5 Discussion and Reflections

Many scholars have acknowledged the structural limitations that created an academic sphere lacking in minority voices, yet few have presented ways to combat that lack of representation. Our guidelines actively work to integrate more diverse voices into academic research, and revere varied experiences and knowledge forms as essential parts of fully understanding any subject. Knowledge is richer when it is more inclusive and accessible. Particularly in education, the very business of knowledge production, academics should be concerned with giving students as many tools as possible to bring in more diverse voices, and to connect students more deeply with their subject matter. Our team created a set of guidelines to allow students to cite their personal experience, or interviews they conducted; as well as an accompanying set of teaching tools, to help instructors easily integrate discussions about knowledge production and valuation into their classes. We created this tool because we wanted to make integrating underrepresented perspectives easier, to create personal connections between students and their work, and because our research has shown that self-citation has a positive impact on students who use it.

In assessing and improving the self-citation guidelines, our team tried to stay true to the ideals of the guidelines themselves, drawing from a wide pool for feedback. We interviewed or surveyed undergraduate and graduate students, as well as instructors, librarians, and education scholars. The main goals in our assessment were to discern whether there was a demand for expanded citation methods, and whether students and instructors saw a benefit in introducing them. We also sought out concerns and suggestions for improvement as a way to integrate more voices into the actual formation of the guidelines, and to make them easier to use and understand.

Understanding the demand for expanded guidelines consists of understanding the limits of existing citation methods, and determining if there are students and instructors seeking what self-citation adds to those existing methods. There is currently no way to cite an informal interview or a student’s own experience in a piece of writing.^[1] Existing methods cover published, or recorded oral histories, and formal interviews, but see personal experience and student conducted interviews as information to be, “referenced in text or a note”^[2], not worthy of citation. This creates an exclusivity around whose experiences are represented and valued in academia. The lack of representation in social science citation has been well documented in philosophy^[3], Communication^[4], Anthropology^[5], and legal studies^[6]. While social science is becoming a more diverse field, its diversity is often concentrated in students or early career professionals who are less frequently cited.^[7] Even when there are more diverse options to cite from, the politics of citation are such that older articles and authors who have been cited more, are seen as more credible and better sources to use. Even those within academia often see citations narrowly, as protections against plagiarism and as a reference to evidentiary support, but such a framework misses the power of citation.

Citation serves three main purposes: it proves the source of information so that interested parties may seek out further information, it shows credence and respect for the source of the information,  and it works as a barrier to plagiarism. Self citation is an important practice beyond existing methods, because simply stating information an author created in the text, fails to provide the same respect and traceability that a citation provides. This is significant because the respect and traceability aspects of a citation have the greatest impact on how much visibility and value an author or piece of research can gain in their field of study. When we work within the existing framework, we are valuing knowledge by how well it adheres to rules and conventions, how it re-affirms and fits with existing research. When we expand that framework, we create new opportunities for out of the box thinking, to boost voices, and careers of those who deserve recognition regardless of their credentials, and we adopt rules and rhetoric which counteract racism and sexism within education.

Interviews and surveys with students and instructors fulfilled the practical side of understanding demand, in proving that there was a desire for self-citation among its target audience. A majority of instructors polled said they had encountered students interested in citing their own experience and more than three quarters had encountered students interested in citing interviews they had conducted themselves.^[8] In course evaluations from students who had been part of classes which taught using our guidelines, no student respondent thought that the guidelines were not helpful. 66% of students polled explicitly stated that the guidelines were a helpful tool, and all the remaining students noted that they had not used the guidelines and didn’t feel the question applied to them. Even still, of those who stated they did not use the guidelines, 60% specified that they nonetheless thought the guidelines were a good idea, even if they hadn’t been able to use them. Instructors were, however, more hesitant about whether or not the guidelines would be helpful. Half of the instructors polled thought the guidelines would be helpful, and the rest primarily expressed a desire to review the guidelines more comprehensively before making a determination or voiced concerns which will be delved into in the latter part of this discussion. Beyond the aggregate, each instructor who participated in a longform interview and was able to thoroughly review and discuss the guidelines, requested they be able to use our guidelines once finished and share them with their departments in Ethnic, international, sociology, and education studies. All of this makes a strong case that there is a demand for self-citation guidelines from their target audience.

