Slightly wounded amour propre

[oursin]

I'm not sure this is anything more than personal vanity.

I'm currently examining a thesis on one of the historical subjects on which I am possibly a world-renowned expert, if only because the field is very small indeed. Anyway, an area in which I have published a certain number of chapters and articles (aside from any mentions in books dealing with

Comments

[movingfinger]

As you know, citing a web article but not a published chapter covering the same ground indicates the research may not be entirely up to snuff. The writer should explain why this was done.

I wonder whether the other chapters were read only because some other secondary source cited them.

[oursin]

It's just v curious because they cite the book the chapter was in - unless, of course, they just got someone to photocopy [colleague]'s chapter and didn't look at the whole thing... hmmm.

[green_knight]

None of this is critical to what the thesis is actually doing (I'm not going to fail it on that account); but I find it somewhat miffsome. Particularly the citing of web article but not published chapter.

That's undergrad behaviour - citing the books that are in the local library because they're easily available, rather than seeking out the most up-to-date sources.

I'd be very wary of this, somehow.

[oursin]

What really, really puzzles me is that the book the chapter is in is listed in the thesis bibliography and there's some evidence that other chapters have been read and cited. And given the university in question, I would have thought they'd have the thing in the library.

Also, if person has managed to find the article on my website, they should also be able to find the list of my publications in the area! I find it all a bit baffling, because they've clearly managed to chase up [colleague]'s relevant articles. In fact I specifically mention the book chapter at the head of the web article.

And what they do quote from the web article appears to be approving - bizarre all round.

[egretplume]

Quite apart from the research aspect, there's the academic protocol aspect: one ALWAYS thoroughly reads the work of one's examiners. One namechecks them. It is the way it is done. It's not just your vanity; it's a breach of protocol.

I believe I passed my orals because I quoted verbatim from an examiner's article. But then, he was vain enough to ask an irrelevant question based on his obscure article WHICH I HAD READ AND NEARLY MEMORIZED.

At least I would point out that there are other positions to be taken on the matter in hand, and mention your work as the source of more information. Or say you're surprised they didn't mention something from another chapter in the book....

[oursin]

The UK/former Dominions system (not applicable in Canada, I think, which is more like US) is a bit different in that an external examiner is often only selected quite late in the day, shortly before thesis is submitted. (Possibly to obviate obvious brown-nosing?)

But I remain a bit astonished that examinee relies for account of influential background event on an overview type volume that's a good 20+ years old, i.e. written well before a lot of the detailed historiography of the areas it deals with; and coming from a rather rigid theoretical perspective. (And is by someone I have caught out in unexamined assumptions in their other work - unfootnoted statements that I know to be untrue, or, at least, misleading.) When, ahem, not just in chapter of book but in my own overview/textbook type works I have given a rather more nuanced picture.