Why Citation matters: Ideas on a feminist approach to research.
Christina Templin (SoSe 2021) – Freie Universitat Berlin
Reading the introduction and understanding Templin’s positionality on the hows and difficulties of citations and where that affects their research and academic career. Understanding the realism that hierarchies are everywhere in academia and being a queer individual, this introduced provided a sense of liberation and risk to Templin’s career and research.
The idea that citation has a background in ‘gameplay’ and ‘favouritism’ is supported by the following quote;
‘Carrie Mott & Daniel Cockayne even point to “citation cartels”, where authors agree to only cite each other’s work to boost their impact in academia, leading to the overall exclusion of particular voices and bodies from what Bell Hooks calls a “white heteromasculine hegemony” (Mott/Cokayne 2017, p. 955).’
It begs the question of the authority behind research and enquiries, can tools like ‘Turnitin’ not pinpoint favouritism or tunnel vision when it comes to repetitive citation acknowledgement, thus creating a bias towards career progression/ research advancement.
I particularly like the end of this introduction on Templin’s evidence and acknowledgement towards her argument using Sarah Admed’s book: ‘Living as a Feminist’ (2017) as a core structural platform to question the ideas of other’s work and how Admed’s argument shows the effects on academic politics and hierarchies of knowledge.
The other insight to this introduction is the finishing touch to positionality and how Templin’s own journey in research/academia also undergoes a rigorous form of questions.
“I will use this also to reflect on some of my own work, asking myself, who am I citing and why? Lastly, I will try to elaborate some conclusions on how these questions impact the research that is done today and how we can improve on the challenges that were mentioned, moving towards a more inclusive citation practice that takes into account various forms of knowledge that have previously been excluded.”
Using this approach in my own enquiry could bring a more personal tone to why I am pursuing the research, as this year during my pgcert I have been asking myself similar questions.
Sara Admed’s blurb is world-building in the sense of how this paper was presented and acknowledged, it set the mood, and provided the core details of “feminist theory as “world-making” (Ahmed 2017, p. 14)”. I feel that this is the most realistic way to set the tone of the article and how the enquiry was set to move forward, the area that I need to consider is the who and the why of my citations. The only viable concern I can bring to the table is my lack of experience and being ‘blindly trapped’ by the male white voices of epistemological citations.
The answer is to walk with the concern and the approach to the question, who is this person, who do they quote and see if I can see any sort of pattern in their own citations.
The invisibility of alternative epistemologies was an interesting middle section of this article, it established the hierarchy of whiteness towards people of colour in academia. Bringing awareness towards citation cartels and this area of subjugated knowledge which is labelled as the contrast to traditional epistemologies, this body of research announces that black feminist scholars have turned to alternative ways of producing and validating knowledge.
The middle part also acknowledges the community behind black voices and how sole research is built upon a body of work or voices to solidify the richness and validation of their work. The emphasis on lived experiences and using the connected intersections of dialogue, which ‘Hooks’ describes as the resistance to domination is through the humanizing act of speech rather than the just subject or object.
Moving towards a more inclusive system of citation brings the note from ‘Mock/Cockayene’ to advocate a ‘conscientious practice of citation’. Following up on the quote below that engaged my train of thought on this topic altogether;
“how do we rethink citation as a progressive technology rather than one that serves to make invisible particular bodies and voices?” (p. 965)
How do I use citation as a progressive technology, do I need to research progressive technology?
In this part, they also mention the engagement of other voices, who are these other voices and how we consider these in our work. The value of citation in my mind is normally from the standpoint of published material or research. But I would then have to ask the question of what is published work and what can I use in an ‘other’ acknowledgement.
Considering my blog as a sense of ‘self-publishing’ can I be a voice of otherness in this scenario and that which I find across my cohort or further?
“Instead of understanding citation as a metric of influence and impact, we outline practical and conceptual ways to resist these neoliberal leanings by thinking conscientiously about citation as a form of engagement.” – Mock/Cockayene 2017, p964
Templin furthered this investigation with a series of ‘found’ questions; could I also use these questions in my own research to build a more inclusive citation.
- How does this list of references situate my work in the field? With what kind of scholarship am I aligning my work?
- From what nations, cultures and classes do my references come? To what extent do they represent Euro- or Anglo- centric ways of knowing and being?
- What is the gender mix of my reference list?
- Whose voices are silent? Whose scholarship have I ignored or excluded?
To take anything from this research paper is to spend enough time analysing who and what you are reading, the context of where they are from and how this is placed in academia. I have to build a series of questions or hybrids from the ones above to challenge my concepts or further in research.