Steven S Veach

As part of my Doctor of Theology program at Forge Theological Seminary I am completing several preliminary foundational “seminars,” including writing several articles on various topics.

This particular article focuses on the citation and formatting system known as Turabian, used by graduate students in History and Theology and other Humanities subjects. This particular assignment was adapted from an assignment in the Research and Writing RW-700 course manual for Master’s International University of Divinity’s PhD program.

So, let’s find out what citation and formatting will look like in my upcoming dissertation.

Overview of Turabian Formatting and Citation System

There are quite a few moving parts when it comes to a citation style. This is no less true when it comes to the Turabian Citation and Formatting Style, the preferred system for history and theological and other humanities subjects. Such as the title page requirements, with specific font size, positioning for the title, the sub title, the school or course affiliation, and the author’s name. It all has to be perfectly executed and this can often bring some additional stress and agitation for the researcher, especially if citation programs or word processors are not working correctly.

What Turabian lacks in simplicity it makes up for in fluidy and utility. One aspect I prefer Turabian for over the alternatives is the use of footnote or endnotes in a given document. For a brief period I preferred footnotes. But, after I started using Text to Speech software, I discovered how inferior footnotes are to endnotes (this has since been fixed with the use of hotkeys to quickly maneuver around footnotes in a given ebook or article). Overall, it does not seem as if endnotes are as popular as footnotes are, especially in academic articles and dissertations. I can see a benefit of footnotes in the reference is always on the same page as the quoted or referenced text, rather than needing to hop back and forth between the main body of the text and the end of the document. Especially when utilizing footnotes for clarifying information (literally additional notes), their use leans toward an imperative rather than personal choice.

Another interesting aspects of Turabian is the variety of the citation note format. Researchers can utilize the full bibliographic citation and abandon the need for a Bibliography, or they can instead opt for the standard notation. The option I choose is the short form citation which includes the last name of the author, a keyword from the title, and then the page number. In my mind, less is always more, and if it’s possible to cite with brevity, I will always opt for that.

Since I use the short form citation in the endnotes (or footnotes), I have to include a bibliography at the end of the document. I have to admit, I’ve always enjoyed putting these together. I’m not sure if it’s the hanging indent, or if it’s following the formatting rules as close as possible, or that the page just looks clean and professional once I’m finished. Who really knows. It might just be that a bibliography is a reminder to me that I was able to use all of these sources to support an idea or an argument of my own, and I was able to do it absolutely free. No need to get permission. No issues with royalty payments. Bibliographies are just great!< /p>

And speaking of citation, let me talk a bit about automated citation vs manual citation. I know it’s the hub-bub in this day and age to “let” the software do it for you. Programs like Zotero or Mendeley get all the press and Word and endless citation engines online will convert and configure anything you want into a “usable” reference, but I’ve really found such programs to be distractions at best and downright hostile to my production at worst. I tried Zotero for awhile. But there was just something about being tied into a system that I really didn’t feel comfortable with that made me uneasy about using it. Mendeley was terrible. So were all the other programs I tried. It just felt like an added, artificial step in the process that really didn’t belong.

Through trial and error, especially during the tail end of my Master’s degree, I discovered a system that works really well for me. It is 1 part automation and 2 parts manual entry. I’ve described it elsewhere in assignments for my ThD. Basically, for each source I review, I create a summary page in my Research Notebook (a digital file in Scrivener). This summary includes the bibliographic information at the top (which is formatted by a Firefox plugin), notes in list form with short-form citations included for each note. Not only does this work for any given project I’m currently working on, but that summary remains in my Research Notebook indefinitely and may come in handy during a routine context search. Original copies of the source are stored in duplicated long-term storage drives for safe keeping.

Issues with Turabian

That is not to say there are not issues with the Turabian format. To be honest, it’s a system that is widely used in academia yet still has just as many conflicting examples online on how to use it correctly. Some sites say you should use lbid when citing the same source more than once, while other sites say this is forbidden. Some say to double space the bibliography while others claim not to. The list goes on. In fact, I find no use in multiple citation formats to begin with. Pick one and stick with it throughout academia, even in popular books. Just make it universal. It’s not like there is a method or a meaning behind the madness. It’s just people being people and trying to corner a market. Get over it already. All this confusion just turns students off and makes them want to run from academia kicking and screaming.

Another issue I have is the necessity for citation in the first place. What is the line between original idea and using another’s work? Who decides? Is there really anything original anymore? Can’t we finally agree there is nothing new under the sun? Wait, shouldn’t I cite that since it didn’t come from me? But, despite this, I still enjoy citing sources, even though I often feel like I have no idea what I’m really doing when I’m doing it.

Lastly, I want to talk a little about the stick vs the carrot. We want students to use citations, to cite their work. But, the argument I always had with this was never knowing why I was being told to do something. Most of the time my teachers or professors just said this is the way it is, do it because it’s required. That was the first and best way of making sure I wouldn’t do it. If you don’t explain yourself, if you don’t provide realistic and rational justification, then I’m going to fight you tooth and nail until the day I die, because I have no interest in relenting to you, on principle. So next time just provide some explanation so students know why they’re doing whatever it is they’re being asked to do. Oh, wait. I forgot. That is not allowed any longer in the insanity we live in today.

Conclusions

The reality is, I have no choice what citation format I use. It is an established system for my current Seminary and rightly so since most of Theology is done in Turabian or Chicago. I do enjoy it over the other styles. I guess that’s fitting.

Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Seventh Edition: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers. (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing). U Of Chicago P, 2007.

Courtney, Lakeisha. “Turabian Style Formatting 9th Edition Tutorial.” 2020. Smith Library. Luther Rice College & Seminary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BftLhu7GmsI.