitly suggest what they want the audience to conclude. Here are strategies for identifying the principal claims in both explicit and implicit arguments.

While you’re looking at an explicit argument:

Underline one or two sentences that clearly and directly state what the writer wants the audience to remember, the writer’s principal claim: “The U.S. tax code is overly complicated and can be replaced with something simpler and more effective.”
Underline or label the chief reasons that the writer gives to convince the audience that they should believe the principal claim: (1) There are “needless complexities that you can see in your own income-tax return forms”; (2) Two other countries have “much simpler and more effective systems”; (3) “income-tax laws in New York, Arizona, and North Dakota . . . show that some of our own states have recognized the problem and have begun to explore its solutions.”
Underline or label the evidence that the writer gives to show the audience that these reasons are sound: (1) a detailed explanation of tax laws in two foreign countries; (2) a detailed explanation of simpler tax laws in three U.S. states.

When you’ve finished looking at an implicit argument:

State in your own words what the writer wants the audience to remember, the writer’s principal claim. Use these three templates as guides: The writer wants the audience to believe ____. The writer wants the audience to feel ____. The writer wants the audience to do ____. For instance: The writer wants the audience to believe that the U.S. tax system is too complicated. The writer wants the audience to feel frustrated by their tax laws. The writer wants the audience to do something about (change) the U.S. tax code.
State in your own words what reasons the audience should consider. Start your own summary sentence with the words “because” or “since,” and then restate the reason; follow with “the audience should believe/feel/do,” and then restate the writer’s claim. For instance: Since [reason] their income-tax forms are frustratingly difficult, the audience should believe [claim] that the U.S. tax system is itself unnecessarily complicated.
State in your own words what information (what evidence) the writer provides to support each reason. Start these summary sentences with the words “to show the audience that” and then restate the reason; follow with “the writer provides/explains/demonstrates” and restate the evidence. For instance, To show the audience that their income-tax forms are frustratingly difficult [reason], the writer explains the procedure for claiming and paying taxes on income earned as a consultant but not taxed at the point of payment [evidence].

Before moving on to the strategies for identifying the information that is most important to you, allow us to more fully explain the difference between explicit and implicit arguments and why this difference matters so much when you are summarizing a source.

It is easier to summarize explicit arguments because the writer labels their claims, their reasons, and their evidence. They tell you what you should believe or feel or do. Then they tell you why you should believe or feel or do this. Finally, he shows you what information you should consider in order to understand why you should believe or feel or do this. Implicit arguments lay everything out before the audience, and they let us sort the principal claims from the reasons and the reasons from the evidence. Usually, without even thinking about it, we figure it out. If we don’t figure it out, we leave confused and frustrated. If we do figure it out, we feel like we arrived at the conclusions ourselves, so we are more likely to believe. Here, you can see one of the key differences between explicit and implicit arguments, from a reader’s perspective. Explicit arguments are clear, direct, but less convincing because they tell the reader what to believe (and nobody likes to be told what to do). Implicit arguments are less clear, indirect, but more convincing because they let us arrive at the conclusions ourselves (and we tend to believe conclusions that we have reached ourselves).

When you are summarizing an argument, you must make everything explicit for your reader. You should, therefore, present every argument—even the implicit ones—explicitly. If you implicitly summarize a writer’s implicit claims, reasons, and evidence, you will confuse your reader. Remember, you’re mapping a controversy for an interested but uninformed audience. They’re reading your essay because they want someone to make sense of a confusing controversy. The clearest map of a controversy will feature explicit summaries of arguments that other people have made. The same is true of any other effort at summarizing. Readers expect summaries to be clear and direct. Readers expect summaries explicitly to present all the claims, reasons, and evidence, even the ones that were originally implicitly argued. That’s why we encourage you to identify the information that is most important to the writer, and explicitly present it to your reader.

Most Important to You: To emphasize the information that you think is important, you may have to summarize the argument a bit differently from the way you found it. Making an implicit argument explicit is one such change; the writer chose to make the argument implicitly and, in order to clarify the argument for your audience, you decide to restate its claims, reasons, and evidence explicitly. It’s okay to make such changes so long as you write fair and accurate summaries.

