APA Style: Benefits of Practice

As a student, it is easy to forget that in academia, knowledge is more than power. Analyzing, creating, and synthesizing new knowledge is how professional academics make their livings. A familiar term is “publish or perish.” It is thus very important to credit the originator of new ideas, words, and other concepts in scholarship. Part of the problem may originate in the fact that so many people today are used to reading journalism online which does not always clearly cite the source for an idea. Yes, a periodical or blog post may contain a hyperlink, but more often than not, that link may be broken or the reader may simply not bother to click on it.
As a result, online sources are not a good template for how academic research should be conducted. Instead, appropriate citation models are needed. One such model is that of the American Psychological Association (APA). APA methods involve citing the name of the author of the text that was used to retrieve a particular piece of evidence along with the date as a means of identification, as well as including a reference section giving the full information for the text. This encourages researchers whose interest was piqued while reading one document to read the original articles it was based upon. There is also a distinction made between paraphrasing, which merely refers to a particular idea in the original, cited text, and directly quoting. Quotes must be enclosed in actual quotation marks and cite the specific page from which the quote was derived. Again, this encourages specificity and demands that the original authors are given credit for their hard work.
Although this may sound relatively simple and straightforward, one complication, as noted by Bartzis & Hayner (2009) is that even within the academic community itself, there is considerable debate between nations regarding what constitutes plagiarism versus sharing, especially in an institutional context between students. Di Maria (2009) makes a particular distinction between high-context cultures where supporting one another is expected, including sharing exam questions, providing assistance on written work, and other actions which would be considered blatantly dishonest at a United States university. However, while this may explain different academic standards and attitudes on a one-on-one basis, it is still not an excuse for plagiarism. First of all, students are learning how to function in an international environment where researchers at universities are dependent upon capitalizing upon their academic work as a source of professional value. It is not fair to deny scholars from other nations expected credit.
The best method is to have universal standards that function across a wide range of academic contexts, in a variety of international settings. The APA standard is useful because it sets very specific guidelines for when information should be cited and how. Its focus upon the date of publication is also useful in the sciences because it enables readers to evaluate the quality of the evidence, based upon its timeliness. Researchers may also publish different articles at different times, all of which are cited within an article, and merely citing the last name of the researcher is not enough to fully contextualize the argument.
Of course, no method is perfect, regarding citation methods, and many are implemented in different disciplines, spanning from MLA to Harvard, in a way that deviates from the APA standard. All share a common feature of distinguishing paraphrasing, direct quotes, and information which is not common knowledge and thus must be cited. Based upon both an ethical and a means-end analysis, which, according to Lindblom (2010), is the ultimate standard one must set for any policy, including academic policy, a consistent citation method must be embraced within a university to ensure that researchers are treated fairly by the students who study them.

References

Bartzis, O. L., & Hayner, A. (2009, April). 'Cheating' or 'sharing'? Academic ethics across cultures. Slides presented at the AACRAO Conference, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://handouts.aacrao.org/am09/finished/W0345p_O_Leeman%20Bartzis.pdf

Bryson, J. M. (2010). The future of public and nonprofit strategic planning in the United States. Public Administration Review, 70(s1), s255-s267.

Di Maria, D. L. (2009). Plagiarism from a cross-cultural perspective. Retrieved from http://www.al-jamiat.com/college-lifestyle/plagiarism-crosscultural-perspective/#

IParadigms, LLC. (2014). Plagiarism.org. Retrieved from http://www.plagiarism.org

Jaramillo, F., Nixon, R., & Sams, D. (2005). The effect of law enforcement stress on organizational commitment. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 28(2), 321-336.

Lindblom, C. E. (2010). The science of "muddling" through. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 12(1), 70-80.
Critical Thinking and Belief Perseverance

It is true that I can be a very opinionated person. I cannot entirely apologize for this fact. But although I may be a passionate person, I am aware of the fact that I need to exercise my critical faculty, particularly when engaged in scholarship. A good example of this is when I am reading a book that I particularly like. When taking an English class, it is not enough to merely say that you like it; it is also necessary to analyze the book’s historical context and structure. Particularly in the sciences, however, what seems like common sense belief may not actually be valid, based upon empirical evidence. People tend to make generalizations based upon their own, personal anecdotal experience. For example, if they seem to get better after eating chicken soup, they assume chicken soup helps all colds.
While this is a harmless example of beliefs being generated from personal experience, others are not so harmless. Many people have been convinced to forego vaccinations, for example, despite considerable evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. A website that looks credible and publishes scary stories can convince people that vaccines are unsafe. According to Douglas (2010), there are two common paradoxical notions, one that people are more inclined to believe things than not believe them, being social animals inclined to believe friends and so-called experts. They are also resistant to change, which can make them unwilling to give up or change beliefs. Once a belief is adopted, all of the individual’s experiences are shaped through a cognitive filter to conform to that worldview. Thus, if someone hears more anecdotal stories about vaccines being unsafe, they are more inclined to believe these stories than scientific evidence that vaccines are helpful.
There are certain aspects of the scientific method that are counterintuitive to how we perceive the world as human beings. Science focuses on general population trends. But people are more inclined to remember anecdotes about friends and to generalize from the specific to the general, rather than the general to the specific. Belief perseverance becomes irrational when despite considerable evidence about a general trend that is established in fact, the believer still stubbornly holds to that belief.
It should be noted that common sense, science, personal beliefs, and critical thinking all contain some value and are necessary to live in the world. Common sense is needed to ensure that we do not need explicit instructions in the absence of concrete information. We must make some generalizations; for example, I do not know the science of how my iPhone has an alarm within it but I must proceed on the reasonable expectation that if I set an alarm one day, it will ring the next. Personal beliefs, such as a fondness for a family tradition, are acceptable when they are contained within the realm of the harmless and the subjective. But when making decisions with lasting consequences, such as when doing research or even when making professional decisions, it is important to apply a critical eye, according to Paul & Elder (2013), clarifying one’s own thinking demands specificity of the person doing the thinking. Rather than making decisions on a gut impulse, it is vital to clearly articulate one’s thoughts, boil down the issue in question to a single point, and to ask questions. Finally, it is also important to take an inventor of one’s biases.
Good examples of common biases are being prejudiced against an opinion because of a dislike of the individual who holds a similar perspective, or worse, because or prejudice against an entire group of people. Even being overtired and stressed can interfere with the ability to make logical decisions in a split-second fashion. Knowing thyself is an important part of self-knowledge. Knowing one’s prejudices is part of knowing one’s self.
References

Douglas, N. L. (2000). Enemies of critical thinking: Lessons from social psychology research. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 129–144.

Friedman, S. (2004). Learning to make more effective decisions: Changing beliefs as a prelude to action. The Learning Organization, 11(2/3), 110–128.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2013). Becoming a critic of your thinking. Retrieved from: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/becoming-a-critic-of-your-thinking/478

Foundation for critical thinking. (2013). The Critical Thinking Community. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/

Foundation for critical thinking. (2013). The Role of Socratic Questioning in Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-role- of-socratic-questioning-in-thinking-teaching-learning/522