Establishing demand is a reasonably low burden of proof, but our team was able to establish that both students and teachers who used self-citation practices found them to be beneficial in fulfilling many different educational goals. “ Students frequently mention what they remember most from a course […] is not any particular reading, but the analytical tools they learn to apply to their own lives.”^[9] First and foremost, we believe that our guidelines are an essential addition to existing options because they are a tool which can be used in academia, and in daily life. It is no secret that what we are taught influences what we think, which in turn shapes the way we speak, act, and treat others. Our tool goes to the heart of that process in order to change the way we think about representation at each level. Without the integration of diverse lived experiences, we miss something. Rhetorical disconnection from subjects can, and has, led to dehumanization in policy and in greater society.^[10]Our guidelines offer a way to break down hierarchical constructs of expertise and deservingness to value knowledge beyond the credentials or job title attached to it. The archetype of the unbiased academic observer is a ruse. All people, scholars or otherwise, bring unconscious biases into any observation. Therefore it is important for students to practice acknowledging the way their experiences inform their work, and to allow subjects with lived experiences to speak for themselves. In this way, self-citation gives students the, “power to disrupt master narratives, and […] exercise agency over their stories”^[11]

One student’s use of the guidelines illustrates this ability particularly well. Julia^[12], a mexican-american student cited her personal experiences, and the experiences of her family members in a paper about the U.S.-Mexico border. The experiences she cited stood as a counterpoint to the Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement website. She said,

“ People don’t have personal experience in the articles we read. But I can use [my personal experience] to make the case in my paper. The stuff I cite[ed, my] family experience is not what you would find in academic papers… It’s important to represent how I experience the world because of my background.”

This student was able to subvert master narratives about the experiences of immigrants to broaden the scope of knowledge in balancing and humanizing ways that are essential to, and often lost in academic writings about immigration.

Instructors who had practiced allowing self-citation said that not only did students who used them come to respect the viewpoints of others more, but they often gained confidence in their own perspectives. This could indicate that as one shifts away from rigid, meritocratic conceptions of expertise in others, they may also become more open to the value of their own point of view. In this way self-citation accomplishes one of the most difficult challenges of education, particularly in social sciences: to not only change the way students think, but also the way they feel.^[13]

Our guidelines also align with more standard learning goals like student performance. Every single self-citation user interviewed noted the value of connecting subject matter to personal, or real life examples. One education scholar expressed that this connection runs deeper, and affects student performance as well stating that, “it is a truism in writing that students do better when connected to their work. […] it’s an evidence based teaching strategy [used] in many subjects.”^[14] The power of personal connection was further bolstered by the input of other professors, and students, as well as outside sources.^[15] Several students felt that integrating their own, or someone else’s experiences motivated them to work harder, while other students described being more interested in the subject matter and driven to do more projects centering on the knowledge they created.^[16] One professor noted that students who use knowledge they created, “develop a stronger voice in their work and […are] able to more deeply connect abstract theory, or aggregate-level characteristics to the micro-level”. Outside of our own research, a recent study surveyed undergraduate students, from several institutions asking students about what makes a writing assignment meaningful. The authors found that the existence of a personal connection between author and subject, or a connection to peers, family, or community were the most likely to have a meaningful impact on students.^[17] When students find work meaningful and engaging, they are more likely to retain the information and perform better.

Addressing the concerns of our target audience was the most important part of assessing our guidelines, and creating a living document that could be widely and easily used. Three broad concerns coalesced out of all those posed to our research team by interviewees. First, students and instructors wondered why these guidelines were necessary, second, many expressed concerns about how to balance the risks of self-citation, Finally, students and instructors were both challenged by how to encourage students and instructors to use personal citation in the face of decades of classical western education which teaches students, “not to use I statements, because [they] detract from [an] argument.”^[18] We found that in reviewing feedback, those who had never considered allowing students to create their own knowledge, understandably raised the most questions about its viability, while students and professors who had used them bore insightful takeaways, and all expressed that they found the experience beneficial. One student stated that the guidelines allowed for the creation of a, “dialogue of people’s experiences”^[19] which we will attempt to create here as well.

