Matters Concerning Citing in Academic Discourses

Abstract

There is a bone of disconcertion concerning citing in academia – a disconcertion that tends to denote that “old” citations and/or references do not generate significant and relevant credibility to an author’s academic discourse. This perception about old references then regularises what I view as an imprecise perception that “old” material makes a less consequential impact on the author’s discourse. Similarly, there is a defective assumption that “new” or “latest” citations or references warrant the author’s credibility in academic discourses. It is these conflicting, and yet competing presumptions that I view problematic. Therefore, my question is, should a particular citation be discredited on the basis that it is gauged “old”? However, I am aware that an “old” citation may suggest a researcher’s lack of extensive research or may be dependent on the researcher’s focus of study. However, what if, as old as it is, it remains applicable and contemporaneously significant? What if as old as it is, it can be figured as a point of departure for future scholarly discourses? Personally, this premise of “old” citation(s) leaves an outstanding gap between what is a credible and determinative citation, and how the philosophy of knowledge is generated from such citations.