The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors and Publishers. 2010. Chicago: University of Chicago
"This, the sixteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style, marks the first edition to be prepared and published simultaneously in print and
online. As opportunities for publishing have grown dramatically in an era of electronic publication and distribution, the guiding principles for this edition
have been twofold: to recognize the continuing evolution in the way authors, editors, and publishers do their work, on the one hand, and to maintain a focus on
those aspects of the process that are independent of the medium of publication, on the other.
This edition marks an evolution of more than forty years, starting with the landmark twelfth edition, published in 1969. As part of this
evolution, and as with the fifteenth edition, Chicago consulted a broad range of scholars and professionals in the fields of publishing and academics
throughout the revision process. We also continued to benefit from the many helpful comments and suggestions sent to us by our readers, many of whom come from
fields outside of scholarly publishing. Their input, in particular, helped us to keep in mind those principles of writing and editing that remain true
regardless of the medium or field of publication." (From the Preface).
Turabian, Kate L. 2007. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. Chicago: University of Chicago
"For this seventh edition, Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams have expanded the focus of the book. The new part 1,
"Research and Writing: From Planning to Production," is adapted from their Craft of Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). This part
offers a step-by-step guide to the process of research and its reporting, a topic not previously covered in this manual but inseparable from source citation,
writing style, and the mechanics of paper preparation. Among the topics covered are the nature of research, finding and engaging sources, taking
notes, developing an argument, drafting and revising, and presenting evidence in tables and figures. Also included is a discussion of presenting research in
alternative forums. In this part, the authors write in a familiar, collegial voice to engage readers in a complex topic. Students undertaking research projects
at all levels will benefit from reading this part, though advanced researchers may wish to skim chapters 1-4.
The rest of the book covers the same topics as past editions, but has been extensively revised to follow the recommendations in The
Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition (2003), to incorporate current technology as it affects all aspects of student writing, to provide updated examples,
and to be easier to read and use." (from the Preface).
MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 2009. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
"The seventh edition of the MLA Handbook is accompanied for the first time by a Web-based component that helps users learn MLA style
and understand better the activities of researching and writing a paper. Students, instructors, and librarians have shown great interest in gaining access to
the MLA Handbook on the Web, and we responded by developing a site that contains the full text of the book with complementary materials. The site
includes sample papers with step-by-step narratives showing how the papers were prepared, and each narrative can be explored from a number of perspectives. For
example, if you are having trouble defining a topic. you can look at the ways the authors of the sample papers did it. If you are unsure how to evaluate
sources for inclusion in your project, you can follow the steps outlined in the narratives. We hope that the new electronic component will help students in
every stage of their work. Scholarly research is increasingly conducted in a digital environment, and we are pleased to usher the MLA Handbook into
that world." (from the Foreword).
Booth, Wayne C., Colomb, Gregory G., and Williams, Joseph M. 2008. The Craft of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Third edition (First edition 1995).
"The aim of the third edition of The Craft of Research is the same as the first two: to meet the needs of all researchers, not just
first-year undergraduates and advanced graduate students, but even those in business and government who do and report research on any topic, academic,
political, or commercial. We wrote it to
* guide you through the complexities of turning a topic or question into a research problem whose significance matches the effort that you
put into solving it
* help you organize and draft a report that justifies the effort
* show you how to read your report as your readers will so that you can revise it into one that they will read with the understanding and
respect it deserves
Other handbooks touch on these matters, but this one, we think, is different. Most current guides acknowledge that researchers rarely move in
a straight line from finding a topic to stating a thesis to filling in note cards to drafting and revision. Experienced researchers loop back and forth, move
forward a step or two before going back in order to move ahead again, change directions, all the while anticipating stages not yet begun. But so far as we
know, no other guide tries to explain how each part of the process influences all the others -- how asking questions about a topic prepares the researcher for
drafting, how drafting can reveal problems in an argument, how writing an introduction can send you back to a search for more sources." (from the Preface).
Harvey, Gordon. 2008. Writing with Sources. A Guide for Harvard Students. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Second revised edition (First edition 1998).
