Bulletin Editor's Column - March 2013 by Patricia Santogrossi
|
In various company settings, I try to remind presenters that if they cite a source verbally, they should also do it on the slide that contains the material. Our presentations are often stored on sites where others may see and use them. Not only is it important to give credit for the work of others, but also for the inspiration that one found to apply to the conclusions made in new work. Though original authors may never know, we have to take care not to appear to be passing off the work of others as our own. Way more importantly, what we are doing with proper citation is to share our learnings with others in an open and honest way. For a recent publication in the December issue, the right to use all of the figures was sought officially. All were granted. For two of the figures a fee of $30 plus tax had to be paid to satisfy the copyrights since the items were to be published. Many times I may find that conclusions are based on exposure to some presentation that the presenter and maybe others have seen or read and it is assumed or implied that everyone in the audience knows to whose material a conclusion refers. That is seldom the case. I recall an HGS lecturer of excellent reputation who cited a bit of nomenclature, in a field I had some likelihood of knowing, that was completely unfamiliar to me. He neither defined the term in his talk, owned the term as of his own coining, nor did he cite the source for the term. I asked him about it afterward and he told me individually that the term was from a well-known source, but from a less well-known publication date. If it flew by me, how many others in that audience were also “left out” by the in-speak I wonder? It is not so difficult to add “From so and so,” “Modified after so and so,” and a date to the bottom of a PowerPoint slide. I first learned this useful move at Shell. There I called it the “imprimatur effect.” From the Latin meaning “Let it be printed”, an imprimatur is a declaration that authorizes publication, but is also loosely used, as in this case by me, as a metaphor to apply to any mark of approval or endorsement. The citation in this regard suggests, that this authority has seen something similar to what I have described. In Shell, citing the approval of an authority, an advising colleague, specialist, or supervisor said that you had placed your work under their scrutiny and found some agreement. This usually had the effect of making the managers or audience feel that you had done your homework, were plugged into the network, and were credible. Credibility has always been important to me. I grew up in the industry when it could be said that there were two kinds of geoscientists – the artsy kind, sometimes called “arm wavers” and the scientific kind. I was determined to be the kind that backed up my conclusions with compelling observations so that my audience had the same chance I had to see if a conclusion was reasonable. If that meant that you’d get beaten with the “detail-oriented” stick once in a while, then so be it. I seldom worried about that as I knew there were far more detail oriented types than I. This lesson also stemmed from an early Chief Geologist’s influence. He was fond of reminding us that we seldom had all of the facts to be sure; he’d say that we might only know “85%” of the story. I remember that seemed high to me at the time. I fear that his optimism has been superceded by today’s “80/20 rule” which implies it is OK to settle for less. I don’t think so. How about you? [Editor’s note regarding delivery of the January issue of the Bulletin: The Bulletin was delivered to the mailhouse on Dec 21st and recorded as delivered on the 22nd. With the Christmas holidays, it did not leave the mailhouse until the 26th. After that we can only speculate that, as a periodical, some issues seemed to have been mailed and others may have been “rat holed” by the Post Office and were delayed. I and two others, who personally contacted me, received their January issues on January 22nd. If you are among those, we on the Editorial staff are heartily sorry. You can only imagine how hard we tried to get that one out on time regardless of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. So also with the February and March issues despite holidays, illness (2) and surgeries (1).] |
Citations
source:
Patricia Santogrossi
releasedate:
Friday, March 1, 2013
category:
Articles
subcategory:
From the Editor