Further Discussion: What does it mean to unfairly or inaccurately summarize a source? You unfairly present someone’s beliefs when you do not sufficiently show the writer’s evidence or reasons. Let’s imagine, for instance, that you are summarizing two sources, one arguing that second-trimester abortions should be legal in the state of Texas and the other claiming that these medical procedures should be illegal. If you show all the evidence and all the reasons to support the first argument but little of the evidence and few of the reasons to support the second argument, then you will make the argument in favor of a law outlawing second-trimester abortions seem weak. You will be treating the argument for outlawing third-trimester abortions unfairly.

You inaccurately summarize an argument when you distort the writer’s principal claims or reasons. For instance, let’s imagine that the writer who wants to outlaw second-trimester abortions has stated his beliefs this way: “Partial-birth abortions kill a baby who can live on their own, outside the mother’s womb. It is therefore no different from killing a child moments after a premature delivery. If it is against the law to murder a premature baby, then it should be against the law to abort a pregnancy after three months.” You could unfairly restate the writer’s claim in a couple of ways: Distorting the claim: “Edwards thinks that the life of a three-month-old fetus is more important than the health of its mother. He wants to take away a medical procedure that can save a mother’s life.” Distorting the reasons: “Edwards believes that late-term abortion should be made illegal because he thinks that all life is equally sacred.” In the first case, as you can see, the summary attributes to the writer a claim that he never made. In the second case, the summary fairly summarizes the writer’s claim but then unfairly presents the reason—Edwards never said that “all life” is “equally sacred”; he said Texas murder statutes value the life of a premature newborn and the life of an adult equally.

Useful Suggestion: Try to find, in your own research, an unfair or inaccurate summary of someone else’s beliefs. Do you trust the writer who unfairly presents what someone else has said? How could you rewrite the writer’s summary to make it fairer or more accurate?

Why would you alter a writer’s presentation of their argument? Perhaps you want to emphasize a point of disagreement in the controversy. We have used the terms “claims,” “reasons,” and “evidence” in this section to discuss the parts of an argument. Writers are always most concerned with their principal claims. The reasons and evidence are there to make the audience accept the claims. But, when summarizing the controversy, you may notice that two people arrive at the same claim through different reasons. As a result, when you summarize the two arguments, you will briefly explain the common claims that both writers want to emphasize: “Both Eugene and Tixelbottom believe that the city police should do more to stop bicycle theft.” And you may emphasize their different reasons to illustrate the disagreement. Eugene spends one paragraph explaining that bike theft is a serious crime comparable to automobile theft, and then he spends three paragraphs talking about how much bike theft inconveniences cyclists. Tixelbottom writes a twelve-paragraph essay about how bike theft hurts local bike shops because people buy stolen bikes on the black market rather than new bikes from legal vendors. In your summary, however, you spend one paragraph summarizing each of these contrasting reasons: one paragraph summarizing Eugene, who says bike theft is just like auto theft, and one paragraph summarizing Tixelbottom, who says bike theft takes sales away from local bike shops. Obviously, these writers did not intend for their competing reasons to be equally weighted. But, in order to highlight a disagreement, you’ve summarized these reasons as equally important. As long as you treat these sources fairly and accurately, you should have nothing to worry about. And by emphasizing a point of disagreement, you’re able to show your audience that there is a controversy here, even among those who want the same policy: Bike owners feel bike theft is terrible because it harms the bike owners; bike shop owners feel bike theft is terrible because it hurts their business and the local economy.

