Ghost mis-attribution is the attribution of a non-existent source to an original idea, with the intention of granting academic legitimacy to that idea.
Playing with ghost mis-attribution is a juggling act. You can't survive on phantom sources alone! Ghost mis-attribution can, however, be vital in bolstering your own argument at a key time or as a last-minute time saver. It's quite versatile, as well: use it to cite an idea you got from a place you can't remember, use it to cite an idea you've made up, or use it to break up a series of citations from the same real source.
At its core, ghost mis-attribution relies on bluffing—or, better yet, on avoiding detection altogether. You want to sneak false information by your teacher.
Ghosts can be:
1. invented people, books, articles
2. invented information in an actual book or article written by a real person
Obviously, inventing whole works, or entire academics, is risky! And usually unnecessarily risky. It's far more common to use an existing work, and claim that it argues something it doesn't. It's much harder to catch, too, because it actually involves your teacher opening a book he or she probably doesn't have on his or her desk. People and books, on the other hand, can simply be checked in Google.
The best way to sneak things by is to remain within the realm of possibility. Don't give your teacher a reason to doubt your claim. Appear real: ghost mis-attribute to works on your topic, for example; or mix proper attribution with mis-attribution within the same work. Also, sometimes giving page ranges, rather than single pages, reads more convincing.
But stay away from books or articles that everyone in your field knows! Standard and popular texts are usually cited for the same few ideas, and anything different sticks out. Instead, take something between well-known and obscure. Play the middle.
In the end, the risks associated with well done ghost mis-attribution come down to how often you use it. Every mis-attribution adds to your chances of being discovered. Plan accordingly.
Playing with ghost mis-attribution is a juggling act. You can't survive on phantom sources alone! Ghost mis-attribution can, however, be vital in bolstering your own argument at a key time or as a last-minute time saver. It's quite versatile, as well: use it to cite an idea you got from a place you can't remember, use it to cite an idea you've made up, or use it to break up a series of citations from the same real source.
At its core, ghost mis-attribution relies on bluffing—or, better yet, on avoiding detection altogether. You want to sneak false information by your teacher.
Ghosts can be:
1. invented people, books, articles
2. invented information in an actual book or article written by a real person
Obviously, inventing whole works, or entire academics, is risky! And usually unnecessarily risky. It's far more common to use an existing work, and claim that it argues something it doesn't. It's much harder to catch, too, because it actually involves your teacher opening a book he or she probably doesn't have on his or her desk. People and books, on the other hand, can simply be checked in Google.
The best way to sneak things by is to remain within the realm of possibility. Don't give your teacher a reason to doubt your claim. Appear real: ghost mis-attribute to works on your topic, for example; or mix proper attribution with mis-attribution within the same work. Also, sometimes giving page ranges, rather than single pages, reads more convincing.
But stay away from books or articles that everyone in your field knows! Standard and popular texts are usually cited for the same few ideas, and anything different sticks out. Instead, take something between well-known and obscure. Play the middle.
In the end, the risks associated with well done ghost mis-attribution come down to how often you use it. Every mis-attribution adds to your chances of being discovered. Plan accordingly.
see also: foreign mis-attribution
see also: peer-reviewed mis-attribution
see also: the foreign source