In this week’s blog post, we will be looking at how to reference encyclopaedias in OSCOLA. We will also be considering why you would or would not use an encyclopaedia as a reference and how reliable they are as a source for your writing. In general, encyclopaedias should be a perfectly fine source to use, but there are always a few points that you can check if you are not sure.
We will start by looking at encyclopaedias as a source and then look at how to cite them in the OSCOLA referencing system. If you are already confident on the background of this topic, feel free to skip ahead to the section on referencing.
Is an Encyclopaedia a Reliable Source?
Whether an encyclopaedia is a reliable source for your work will depend on a number of factors. First of all, is an encyclopaedia a good source? Obviously, this will also vary according to which encyclopaedia you are citing and the context you are using it for, but there is certainly no reason why an encyclopaedia can’t be an excellent source. A good encyclopaedia should be an accurate summary of a piece of information on the topic that you are researching, so it is perfect for stating or backing up facts you are giving in your writing.
One problem with encyclopaedias is that their entries are usually summaries of a topic. You will need to carry out more research in the area to get a full picture of the topic, so encyclopaedias should not be your only source, as this might make your work seem incomplete or poorly researched.
However, as said above, one factor to consider is which encyclopaedia you are referencing. Some are definitely better than others! For example, Encyclopaedia Britannica is well-known, fully researched and its entries are reviewed before publication. All of this means that it is more likely to be a reliable source. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a good source to use! It can be edited and updated by anyone, no matter what credentials they have. It does have citations, but these themselves are not necessarily reliable sources, so they don’t really help.
One point which makes encyclopaedias more reliable is that they are regularly updated, or at least should be. This is especially true now that so many encyclopaedias are available online, as updates can be made whenever necessary and added straight away. The advantage of this is that as soon as a change is made to the legislation or a new case is decided, this can be reflected in the encyclopaedia as soon as it is next updated. As the law is constantly changing, this will help you to avoid referencing a source that is now outdated.
Encyclopaedias are a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Entries may contain extracts from cases, for example, which will be considered a primary source, as this is what actually happened in the case. On the other hand, entries will also summarise information from cases and legislation, making them a secondary source. This is because it is not just the facts of the case or law and may be written with a bias.
This leads to the next issue – who wrote the entry, and for what purpose? Again, this will depend on what encyclopaedia you are using. Some of the more reliable ones, such as those aimed at academics, will often be written by academics, then fact-checked by experts on an editorial board. This helps to ensure content is accurate and should also focus on removing bias.
However, not all encyclopaedias have any sort of fact-checking and the author of an entry might be writing to persuade readers of their own beliefs on the topic. This will mean that the entry is very biased towards one viewpoint and may have carefully selected sources to support this, leaving out others.
This means that it is important that you only use encyclopaedias as a general introduction to the topic, rather than as an authoritative source. You can check the facts for yourself to ensure your work is accurate.
How Do You Reference Encyclopaedias?
Encyclopaedias are cited in a similar way to books. The basic format is:
Name of encyclopaedia | (Edition, Year of issue or reissue) | Pinpoint
Pinpoints may be volume and paragraph numbers, for example:
Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53.
However, if an author is credited, give the author and segment title at the beginning of the reference:
Author, | ‘Title of segment’, | Name of encyclopaedia | (Edition, Year of issue or reissue) | Pinpoint
For example:
CJ Friedrich, ‘Constitutions and Constitutionalism’, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences III (1968) 319.
Finally, if the encyclopaedia is an online one, you will need to include the web address and date of access at the end of the reference:
Author, | ‘Title of segment’, | Name of encyclopaedia | (Edition, Year of issue or reissue) | <Web address> | Date accessed
Leslie Green, ‘Legal Positivism’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall edn, 2009) <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/legalpositivism> accessed 20 November 2009.
Wrapping Up
I hope that you now feel more confident about using encyclopaedias as a source in your work. Next time we will be looking at looseleaf services, so do come back in two weeks to find out more about how to reference these.
Want help proofreading your work? Contact Carmine Proofreading for a friendly, professional service from a qualified proofreader.
Email: CarmineProofreading@gmail.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CarmineProofed
Carmine Proofreading 