Take the 2-minute tour ×
Writers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for authors, editors, reviewers, professional writers, and aspiring writers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When using multiple sources to critique an article in APA, do I need to cite the article being critiqued separately from my other references used for the critique in the reference list or do I just include the article being critiqued alphabetically with the other references in the list?

share|improve this question
    
Usually the reference would all go into one common list sorted (usually) according to the last name of the author. It is specified in the main text (perhaps Introduction) which is the article being critiqued. –  Pravesh Parekh Feb 20 at 11:18

1 Answer 1

In literature theory or theology, the "original" works and religious texts (can) go in one list, and the scholarly articles in another. That is because your subject of study are texts. So for example, in the first list you have the works of Hemingway, and in the second list you have the scholarship that studies the works of Hemingway. In the natural sciences, your subject of study are the world and the living beings in it. You don't usually list these, or if you want to supply the data they created, you append it in an appendix. So in the natural sciences, you only have the second list, so to speak, because (usually) all your sources should be citable scholarly publications. Therefore, in APA, which was developed for a natural science (psychology):

Every source you use goes in the same list.

In a scientific publication all sources are scrutinized critically and then used in support of your own hypotheses. If you agree with your source, you use it to support your hypotheses, if you disagree, you use it to build your hypotheses in contrast with them.

In a review, instead of your own hypotheses you compare every other source against the article you are going to review. But other than your focus on it, it does not have a special place. You could focus on any of the other articles and use the article you originally wanted to review as a source to critically inspect that other one. You should come to the same conclusions!

The only difference between a review and a research overview is that in a review you do the research overview and then don't stop but continue to elaborate on how the article you review stands in relation to the current state of research. To use an analogy, a resarch overview is like a map: you draw every house in town into it. In a review you draw the same map, and then mark one of the houses with a red dot and note how far it is to the train station.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.