"Acknowledging your sources is therefore at once an obligation, a service, and an advantage. With a primary source (like the ant statistics),
although you go on to give your own interpretation of its data, you're obliged first to tell your reader in a citation exactly what data you are interpreting,
who assembled it, and where to find it -- so they can gauge, as you have done, its reliability. But your citation also alerts others who may want to use the
data; and by allowing others to test and verify your conclusions, it enhances your credibility. Likewise with a secondary source (...), you're obliged to
credit other people for work they have done and you have built upon; it's dishonest and ungenerous not to credit them. But citing the secondary source also
alerts other readers to its existence, and has distinct advantages for you. Where you accept and build upon an idea, citing saves you from having to
demonstrate the truth of the idea all over again, and it enlists the source's authority on your behalf. Where you instead challenge or qualify an idea, citing
its source makes your argument interesting as a challenge or qualification to a published position.
In both cases, careful citing suggests to your reader that you are a trustworthy analyst, strong enough in your own reading and thinking to
acknowledge other opinions in your pursuit of the truth. The fear some students have, initially, that citations will make their paper appear less thoughtful
could not be less warranted.
Although procedures for using and citing sources differ some what from discipline to discipline, and the best authority for questions about
using sources in a particular course is always its instructor, there is considerable common ground among the disciplines. This book summarizes that common
ground. It describes the main methods of integrating sources into your paper and for citing them, the basic standards for acknowledging them, and the ways in
which they are most commonly misused-along with some steps you can take to avoid misuses in your own writing." (from the Introduction).
Lipson, Charles. 2006. Cite Right. A Quick Guide to Citation Styles - MLA, APA, Chicago, the Sciences, Professions, and more.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Second revised edition May 2011.
"There are three reasons to cite the materials you use:
* To give credit to others' work and ideas, whether you agree with them or not. When you use their words, you must give them credit by using
both quotation marks and citations.
* To show readers the materials on which you base your analysis, your narrative, or your conclusions.
* To guide readers to the materials you have used so they can examine it for themselves. Their interest might be to confirm your work, to
challenge it, or simply to explore it further.
Taken together, these citations fully disclose your sources. That's important for academic integrity in several ways.
First, good citations parcel out credit. Some belongs to you for the original work you did; you need to take full responsibility for it. Some
belongs to others for their words, ideas, data, drawings, or other work. You need to acknowledge it, openly and explicitly.
Second, if you relied on others' work in order to tell your story, explain your topic, or document your conclusions, you need to say exactly
what you used. Take a simple paper about World War I. No one writing today learned about it firsthand. What we know, we learned by reading books and articles,
by examining original documents and news reports, by listening to oral histories, by reviewing data compiled by military historians, and perhaps by viewing
photographs or movies. When we write about the war, then, we should say how we acquired our information. The only exception is "commonly known information,"
something that everyone in the field clearly understands and that does not require any substantiation.(1) There's no need for a footnote to prove Woodrow
Wilson was actually president of the United States. But if you referred to his speech declaring war, you would need a proper citation. If you used his words,
you'd need quotation marks, too.
Third, your readers may want to pursue a particular issue you cover. Citations should lead them to the right sources, whether those are
books, interviews, archival documents, Web sites, poems, or paintings. That guidance serves several purposes. Skeptical readers may doubt the basis for your
work or your conclusions. Others may simply want to double-check them or do more research on the topic. Your citations should point the way.
What citations should not do is prance about, showing off your howl-edge without adding to the reader's. That's just bragging.
Beyond this question of style (and good manners), there is the basic issue of honesty. Citations should never mislead your readers.
There are lots of ways to mislead or misdirect your readers; accurate citations avoid them. For example, they should not imply you read books or articles when
you really didn't. They should not imply you spent days in the archives deciphering original documents when you actually read them in an edited book or, worse,
when you "borrowed" the citation from a scholar who did study the originals. Of course, it's fine to cite that author or an edited collection. That's
accurate. It's fine to burrow into the archives and read the original yourself. It's dishonest, though, to write citations that only pretend you did.
Good citations should reveal your sources, not conceal them. They should honestly show the research you conducted. That means they should
give credit where credit is due, disclose the materials on which you base your work, and guide readers to that material so they can explore it further.
