How do we cite types and sources of knowledge beyond the usual suspects when citational expectations, infrastructure, and norms make that difficult?

Studies (and common collective experience for some of us) have consistently shown bias in who is cited in terms of gender and race, what forms of knowledge are cited, and how citation acts as what Sarah Ahmed calls a “screening techniques:: how certain bodies take up spaces by screening out the existence of others” (Ahmed 2013).

CLEAR’s working group on citational politics grapples with the methods and tactics of citing differently–different people (which search engines can’t always find), different kinds of knowledge (which are often not peer reviewed), from places that are not in the global north (which are now always written in English), in the usual places (where citing differently has high stakes, such as in PhD comprehensive examinations). The working group is currently creating a series of blog posts about some of the challenges of citing differently and some tactics and resources to overcome them. Four methodological themes we’ve encountered in this project so far are:

• In order to cite differently and diversely, how do we identify difference in a good way (true, equitable, ethical, accurate) that accounts for nuance, people/cases that don’t fit, incompleteness of categories?
• How do we deal with the scale and ethics of organizational structures such as the tension of place, universalism, generalizability, and the cannon?
• The extensive identification of of systemic barriers to citing differently. How might we maneuver them?
• What does success in this project look like? How do we evaluate our efforts? How is good achieved in the practice of citing differently?

Writing

We’ve created a blog post series to document some of our efforts and learning.

Molly Rivers, Waking up to the politics of citation
Kaitlyn Hawkins, The researchers that search engines make invisible
Max Liboiron, Firsting in Research

Reading, too

Citation is not just based on writing practices, though. It also stems from reading. Max Liboiron and Deondre Smiles have embarked on #Collabrary: a methodological experiment for reading with reciprocity, where they read four texts a week and write summaries of each text on Twitter. But more than a Cliff’s Notes exercise, they’re aiming to change the way they read– rather than extractive reading where readers scoop out the bits they need, they want to treat each text as a collaborative conversation with the authors, the Twitter community, and each other. They are seeking to read with humility, reciprocity, and in good relations. Search for the hashtag #Collabrary (Collaborative Library) for more.

Bibliography

This work draws on considerable existing work on citational politics (which is different from but overlaps with the subfield of citational metric studies). This bibliography is 53.4% percent women authors, based on Dr. Jane Summer’s  Gender Balance Assessment Tool. A count by hand that includes women and nonbinary genders has it at 57%.

• Adams, Carol. (2021). This thread reflects on a recurring problem in discussing the history of #animalstudies, critical animal studies, & human-animal studies. Twitter.
• Ahmed, Sara. (2013). Making feminist points. Feminist killjoys, 9/11.
• Anderson, Jand, & Christen, Kimberly. (2019). Decolonizing attribution: traditions of exclusion. Journal of Radical Librarianship, 5, 113-52.
• Block, Sharon. (2020). Erasure, Misrepresentation and Confusion: Investigating JSTOR Topics on Women’s and Race Histories. DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly, 14(1).
• Burgess, Hana, Cormack, Donna, and Reid, Papaarangi. (2021). Calling forth our pasts, citing our futures: An envisioning of a Kaupapa Mäori citational practice. MAI: A New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship 10.1.8.
• Cite Black Women Collective. (2017-present). Home page and podcast.
• Czerniewicz, Laura, Sarah Goodier, and Robert Morrell. (2017). Southern knowledge online? Climate change research discoverability and communication practices. Information, Communication & Society 20(3): 386-405.
• Dworkin, Jordan D., Kristin A. Linn, Erin G. Teich, Perry Zurn, Russell T. Shinohara, and Danielle S. Bassett. (2020). The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. Nature neuroscience, 23(8), 918-926.
• Liboiron, Max. (2020). Exchanging, in Transmissions: Critical Tactics for Making and Communicating Research. Edited by Kat Jungnickel. MIT Press: 89-108.
• McKittrick, Katherine. (2020). “Footnotes,” in Dear Science and Other Stories. Duke University Press.
• Mott, Carrie, and Daniel Cockayne. (2017). Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement’. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(7), 954-973.
• Mott, Carrie, and Daniel Cockayne. (2018). Conscientious disengagement and whiteness as a condition of dialogue. Dialogues in Human Geography, 8(2), 143-147.
• Ni, Chaoqun, Elise Smith, Haimiao Yuan, Vincent Larivière, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. (2021). The gendered nature of authorship. Science Advances, 7(36), eabe4639.
• Te Punga Somerville, Alice. An Indigenous scholar’s request to other scholars. FaceBook notes.
• Tuck, Eve, K. Wayne Yang, and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández. (2015). Citation Practices Challenge. Critical Ethnic Studies.
• Whyte, Kyle and Sarah Hunt. (2018). The politics of citation: Is the peer review process biased against Indigenous academics? CBC Unreserved.

Based on Jane Summer’s Gender Balance Assessment Tool, (GBAT) the readings of this bibliography are approximately 53% woman-authored.