Since you are trying to map a controversy, you should emphasize the points of agreement or disagreement among stakeholders. Your effort to emphasize these disagreements and agreements may lead you to emphasize contrasting or comparable bits of evidence, common or opposing reasons, or even similar and dissimilar claims. By emphasizing the claims, reasons, and evidence—the information most important to you—you may focus on elements that the writers did not emphasize so strongly. That’s okay, so long as your summaries remain fair and accurate. When considering what information you will find important, therefore, we encourage you to look for points of agreement and disagreement. Use the following questions as guides:

What common claims do stakeholders share? What are the most prevalent opposing claims in this controversy? Often, opposing claims result in opposing proposals for action—outlaw second-trimester abortion; keep second-trimester abortion legal. If you come across such a difference in proposed action, you certainly have opposing claims. But sometimes, opposing claims are more about values—Katy Perry is a sellout, and Adele is a true artist; both Katy Perry and Adele are commercial musicians, both sellouts.
What common reasons do the stakeholders present? Do stakeholders who arrive at the same claim offer different reasons? Do stakeholders who arrive at different claims sometimes put forward the same reasons? Or do differing claims rely consistently on different reasons? Keeping in mind that a controversy may feature stakeholders who want the same thing but for different reasons, you should closely compare the reasons and the claims that stakeholders offer.
What evidence do the stakeholders present to convince their audiences of their reasons? Does everyone cite the same example, the same report, or the same expert authority? Do stakeholders arguing contrasting claims tend to cite different kinds of evidence? It is less common to find controversies in which people agree about their claims and reasons but disagree about their evidence, but every so often disagreements about evidence happen. And you should look for them.

Further Discussion: In the first chapter, we mentioned that gender equality is an ongoing controversy. Recently, people have focused on the “gender pay gap,” arguing over what causes women to earn less than men (on average), despite equal levels of education and ability. A few people argue that the pay gap is a “myth.” But many others agree that the pay gap exists. And they agree that something should be done about it. But they disagree about what causes the pay gap. Do women tend to make less because they choose to spend time at home with their families instead of pursuing career advancement? Or do women tend to select career paths that pay less (nursing and teaching, for example)? Or is there some kind of sexism (conscious or otherwise) that leads managers and decision-makers to award men more than women? And how should we address the pay gap? Legislation that allows women to sue more easily for wage discrimination? Scholarships that encourage women to enter professions with high salaries? More generous maternity leave and support for childcare? Discuss the different viewpoints in this controversy. How would you explain the points of agreement and the points of disagreement?

Contextualizing

For a moment, let’s think about what happens when you repeat another person’s ideas. First, you choose the most important information, sometimes emphasizing things that the speaker would not emphasize. We’ve already discussed that process under the heading “Selecting.” Then you take that information out of its original context. In context, it’s much easier to understand someone, because you can tell who’s talking, what that person is responding to, and what has prompted them to speak. Out of context, ideas can seem wild, random, and confusing. Therefore, to avoid confusing your reader, you must contextualize your sources. Who is the speaker? What event prompted this person to speak? What is this argument responding to? Sometimes you can do all of this in one sentence. Before offering a quote, you can quickly give biographical information about the writer or quickly explain what the writer is responding to. But sometimes, you need to preface your summary with a couple of sentences that contextualize the source.

Brief Exercise: Try contextualizing a source using the following templates:

Use a noun phrase or noun clause to introduce the speaker: [Name of the speaker], [noun phrase describing the speaker], says, “[quote].” For example: Edwin Edgars, a professor of geosciences at the University of West Western, said, “The Earth is getting warmer due to increased carbon dioxide released by volcanic activity. We cannot control this.”

Use a prepositional phrase to identify the place where the speaker said something: [Name of speaker], [preposition (at, in)] + [description of place], says, “[quote].” For example: Edwin Edgars, at a recent UN summit on global climate change, said, “The Earth is getting warmer due to increased carbon dioxide released by volcanic activity. We cannot control this.”

Introduce the person to whom or the argument to which the speaker was responding, using a gerund phrase: [Name of speaker], responding to + [description of the argument to which the speaker was responding], said, “[quote].” For example: Edwin Edgars, responding to another speaker who attributed global warming entirely to human behavior, said, “The Earth is getting warmer due to increased carbon dioxide released by volcanic activity. We cannot control this.”