Citations like these accurately reflect your work and that of others. They show the ground on which you stand." (Chapter 1).
(1). What counts as common knowledge depends on your audience.
Spatt, Brenda. 2011. Writing from Sources. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Eighth Edition (First edition 2003).
"The big news about the sixth edition of Writing from Sources is its intensive focus on the Internet. For many students, the Web now
serves as more than just an effective means of gaining and distributing information-it has become a way of life, a source of instant knowledge, a shortcut to
research. Unfortunately, the Web is at once the friend and the enemy of serious research. As instructors increasingly realize, in comparison with print sources
Web material remains unreliable, its quality often abysmal. Whether or not you use a trustworthy search engine or consult a respected database, you are likely
to encounter far more dross than gold. And too often our students, seduced by the abundance of online sources and the speed of surfing, lack the knowledge to
make the crucial distinctions between a good Web site, a bad one, and one that falls somewhere in between." (p. V)
Here is a summary of the changes in and additions to the sixth edition of Writing from Sources that enhance its usefulness as a
text, a reader, an exercise book, and a research-essay guide:
An entirely new guide to locating print and Web sources using databases, directories, and search engines
A revised and expanded guide to evaluating print and Web sources, explaining-with copious illustrations-how to avoid the pitfalls inherent in
· A realistic methodology for using computers to take notes from sources and organize them on the screen
A new sample research essay using endnotes in Chapter 9, incorporating a fairly sophisticated level of documentation in exploring the topic
of cannibalism from a historical and anthropological perspective
A revised selection of reference sources, emphasizing electronic databases across the disciplines, contained in Appendix A
Expanded and updated guidelines for documenting sources in MLA and APA styles, contained in Appendix B
An entirely new casebook of readings on "Genetic Engineering and Cloning," contained in Appendix E, that can provide the basis for a complete
research essay or, alternatively, can be supplemented by student research
A new model for synthesizing sources, in Chapter 4, built around the topic of promotion in elementary school." (from To the
Blanshard, Brand. 2004. On Philosophical Style. South Bend: St. Augustine Press.
Original edition: Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1954.
"The more perfectly one's style fits the inner man and reveals its strength and effect, the clearer it becomes that the problem of style is
not a problem of word and sentences merely, but of being the right kind of mind. "He who would not be frustrated in his hope to write well in laudable things,"
said Milton, "ought himself to be a true poem." Does that make the problem of style insoluble? Yes, I am afraid it does. But it shows also that the problem we
have been discussing is no petty or merely technical one, but very far-reaching indeed. We may have to agree with Professor Raleigh that "to write perfect
prose is neither more nor less difficult than to lead a perfect life." (Conclusion).
Baggini, Julian, and Fosl, Peter S. 2010. The Philosopher's Toolkit. A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods. Malden:
Second revised edition (First edition 2003).
"Philosophy can be an extremely technical and complex affair, one whose terminology and procedures are often intimidating to the beginner and
demanding even for the professional. Like that of surgery, the art of philosophy requires mastering a body of knowledge, but it also requires acquiring
precision and skill with a set of instruments or tools. The Philosopher's Toolkit may be thought of as a collection of just such tools. Unlike those
of a surgeon or a master woodworker, however, the instruments presented by this text are conceptual - tools that can be used to analyse, manipulate and
evaluate philosophical concepts, arguments and theories.
The Toolkit can be used in a variety of ways. It can be read cover to cover by those looking for instruction on the essentials of
philosophical reflection. It can be used as a course book on basic philosophical method or critical thinking. It can also be used as a reference book to which
general readers and more advanced philosophers can turn in order to find quick and clear accounts of the key concepts and methods of philosophy. The aim of the
book, in other words, is to act as a conceptual toolbox from which all those from neophytes to master artisans can draw instruments that would otherwise be
distributed over a diverse set of texts and require long periods of study to acquire.
For this second edition, we have expanded the book from six to seven sections, and reviewed and revised every single entry. These sections
progress from the basic tools of argumentation to sophisticated philosophical concepts and principles. The text passes through instruments for assessing
arguments to essential laws, principles and conceptual distinctions. It concludes with a discussion of the limits of philosophical thinking.
