As an academic researcher and a dissertation coach, I am very familiar with the importance of citations. When explaining this to people, I say that what makes scholarship different is participation in what I call “the scholarly conversation.” That is, by positioning this research in the context of what came before, the scholar credits those who came before, demonstrates understanding of what came before and frames their new offering as they wish it to be framed for their readers.
My wife is an attorney and often a litigator. When filing briefs and motions with a court, she has to play a similar citation game. That is, the credibility of her arguments are increased because she demonstrates her understanding of what courts, legislatures and regulators have decided in in past and she similarly frames her argument as she wishes her readers (i.e., a judge and their clerks) to understand them.
Both of these uses of citations is intrinsically concervative. They look back in time for wisdom and authority from those who came before.
In matters of law, this makes a great deal of sense. We do not want the law to change frequently. Stability and predictability of the law and of the outcomes of judicial decisions is generally a good thing. In matters of scholarship, it makes a great deal of sense, as well. It allows scholars to build on a huge amount of previous — often complex and subtle — work of others without having to review all of it in depth. Rather, the scholar tells the reader where they can find support for a point or full explanation of something or others’ evidence for an idea.
However, conservatism is at odds with innovation. Innovation looks forward to something new, while conservative looks backward for the wisdom of the ages. To get around this, innovation often has to claim that they are restoring the true wisdom of the past that has been missed or misunderstood. I just had to do this, to some degree. Efforts to expand civil and level rights to new groups of people in this country often have to attempt a similar strategy (i.e., no, you’ve underread the t4th amendment. it actually suggests that we should…).
The problem with this conservative approach is that it stifles innovation. This may be a good thing. We do not want radical changes in contract law. We do not want to change what basically works and is widely depended upon. But it depends on the assumption that things do basically work and that when they could bear to be improved upon, there is relevant wisdom in the ancients that we can depend upon.
This is a challenge to the (RTD) Rigorous Test Development project. We have always said that content development is a black box that researchers and the literature have ignored. There simply is very little work on what the practice of assessment development is about, and virtually nothing about content development. ECD (Evidence Centered Design) really stops short of content development — or rather, it works around it, looking at test design and psychometrics, but not item development.
So, I wonder about assumptions about the value of citation-based arguments and the values they are based in. If things are not – in fact – on the right track, then is it an obstacle to necessary improvement?