Hi all,
I have a bit of a technical question about constructing narrative while writing as a historian (I guess it also applies to other humanities).
This never really occurred to me as an issue during undergrad and graduate school while writing my thesis, but I have noticed now as I revise my thesis that at times I write sentences that contain both the factual events etc contained in the source I cite in the footnote at the end of the sentence AND my interpretation of the source I cite.
For example, if I describe the relation between Event A and Event B, I might first describe the general context. Then follows Sentence A that describes event A and cites source A describing event A. Then follows sentence B that says: 'In reaction (to event A), Event B happened. That is followed by a footnote that describes event B.
My question about this example is about the two words "In Reaction." The source I cite at the end of sentence B does only describe event B. I derive the connection between the two events and that event B is a reaction to event A from the general context. Thus "In Reaction" is my interpretation of the causality between the two events.
Now if one is really squeamish I guess one could say that by not separating "In Reaction" from Sentence B I mix interpretation and factual evidence and some readers could be misled that the source I cite at the end of sentence B also includes that event B happened in reaction to event A.
The same kind of situation seems to happen at times in my writing when I have a sentence that is built like this: [Interpretation], which [relative clause with factual evidence] [Footnote with evidence for events/facts in relative clause].
My question is whether this style of writing is acceptable at all? It certainly does not occur often in my writing, but it does at times. No one who has read my writing really has ever said anything about this. Although it is hard to check the writing of other historians with regards to this question, as I do not have the sources to check in most cases, I have noticed that other historians do this kind of "mixing" at times as well (Some even seem to simply cite sources at the end of paragraphs that clearly contain both factual statements and interpretation). I also wonder what having to interrupt sentences to clearly separate interpretation and facts 100% all the time would do to the flow of the narrative.
Still this is a concern now and I would like to know what others think. Is this acceptable and I overthink things, is it sloppy writing or is it completely unacceptable?
Thanks for the help (and for reading this long post).
[Crosspost from r/AskAcademia: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/8ay0db/question_for_historiansfootnotes_and/]
[edit: recomposed a bit]
Some journals and publishers require that you hold all footnotes for the end of a paragraph (or a quote) at which time you 'bucket' everything before, in sequence. That's the model you've seen and mention there, I assume, and in that instance the author generally has no choice, but even then few journals allow for fine-grained citation or non-citation.
Really, there is no way to disambiguate the factual material from the interpretative with perfect reliability without (as a reader) checking on the sources, and it's not fair to expect it to be done that way; usually if you're using another author's interpretation, you mention that fact in the text (usually) because it's a building block of your own contribution. If in a particular case you are clearly making a statement the other source would not make, or might oppose, that's also the moment for text in a footnote:
^^4 [Citation]. [Author] advances a different interpretation, but did not have access to [information] at the time.
Normally you don't need to say anything. If someone chases down the footnote, they'll see what was said and what was not; it's usually also clear from your introduction and thesis that you have a particular analytical thrust, and it's not likely to be simply lifted from some other author. At the same time, if you cite something but misrepresent it, and that's caught, the result can be very bruising. The only other way to do it would be to use footnote numbers inside specific sentences, after phrases, which is not only clunky but it doesn't help you unless you also note every time something is your interpretation with a textual footnote.
In short, yes, you're overthinking it. A good writer will try to make their language clear so as not to muddle how much they got from a source (or didn't), and a skilled academic reader will know how to tell and how to chase down the information. Chances are you're already doing the writer's part just fine without really knowing it. If it is really supremely bothersome to you, then unlink the sentences so that your interpretation is always in its own sentence. Normally we assume that the interpretation itself, if broken out conceptually, is your own; it is after all the contribution your thesis defines as being yours.