Each of the seven sections contains a number of compact entries comprising an explanation of the tool it addresses, examples of the tool in
use and guidance about the tool's scope and limits. Each entry is cross-referenced to other related entries. Suggestions for further reading are included, and
those particularly suitable for novices are marked with an asterisk. There is also a list of Internet resources at the back of the book.
Becoming a master sculptor requires more than the ability to pick up and use the tools of the trade: it requires flair, talent, imagination
and practice. In the same way, leaning how to use these philosophical tools will not turn you into a master of the art of philosophy overnight. What it will do
is equip you with many skills and techniques that will help you philosophize better." (Preface).
Martinich, Aloysius. 2005. Philosophical Writing. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Third edition (First edition 1989; Second edition 1996).
Contents: Notes to the Second Edition. Introduction. Part I: Author and Audience. Part II: Logic and Argument for Writing. Part III: The
Structure of a Philosophical Essay. Part IV: Composing. Part V: Tactics for Analytic Writing. Part VI: Some Constraints on Content. Part VII: Some Goals of
Part VIII: Problems with Introductions. Appendix A: "It's Sunday Night and I have an Essay Due Monday Morning." Appendix B: Glossary of
Philosophical Terms. Index."
"It is often advisable to preview a book. That advice holds here. Skim the entire book before reading it more carefully. Depending on your
philosophical background, some parts will be more informative than others. Chapter 1 discusses the concepts of author and audience as they apply to a student's
philosophical prose. Both students and their professors are in an artificial literary situation. Unlike typical authors, students know less about their subject
than their audience, although they are not supposed to let on that they do. Chapter 2 is a crash course on the basic concepts of logic. It contains background
information required for understanding subsequent chapters. Those who are familiar with logic will breeze through it, while those with no familiarity with it
will need to read slowly and carefully. Chapter 3 discusses the structure of a philosophical essay and forms the heart of the book. The well-worn but sound
advice that an essay should have a beginning, a middle, and an end applies to philosophical essays too. Chapter 4 deals with a number of matters related to
composing drafts of an essay. Various techniques for composing are discussed. Anyone who knows how to outline, take notes, revise, do research and so on might
be able to skip this chapter. Chapter 5 explains several types of arguments used in philosophical reasoning, such as dilemmas, counterexamples and reductio
ad absurdum arguments. Chapter 6 discusses some basic requirements that the content of an essay must satisfy. Chapter 7 discusses goals for the form of
your writing: coherence, clarity, conciseness, and rigor. Chapter 8 discusses some standard problems students have with the first few pages of an essay.
Like essays, most books have conclusions that either summarize or tie together the main strands of the work. It would have been artificial to
do so in this case, however, since the book as a whole does not develop one main argument but consists of a number of different topics that should be helpful
to the student. Appendix A, "It's Sunday Night and I Have an Essay Due Monday Morning," is included for those who bought this book but never got around to
reading much of it, and can serve as a conclusion. Many of my students who used one of the first two editions let me know that this was the first part of the
book they read, on a Sunday night about six weeks into the semester.
In order to serve the needs of a wide range of students, the level of difficulty varies from elementary to moderately advanced. Even within
individual chapters, the level of difficulty can vary significantly, although each section begins with the simplest material and progresses to the most
difficult. Thus, a chapter on a new topic might revert from complex material in the previous chapter to a simple level. I believe that intelligent, hardworking
students can move rather quickly from philosophical innocence to moderate sophistication.
At various points, I have presented fragments of essays to illustrate a stylistic point. The topics of these essay fragments are sometimes
controversial and the argumentation provocative. These passages are meant to keep the reader's interest and do not always represent my view. It would be a
mistake to focus on the content of these essay fragments when it is their style that is important. Also, it is quite likely that the reader will disagree with
a few or even many of the stylistic claims I make. If this leads readers to at least think about why they disagree, and to discover what they prefer and why,
then a large part of my goal will have been achieved.