Introduce the speaker, the place, and the position addressed, using two prefatory sentences that come before the quote. [One sentence in which you describe the speaker and the place where the quote was delivered]. [A second sentence in which you describe the events and the other positions that led the speaker to say this]. [Last name of speaker], said, “[quote].” For example: At a recent UN summit on global climate change, renowned geoscientist Edwin Edgars delivered the keynote address. All were gathered to learn about higher levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, yet Edgars began his talk by responding to those who attribute this recent increase entirely to human behavior. Edgars said, “The Earth is getting warmer due to increased carbon dioxide released by volcanic activity. We cannot control this.”

There are innumerable ways to contextualize a source. We offer a few in this chapter, but we encourage you to look for others. Pick the methods that work best in your particular paragraph or sentence. You don’t have to provide exhaustive contextualization for every quote. Offer the contextualizing information that will help your audience make sense of the summary. Present the information as elegantly and as quickly as you can.

Arranging

It’s hard enough to summarize someone else’s viewpoint in a sentence or two. But the challenge becomes even greater when you have to explain not just the principal claim but also the writer’s reasons and the evidence. The big challenge to giving such a full summary is arrangement: How will you present the information? In what order will you put things? We can suggest two basic strategies: the play-by-play summary and the argument-breakdown summary. Both methods of summarizing begin with a brief description of the writer, the context, and the main idea (the principal argument).

Play-by-Play Summarizing

A play-by-play narrates each step in an argument. This can be done by summarizing each paragraph or by summarizing each major section (sometimes a paragraph, sometimes a whole chapter) in one or two sentences. The play-by-play summary shows how the argument progresses: What comes first? What comes second? What comes last? The play-by-play summary also guarantees that the summary will accurately present the order that the writer intended. Finally, the play-by-play summary catches all the major parts of the argument. Nothing significant will be left out.

Take this play-by-play summary of an opinion article, for instance:

Navarrette, Ruben. “Reformers Can’t Ignore Illegal ‘Criminal Aliens.’”” USA Today 24 March 2010: 9A. Print.

“In the heated debate about immigration reform, Ruben Navarrette notices that many “immigration foes…gladly latch on to the criminal-aliens issue.” A syndicated columnist and San Diego resident, Navarrette admits that many illegal aliens commit crimes while in the United States. However, after pointing out some crime statistics, Navarrette insists that those supporting immigration reform should “confront this issue now.” He says that allowing immigration opponents to make arguments about criminal illegal aliens will impede any kind of legislative reform. He next explains that illegal immigrants do not represent a disproportionate number of criminals in the United States. Navarrette then turns to history: “Since the beginnings of the Republic, nativists and others who oppose both legal and illegal immigration have tried to marginalize foreigners by painting them as somehow dangerous or detrimental. That is what was said about the Germans, Chinese, Jews, Irish and the Italians.” Navarrette concludes by warning that if immigration proponents ignore the criminal illegal aliens, then they will “hurt the cause of millions of illegal immigrants who work hard, pay taxes and stay on the straight and narrow.”

This brief example illustrates the strengths and the potential drawbacks of the play-by-play arrangement. After reading the summary, you have a clear sense of what the argument is and how it’s presented. But you may not have a clear sense of what is most important. And some parts of the argument may seem out of place. For instance, Navarrette’s digression to discuss American history seems like it does not follow from his discussion of illegal criminal aliens.

Argument-Breakdown Summarizing

The argument-breakdown summary tries to take the argument apart and emphasize both its key components and their relation to one another. You point out, for example, the main claim and the key reasons supporting that claim without exactly repeating the argument’s arrangement. Consider this summary of the same article:

Navarrette, Ruben. “Reformers Can’t Ignore Illegal ‘Criminal Aliens.’”” USA Today 24 March 2010: 9A. Print.