The most prevalent concern of students and instructors was about how to balance the risks of self-citation. From one instructor who, “worr[ied] about the cooption of our guidelines by white supremacists […and] holocaust deniers”^[20], to a student who said they might never use the guidelines because they feared unintentionally misrepresenting an interview subject, or over representing their own experience;^[21] Students were often challenged by the question of how to maintain credibility when integrating non-academic sources, and curtail bias in using personal data. These fears were most simply addressed by one professor who said that, “credibility is not an issue when it comes to self citation, because it is always a piece of evidence which requires further support.” It is essential for self-citation to be part of a discussion, to bring a greater variety of voices into conversation with one another, in order to enrich the research being done, rather than using it as the crux of an argument. Encouraging students to be conscious of their sources through source counting, or auditing for diversity of source type; or author gender, race, and educational attainment, are concrete ways to help students create balance in their use of sources.^[22] These skills are crucial when integrating any source into research, whether or not a source is self-cited. It is also important that the practice of self-citation be integrated into a course along with education about theory, knowledge production and the politics of citation so that students understand the necessity of creating balance among sources, and acknowledging biases in their writing. The course outline we created to accompany the guidelines provides instructors with some ideas and guidance on how to introduce self-citation responsibly.^[23] We also created consent forms in which students record the contact information of interviewees as another way to quell some fears about falsified data.^[24] At the same time, it is essential to note that many of the credibility risks one might attribute to self-citation already pervade the existing citation guidelines. Falsified data, misinterpreted data, skewed data, and bias are all issues which occur within the existing parameters.^[25]

Another major source of apprehension in using our guidelines was that many students have been conditioned against self-citation throughout their schooling. One student stated, “ It is so ingrained in my writing that I’m not supposed to use I statements, because it detracts from an argument, or isn’t considered as credible”.^[26] One instructor who uses self-citation in their classes offered an apt response, “ Students are often skeptical when […] encourage[ed to] include such info[rmation], which I attribute to socialization into a very western-centric, classical education system that defines scientific knowledge and evidence in very narrow ways. I find that many students are interested in using this kind of data, but it is so far outside of their comfort zone that many don’t end up including it in their papers […] but that is easily cleared up by providing guidelines.”^[27] The challenge of what students have been conditioned to believe through years of schooling is another reason why combining the introduction of the guidelines with education about the politics of citation, and knowledge production is essential. We encourage instructors to use suggested reading assignments, or conduct an in class discussion to take students where they are in understanding citation practices, and move towards less restrictive definitions of knowledge and expertise. Students are likely to feel some discomfort with such a change, so providing opportunities to ask questions and practice in class are important to give students the confidence and understanding to properly cite themselves. Using in-class writing workshops throughout the writing process, can also provide more apprehensive students with an opportunity to check in with one another and see how others are integrating knowledge they created. A more subtle side of students’ apprehension in using self-citation, is that many struggle to see the value in their own voices. Much of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education teaches students subjugation. The student is often situated as the object of information, and never a subject in communication.^[28] Encouraging students to go beyond their roles as the receivers of knowledge to its creators, requires actively engaging with and challenging student perceptions about the value of their experiences and communities. This work can yield students more confident in themselves, and prepare them to do independent, qualitative research work as their schooling progresses, and beyond.

The work we have done here creates a compelling argument for integrating self-citation practices into undergraduate education as well as lessons on knowledge production, and citation politics. However, our study was limited by a fairly small data pool, with feedback limited to instructors from only two universities, and students from one university. Moreover, the student feedback we received came from several courses with reasonably similar subject matter. To better understand the value of the practices we espouse in this article, we encourage our colleagues to pursue further research with larger and more diverse data sets. We are confident that there are many opportunities to expand upon and further support the claims we have made.

One potentially interesting and enriching avenue for further research in this area would be to explore some of the neuroscience behind what makes interviews and personal narratives powerful catalysts for learning and motivating people to act. Some research has been done on the power of personal narratives to change the brain. These studies focused on making effective public service announcements, or charitable campaigns, but researchers have yet to bring these ideas into academia. In one study of storytelling and brain chemistry, emotional stories caused the release of oxytocin in the brain which elicited an empathetic response in listeners. After the stories were told, listeners with higher levels of oxytocin were significantly more likely to make a charitable donation. Not only that, but those who had a neurochemical reaction to a personal story noted feeling more motivated, uplifted, and connected to those around them. If these outcomes hold true in an academic setting, then they form a strong argument for the integration of more educational practices that connect students to personal narratives for learning purposes.^[29]