Footnoting Law Essays
Educational Theory uses footnote references exclusively, not a name-date style of referencing. The following are some illustrations of the journal's preferred reference style, adapted from Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed.
Book with 1 author:
1. Lynne White, Jr., Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered: Essays in the Dynamism of Western Culture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968), 60–1.
2. White, Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered, 68 (emphasis in original).
Book with author and editor(s) and/or translator(s):
5. Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin, The Complete Correspondence, 1928–1940, ed. Henri Lonitz, trans. Nicholas Walker (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
6. Adorno and Benjamin, Complete Correspondence, 486.
Book/edited anthology with 2 or 3 authors/editors:
7. Nicholas C. Burbules and Carlos Alberto Torres, eds., Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives (New York: Routledge, 2000), 2.
8. Burbules and Torres, eds., Globalization and Education, 6.
Chapter within an anthology:
9. Barbara Adam, “Re-Vision: The Centrality of Time for an Ecological Science Perspective,” in Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, eds. Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszyski, and Brian Wynne (London: SAGE, 1996).
10. Adam, “Re-Vision,” 65–6.
New chapter within a previously cited anthology
11. Ulrich Beck, “Risk Society and the Provident State,” in Risk, Environment and Modernity, eds. Lash, Szerszynski, and Wynne, 27.
Single volume from a multivolume series:
12. Friedrich A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, vol. 3 of The Political Order of a Free People (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979), 76.
13. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, 103.
Single work/essay from the multivolume collection of John Dewey’s writings (edited by Jo Ann Boydston):
14. John Dewey, Experience and Nature (1925), in John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 1, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1981).
15. Dewey, Experience and Nature, 103.
New volume within a previously cited multivolume series
16. John Dewey, “The Philosophy of the Arts”(1938), in John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 13, ed. Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988), 359.
Non-English book, or chapter in a non-English anthology:
17. Marga Burggraaf-Huiskens, Opvoedingsondersteuning als Bijzondere Vorm van Preventie [Educational Support as a Special Form of Prevention] (Bussum: Coutinho, 1999).
18. Lieve Vandemeulebroecke and Kristien Nys, “Het concept opvoedingsondersteuning” [The Concept of Educational Support], in Gezinspedagogiek Deel II: Opvoedingsondersteuning, eds. Lieve Vandemeulebroecke, Hans Van Crombrugge, Jan Janssens, and Hilde Colpin (Leuven, Belgium: Garant, 2002), 12 (translation by author).
19. Burggraaf-Huiskens, Opvoedingsondersteuning als Bijzondere Vorm van Preventie, 67.
20.Vandemeulebroecke and Nys, “Het concept opvoedingsondersteuning,” 15.
1. Richard Pratte, “Multicultural Education: Four Normative Arguments,” Educational Theory 33, no. 1 (1983): 121–32.
2. Pratte, “Multicultural Education,” 130 (emphasis added).
Non-English journal article:
3. Kristien Nys and Anita Wouters, “De betekenis van empowerment voor het opvoedingsondersteunend werken met kansarme gezinnen” [The Relevance of Empowerment for Educational Support to Underprivileged Families], Pedagogisch Tijdschrift 26, no. 1 (2001): 19–43 (translation by author).
4. Nys and Wouters, “De betekenis van empowerment voor het opvoedingsondersteunend werken met kansarme gezinnen,” 23 (emphasis in original).
Book published in print and electronic form:
1. Suzanne Rice, ed., Philosophy of Education 2001 (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2002), http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/2001/2001toc.htm.
Electronic journal, or journal published in print and electronic form:
2. Michael H. Goldhaber, “The Attention Economy Will Change Everything,” Telepolis (May 1998), http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/1419/1.html.
3. Suzanne de Castell and Jennifer Jenson, “Paying Attention to Attention: New Economies for Learning,” Educational Theory 54, no. 4 (2004): 381–397, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.0013-2004.2004.00026.x.
1. Associated Press, “Westchester Approves Measure on Gun Safety,” New York Times, sec. 3, February 17, 1980.
2. Lisa Weiss and Donna Huffaker, “Teacher Held as Suspect in Teen Sex Case,” Daily News of Los Angeles, March 15, 1999.
Forthcoming book or article:
1. Jane F. Doe, Globalization and Its Discontent (New York: Routledge, forthcoming).
2. Michalinos Zembylas and Charalambos Vrasidas, “Globalization, Information and Communication Technologies, and the Prospect of a ‘Global Village’: Promises of Inclusion or Electronic Colonization?” Journal of Curriculum Studies (forthcoming).
Dissertation or Master’s thesis:
3. Richard Simon, “Comedy, Suffering, and Human Existence” (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1977), 100–2.
Paper presented at a conference/lecture:
4. Tim McDonough, “The Net and Norms: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Pedagogies” (paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Studies Association, Pittsburgh, Pa., October 2002).
5. Maria Delgado, “Kinship and Territorial Groups in Pre-Spanish Guatemala” (lecture delivered at American University, Washington, D.C., November 15, 2000).