“In the heated debate about immigration reform, Ruben Navarrette argues that people who advocate for immigration reform cannot ignore the criminal illegal aliens in the United States. Navarrette concedes that many illegal aliens commit crimes, and he even offers some statistics to show that more than 80% of illegal aliens arrested by the Immigration and Custom Enforcement Agents of Los Angeles in December of 2010 had been convicted of crimes in the United States. Navarette worries that ignoring these criminal illegal aliens will harm efforts at immigration reform. He says, “those who commit crimes continue to hurt the cause of millions of illegal immigrants who work hard, pay taxes and stay on the straight and narrow. In that way, criminal aliens create a whole new crop of victims.” Additionally, Navarette says that ignoring criminal illegal aliens will allow people who oppose immigration reform to spread exaggerations and animosities. Since immigration opponents “gladly latch on to the criminal-aliens issue,” immigration reformers “should address this head on.” Navarrette offers two bits of evidence to show why immigration reformists must address the issue of illegal criminal aliens. First, he explains that illegal immigrants are not any more likely to be criminals than anyone else. And second, he reminds his audience of a disturbing historical trend that should not be repeated: “nativists and others who oppose both legal and illegal immigration have tried to marginalize foreigners by painting them as somehow dangerous or detrimental. That is what was said about the Germans, Chinese, Jews, Irish and the Italians.” Navarrette concludes by saying that, if immigration reformers directly address the issue of criminal illegal aliens, then reformers can prevent such criminals from harming the rest of the law-abiding immigrant population.”

As the above example demonstrates, sometimes an argument-breakdown summary will rearrange the parts of the argument. Navarrette, for instance, does not cleanly separate his two reasons. He doesn’t say, “First we should deal with criminal illegal aliens in order to counter the impression that all illegal immigrants are criminals. And second, we should deal with criminal illegal aliens to keep those illegal immigrants who are criminal from poisoning the effort at immigration reform that will benefit the law-abiding immigrant community.” But, in our summary, we separate the two reasons in order to demonstrate that they are equally important to his argument. The potential drawback of the argument-breakdown is that it may not be accurate or even fair to the source. By presenting someone else’s ideas in a different order, we risk changing the ideas themselves. And by saying that a writer does something to accomplish a particular goal (like seeming fair or acknowledging the opposition), we speculate about motives that the editors may not have had in mind.

We encourage you to experiment a bit. Try writing both kinds of summary. Decide which suits your purpose best. Since there is no right way to summarize, you must pick the way that you feel is most helpful in mapping your controversy.

Documenting

You’ve likely noticed that every sample summary presented in this chapter (every sentence or paragraph summarizing another person’s ideas) has included some kind of quote. You probably also noticed that the last two summaries featured the citation information for the USA Today article. This citation information allows you to find the source for yourself. Both the quotes and the citation information are methods of source documentation, showing the reader where the information came from.

In other classes, you’ve been asked to cite your sources, using parenthetical citations at the ends of sentences or footnotes or some other method. You’ve learned elaborate conventions for listing the page numbers or creating the works-cited pages. Maybe you wonder why you have to be so thorough with your documentation. Journalists don’t list page numbers, compose endnotes, or include works-cited pages. Why not write like them? You can, if you’re part of the journalistic community or writing to an audience that expects a certain level of evidence. As we will explain in this last segment, documentation conventions—like those in journalism—depend on: (1) the community’s standards for documentation and (2) the audience’s willingness to believe that a summary is fair and accurate. Before we give advice about how to document your sources, allow us to explain these two things. Knowing why you document your sources will help you to do so more effectively.

Knowing Community Standards

Communities worry about information in different ways. Journalists and audiences reading news media sources want current information that comes directly from the source. After finishing an article, readers don’t want to hunt down the source themselves. So journalists don’t have to give their audiences information about how to find the person or the report quoted in an article. But they have to explain to their audience who the person is or when the report was produced to show that this information is current. Academics (professors, students, researchers) want accurate information that they can consult themselves. They want to know where they can find a source. As a result, academic writers have to provide their audiences with more elaborate documentation. The journalist can simply introduce a quote by saying, “At a Tuesday press conference, Senator Warrington explained . . . .” The academic must introduce the quote and then provide a footnote or a works-cited page showing where she heard or read the Senator say such things. Your mapping-a-controversy essay will be written for an academic audience—for your instructor and your classmates. And since you’re writing for an academic audience, you will have to follow the documentation conventions that show the audience where you got your information, down to the page number. We suggest the Modern Language Association (MLA) method of documentation, since it’s the least elaborate of the documentation methods in the humanities and social sciences, and because it’s clearly presented in your style guide.

