Mccracken: I think my citation practices, it kind of depends on where I am in the writing process. But if I'm thinking about something that's ready for publication, I have a couple of different go-tos. So for me, there are those sources that I'm integrating, that I'm really only going to cite as a parenthetical. I'm going to give you a name. I'm going to give you a year. And I'm just going to make some reference to particular scholars as that move to say, I've read this work, I'm familiar with this, I know this conversation, and I know that this is where this conversation needs to start. So that's really the first way that I'll cite it.

And then there are those scholars where what they said is so groundbreaking or so important to what I'm trying to do that I want to do a more thorough discussion, not maybe a full blown literature review-- but that often happens. But I really want to walk my reader through that study. But I think, for me, the most important is those scholars that I agree with and those scholars that I disagree with. Those are the ones that I really want to do a direct quote or direct citation because I want to make sure that I'm clear about what they said and then that I'm clear about am I rebutting this, am I adding to it, am I extending it.

So I really want to capture those original ideas just to make sure that I'm accurate and that my reader's accurate. And typically, what happens is sometimes I'll have to write myself out of what I thought I wanted to say because you're reading along, and you have that idea in your head that this scholar said this. And then, you go back and you look at that citation. And you're like, oh, no. They really didn't.

So for me, it's always that kind of-- I like to start doing that very early on in the drafting process because I've caught myself a couple of times. Because I had made an assumption based on something else that I had read that was actually not in this article that I really wanted to use in a particular piece.