Unpublished interview by author:
6. Henry Giroux, phone interview by the author, September 2000.
7. Vladimir Karakovsky, interview by the author, Moscow, Russia, May 1990.
Misc. sample URL references:
1. American Anthropological Association, American Anthropological Association Statement of “Race,” (1998), http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm.
2. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains obvious allusions to the Holocaust: “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.…” The complete text of the document is available at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
Student essay: in-text citation v. footnote citation
In-Text Citation Bad
The legal writing community should stop using in-text references. Bruce v. Establishment, 301 U.S. 397, 401, 57 S. Ct. 797, 799, 81 L. Ed. 2d 1182 (1977). Footnote form should be used instead. But see The State of Legal Writing v. Bruce,196 U.S. 319, 324-325, 25 S. Ct. 264, 265-266, 49 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1905). Footnotes should be used in legal citation because they make reading easier. Bruce v. Hard Reading, 322 U.S. 497, 451, 59 S. Ct. 987, 9899, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1452 (1977). And making it easier to read legal writing should be a goal of the legal writing community. See e.g., Schiess v. Establishment, 134 U.S. 160, 171, 10 S. Ct. 384, 387, 33 L. Ed. 2d 835 (2005).
In Schiess v. Establishment, Schiess argues that legal writing should be clear, concise, simple, organized, accurate, and correct. Id.; see also Bruce v. People Against Schiess, 301 U.S. 397, 401, 57 S. Ct. 797, 799, 81 L. Ed. 2d 1182 (1977). One way for lawyers to accomplish these goals, says Schiess, is to improve legal document design. Schiess, 134 U.S. at 174 (stating that document-design principles can improve “the neatness, readability, and accessibility of their documents”); see also In re Props to Schiess, 196 U.S. 319, 324-325, 25 S. Ct. 264, 265-266, 49 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1985) (arguing that props be given to Schiess). Schiess makes new and interesting suggestions to improve document design. See generally id. He lists eight categories of modern document-design principles that can improve the “neatness, readability, and accessibility” of legal documents. Schiess, 134 U.S. at 166 (“fonts, typefaces, justification, characters per line, line spacing, tabs, headings, and numbering”).
But Schiess doesn't address one strikingly un-neat, un-readable, and un-accessible design quality of many legal documents: in-text reference citation. See, e.g., Bruce v. Every Memo Ever, 322 U.S. 497, 451, 59 S. Ct. 987, 9899, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1452 (1977); and Bruce v. Every Opinion Ever, 322 U.S. 497, 451, 59 S. Ct. 987, 989, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1452 (1976). Sometimes these citations muddle legal writing to the point of absurdity. See, e.g., Bruce v. String-Cites, 322 U.S. 497, 451, 59 S. Ct. 987, 9899, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1452 (1977); String-Cites v. Bruce, 431 U.S. 547, 549, 62 S. Ct. 457, 8204, 64 L. Ed. 2d 1643 (1979); and Bruce Getting Angry v. String-Cites, 322 U.S. 497, 451, 59 S. Ct. 987, 9899, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1152 (1977). In-text reference citations should stop.
Footnotes should replace in-text reference citations. Footnotes make documents easier to read.1 Also, footnotes do not change the readers' ability to have immediate access to authority.2 This is because using footnotes does not change the all-important complications of legal citation; using footnotes merely changes document design.3 Readers can pay attention to the content of the writing, and choose to “check” for authority only when necessary.4 Sure, a reader may have to veer an eye waayy down to the bottom of the page now and again.5 But this is far less intrusive than the inter-sentence barrage of italics, numbers, acronyms, and parentheticals caused by in-text legal citation.6 Footnotes good.
In conclusion, footnotes should replace in-text references in legal documents. Footnotes are a superior method of citation in terms of document design. Neatness, readability, and accessibility would all be improved by a move toward footnotes. The benefit to legal writing would be as great as other changes to design conventions like line spacing, typefaces, etc.
It may be that current conventions about proper footnote usage argue against this proposal. But legal writing is familiar with using discipline-specific citation methods. So why not use the same citation methods at the bottom of the page instead of all over it?
1. See, e.g., This Paragraph v. The Previous Paragraphs, 322 U.S. 497, 451, 59 S. Ct. 987, 9899, 71 L. Ed. 2d 1452 (1977).
2. Look Down Here v. Look Between Sentences, 196 U.S. 319, 324-325, 25 S. Ct. 264, 265-266, 49 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1905).
3. Win v. Win Situation, 431 U.S. 547, 549, 62 S. Ct. 457, 8204, 64 L. Ed. 2d 5643 (1979).
4. The First Amendment Protects Speech v. Carrots Are Yellow as A Matter of Law, 134 U.S. 160, 171, 10 S. Ct. 384, 387, 33 L. Ed. 2d 835 (2005) (arguing that the First Amendment proposition may require citation but most readers shouldn't be bothered with a post-sentence study of the cited authority, while, on the other hand, the carrot proposition may require some follow-up).
5. In re Come on Down, 134 U.S. 160, 171, 10 S. Ct. 384, 387, 33 L. Ed. 2d 835 (2005).
6. In re Isn't it Ridiculous, 431 U.S. 547, 549, 62 S. Ct. 457, 8204, 64 L. Ed. 2d 5643 (1979) (arguing that it is ridiculous).