Knowing Your Audience’s Willingness to Believe

Community standards for documentation are explicitly and carefully explained in style guides like the one you’re using in this course. But the audience’s willingness to believe is harder to figure out. People reading news media tend to be more willing to believe because they’ve learned to trust particular venues. If you read the Wall Street Journal every day, you likely believe that it’s a reliable source and will trust the information presented in its many articles. Academics have learned to be skeptical. When you are writing to an audience who is more willing to believe, you can document less. But as the audience’s skepticism grows, so does the need to document the source. Compare the following sentences, each offering more specific documentation of the source material:

No documentation—for an audience willing to accept the summary’s accuracy: Internet-privacy activists believe that Facebook collects too much personal information in an unsecure database, thus putting all of its users at risk of identity theft and government spying.
Specific attribution—for a slightly skeptical audience: Internet-privacy alarmist Jeff Godwin believes that Facebook collects too much personal information in an unsecure database, thus putting all of its users at risk of identity theft and government spying.
Direct quote for a more skeptical audience: Internet-privacy activist Jeff Godwin says, “Facebook collects too much personal information in an unsecure database, thus putting all of its users at risk of identity theft and government spying.”
Direct quote and source citation for a very skeptical audience: Internet-privacy activist Jeff Godwin writes on his blog GovernmentMindControlFactory.com (13 Jan. 2014), “Based on the recently released report from the Government Accountability office, I believe that Facebook is hoarding too much data about our personal lives. Worse still, this information is kept in an unsecure database. We wouldn’t have to worry so much about government spies or Internet identity thieves, if Facebook didn’t make it so easy for them to get our information!”

You can imagine the audience responses that would prompt a writer to add the documentation information presented in each of the examples above. After reading the first example (without attribution), a skeptical reader might retort, “Really, I’ve never heard anyone say something so extreme.” After the second (with attribution), a skeptical reader might respond, “I’ve read Godwin’s recent book, and this doesn’t sound like something he would say.” After the third (with a direct quote), an even more skeptical reader might say, “I read that blog all the time and don’t remember Godwin saying something so critical of Facebook. Where did you find this quote?” For this third reader, the direct quote with a source citation is necessary. Otherwise, our very skeptical audience member (the academic reader) will think we’re unfairly or inaccurately summarizing Godwin’s viewpoint.

Knowing Techniques for Documenting Sources in Academic Writing

Since you’re writing to a skeptical (academic) audience, and since you’re writing to a community that accepts certain standards for source citation (MLA), you will have to be very careful. Think of your efforts to document your sources not as a painful chore that you must complete because your instructor has required it. Documentation is not busy-work in a writing class. It’s evidence to prove that your summary is fair and accurate, and it is evidence that you are a credible source. If you do not provide the appropriate kind and amount of evidence when summarizing a source, your reader will not trust or believe you.

So we suggest the following techniques in academic writing to show your audience that you are trustworthy:

Especially when summarizing without a direct quote, offer a citation (a parenthetical mention of the source): Austinites believe that the light rail system is a waste of money and should not be expanded beyond the one train line that Austin currently has (Cullen A23).
Qualify the attribution to specifically mention who believes these things: Some Austinites, such as City Councilwoman Marjorie Cullen, believe that the light rail system is a waste of money and should not be expanded beyond the one train line that Austin currently has (A23).
Provide a direct quote to show your reader that this is in fact what the stakeholder said: Some Austinites, such as City Councilwoman Marjorie Cullen, believe that the light rail system is a waste of money and should not be expanded beyond the one train line that Austin currently has. Cullen asks, “Why throw good money after bad?” Instead, they suggest, “Let’s put more money into good roads” (A23).
Provide a source citation that will show your reader where to find the source: Some Austinites, such as City Councilwoman Marjorie Cullen, believe that the light rail system is a waste of money and should not be expanded beyond the one train line that Austin currently has. Cullen asks, “Why throw good money after bad?” Instead, she suggests, “Let’s put more money into good roads” (A23). Then the Works Cited page would have this entry:
Cullen, Marjorie. “Light Rail a Boondoggle.” Austin Independent 14 Feb. 2012. Web.