In the following pages, I often contrast rhetorical elements with logical elements. Going back as far as Socrates, rhetoric has often had a
bad name in philosophy. No negative attitude toward rhetoric is implied in this book. "Rhetoric," as I use it, refers to style, that is, to those elements of
writing that facilitate communication; and it is a presupposition of this book that these elements are extremely important. After all, like any essay, a
philosophical essay that fails to communicate fails in one of its central purposes.
Philosophical Writing is intended to be practical. It is supposed to help you write better and thereby improve your ability to
present Philosophical Writing is intended to be practical. It is supposed to help you write better and thereby improve your ability to present your
thoughts. Since almost any class may require you to write an essay that analyzes some kind of concept, the skills gained in learning to write about
philosophical concepts may prove useful in writing other types of essays." (from the Introduction 5-7).
Holowchak, M.Andrew. 2004. Critical Reasoning and Philosophy. A Concise Guide to Reading, Evaluating, and Writing Philosophical
Works. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
"Critical Reasoning and Philosophy: A Concise Guide to Reading, Evaluating, and Writing Philosophical Works is the culmination of
several years of thinking about an integrative, cooperative, and critical approach to teaching introductory courses in philosophy. Philosophers are wedded to a
specific type of analytic methodology that requires the honing and use of critical-reasoning skills at different levels: on the one hand, recognizing,
reconstructing, and evaluating arguments (usually, those of other philosophers); on the other hand, being able to express themselves philosophically in
coherent and tightly argued essays that move philosophical debate forward, however slowly. Students being introduced to philosophy need exposure to these
skills and cannot fully appreciate the need for philosophical analysis without them.
Thus, I have created this text to complement most introductory-level philosophy courses. Its aims, as the title suggests, are to teach
students how to read, evaluate, and write philosophy. The book begins analytically by giving students the tools and skills to recognize, break down, and
analyze arguments before formally responding to them in writing. It ends synthetically in that, by a book's end, students will have learned how to advance and
defend a philosophical position of their own in a critical essay.
The text comprises six sections, each of which contains a number of modules (nineteen in all). These modules are short, self-teaching units
that are designed to make critical evaluation of philosophy user-friendly. The large number of modules and small size of each make, I hope, for ready and easy
assimilation of the material. Section One looks at introductory issues through three modules (one on philosophy, one on critical reasoning, and one on how to
read philosophy). Section Two concerns recognition and reconstruction of arguments in two modules. Section Three comprises two modules on diagramming
arguments. The fourth section, on argument evaluation, has five modules that concern principles and components of evaluation, common deductive and inductive
arguments, and common fallacies. Section Five, which is mostly non-philosophical in scope, looks at tips for proper writing in four modules. There are three
modules in the final section: one on evaluative essays (focusing on evaluating a philosophical view), one on critical essays (focusing on defending a thesis of
one's own), and one on a much neglected topic in philosophy classes-revising and rewriting essays.
The nineteen modules are complemented by five appendices. Appendix A offers some practice exercises for argument diagramming from famous
philosophers. Appendices B and C give, respectively, a sample evaluative essay and a sample critical essay in an attempt to illustrate the principles and
suggestions in the final section. These samples are taken from actual essays from students. Appendices D and E complement the final module on revising and
rewriting essays. Appendix D is a sample comment sheet that offers guidelines for students to critically analyze each other's papers. Appendix E is a
plan-for-revision sheet that offers guidelines for revising an essay that protects students from beginning a hasty revision.
Overall, I have used drafts of these modules in my introductory courses and have found them to be very helpful tools. I am confident that,
even if students cannot distinguish Aristotle from aerosol years after one of my introductory courses, they'll remember many things about what makes
an argument good (or bad) and they'll be capable of using these in their everyday-life decisions. I am sure that other philosophers, especially those who find
content-based-only approaches to introductory courses on philosophy too limited, will discover that Critical Reasoning and Philosophy is a valuable
and effective complement to their courses.
There are a number of other books on the market with similar aims. Many of these are fine books (I list some in my bibliography), yet I have
found none that balances concern for reading, evaluating, and writing philosophy in a compendious, user-friendly format-hence, the motivation for writing my
own book. In addition, I have chosen a module-based approach to this book so as to introduce students to critical-reasoning skills in short, digestible
units that can be learned piecemeal and spread out over the course of a term." (from the Preface, X-XI).
Mogck, Brian David. 2008. Writing To Reason. A Companion for Philosophy Students and Instructors. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
"I began to compose this companion after grading a stack of midterm papers two feet tall. I noticed that I was making mostly the same
comments on each student's paper. It seemed more economical to write the comments once, and refer the students to the master copy of comments as needed.
If an instructor is grading hundreds of papers, it is often impossible to continue writing detailed criticisms and explanations of mistakes
pertaining to the composition of an essay, while remaining engaged with its philosophical content. Consequently, instructors' comments might tend to become
less detailed or thorough by the hundredth paper. And the comments that are made can become impatient in tone and cryptic in content. Neither is constructive.
Using this companion to address the most common problems students have with philosophical composition will facilitate more substantive, philosophical
engagement between instructors and their students.
This is a relatively short companion. But it contains a number of instructions that you will not be able to internalize immediately. After
all, writing is a craft that improves only with disciplined practice. And, even if this companion is successful, it only covers some of the most common
characteristics of good writing in philosophy.
Students sometimes find that they arc asked to write a philosophy paper without first having an idea of what it means to do philosophy or how
philosophical writing differs from writing in other disciplines. Part H explains one view of what it means to do philosophy, how to succeed in a philosophy
course, how to approach a philosophy paper, and the requirements of academic integrity. Chapter 8 is the most difficult and controversial chapter of this
companion, because it is an account of what philosophers are doing when they are doing philosophy. This is neither easy to explain nor likely to
elicit much agreement among philosophers. For this reason, your instructor may or may not recommend that you read it, depending on his or her judgment as to
whether that view fits well with his or her goals for the course. That is just fine, as Part I is the practical part of the companion.
In order to use Part I effectively, I would recommend that you first look it over to identify those points that you are encountering for the
first time and those points that you suspect are problematic in your own writing. Later, as you compose your paper and work through the drafting process, you
can refer back to those points and check them off to make sure that you have addressed them. (Other checklists can be found in sections 1.1, 1.4, and 14).
Your instructor will also refer you in either of two ways to specific parts of the companion. First, he or she might write a numeral in the
margin of your paper -- for example, "5" -- indicating that there is a problem in your paper that is addressed in § 5 of this book. Second, he or she might
highlight a theme that is problematic in the essay -- for example, the thesis is unclear -- by writing the keyword "Thesis" on your paper. You may then look up
the keyword in the Keywords Cross-referenced table (see Appendix I) to find the sections of this companion that contain specific commentary and advice
addressing that issue." (from the Preface).
Seech, Zachary. 2009. Writing Philosophy Papers. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Fifth revised edition (First edition 1993).
"Writing Philosophy Papers goes beyond general instructions on paper writing. The whole book focuses on how to write
philosophy papers. The kinds of
papers most often assigned in philosophy classes are explained, and a whole chapter is devoted to writing the traditional philosophy paper:
the thesis defense paper. Chapter 7 explains how to use specific philosophical resources, with a strong emphasis on Internet research.
Whether it's a question about organization, documentation, research, or writing style, the student will now have the answer before
submitting a paper to the professor. This should be a relief both to the professor who reads and grades the papers and to the student who can hardly do a good
job of writing a paper if the task itself is unclear. Professors assign different types of papers. Writing Philosophy Papers shows students that many
paper assignments are hybrids of the basic kinds. In this book the students learn the basic skills, although the actual instructions for their specific
classroom assignments will vary. Professors may also specify a preferred style of documentation. Footnotes and endnotes are illustrated in this book. So is the
MLA parenthetical documentation. Both methods are clearly displayed in a sample paper in Appendix B. In-text citation and the number system of documentation
are also explained. Documentation of Internet sources is illustrated also.
The focus is on philosophy. The many examples throughout Writing Philosophy Papers are from philosophical concepts or primary and
secondary sources in philosophy. In addition, there is a discussion of philosophy courses, philosophical topics, philosophical reasoning, philosophy journals
and research books, as well as the Internet and other research sources." (from the Preface).