The above techniques will assure your skeptical academic audience that your summary is indeed fair and accurate. As an added bonus, these techniques will show your instructor that you have done your research and that you are not plagiarizing (copying) another person’s work without citation. Plagiarism is a serious academic concern because, when students copy other people’s writing, they do not learn to write themselves. If you always attribute quotes to the people who originally wrote or said these things, if you always cite your sources, and if you always show your instructors when you are directly quoting someone, you will look like a trustworthy source and a good student.

Knowing How Much to Quote

After you’ve documented your source, you will still have two more things to worry about: how much to quote and how to introduce the quote. Consult your handbook to learn the mechanical differences among different methods of quoting: a brief quote that selects a word or two, a full-sentence quote, and a block quote. Here, we offer examples of each and some advice about when to use them:

Brief Quote: Some Austinites, such as City Councilwoman Marjorie Cullen, believe that the light rail system is a waste of money and should not be expanded beyond the one train line that Austin currently has. They suggest putting “more money into good roads” (Cullen A23).
Full Sentence Quote: Some Austinites, such as City Councilwoman Marjorie Cullen, believe that the light rail system is a waste of money and should not be expanded beyond the one train line that Austin currently has. Cullen asks, “Why throw good money after bad? Let’s get off this crazy train. Let’s put more money into good roads” (A23).
Block Quote: Some Austinites, such as City Councilwoman Marjorie Cullen, believe that the light rail system is a waste of money and should not be expanded beyond the one train line that Austin currently has. Cullen asks, Why throw good money after bad? Let’s get off this crazy train. Let’s put more money into good roads. Roads—even toll roads—get people in outlying communities, such as Manor and Kyle, into the city. Roads will actually be used by Central Texas residents. I don’t know if you’ve been on the train lately, but, when I see it drive by, it’s always empty. And, finally, roads will allow Austin to grow the way citizens want. Train lines force urban growth where the train stations happen to be located. (A23)

Your decision about how much to quote should be guided by two questions: How much information do you want to provide about the source? And how much is your reader likely to question your summary’s accuracy? If you want to really capture the full content and the color of a writer’s prose, then the block quote is the way to go. If you’re writing to an audience who will skeptically interrogate your summary, then the block quote is preferred. If, on the other hand, you’re writing to a less skeptical audience, and you just want to get the basic message across, the brief quote will suffice.

Knowing How to Introduce a Quote

Earlier in this chapter, under the heading “Contextualizing,” we talked about introducing the speaker and the context to help your reader understand what’s at stake in a viewpoint. Here, when we mention “how to introduce a quote,” we mean something much more specific: the verbs and adverbs of attribution. These are the words that tell your reader how someone expresses himself. The block quote, mentioned above, does a good job of capturing the writer’s tone, but the block quote also requires you to reproduce a large chunk of writing. Using verbs and adverbs of attribution, you can convey tone without repeating so much of another person’s prose. The most common verb of attribution is say: Johnson says, “Toll roads are nothing but a way for developers to make money.” The verb of attribution allows you to present a source’s tone, how the writer says what they say. Other words can help you to accomplish this as well. Adverbs—such as sarcastically, indignantly, or calmly—can convey tone. You should use such words to show your reader the writer’s tone, but be fair. Certain adverbs and verbs of attribution will make a source seem less trustworthy. There’s a big difference between “Johnson petulantly retorts” and “Johnson disagrees.” The writer who uses phrasing like “petulantly retorts” seems less credible because they are less objective and childlike.