Whenever you quote, paraphrase, summarize, or otherwise refer to the work of another, you are required to cite its source, either by way of parenthetical documentation or by means of a footnote. Offered here are some of the most commonly cited forms of material; for types of documents not exemplified here, please consult the appropriate style manual, available in the library’s reference collection.

MLA: In-text Parenthetical Citations
The Modern Language Association (MLA) guidelines require that you cite the quotations, summaries, paraphrases, and other material used from sources within parentheses typically placed at the end of the sentence in which the quoted or paraphrased material appears. The parenthetical method replaces the use of citational footnotes. These in-text parenthetical citations correspond to the full bibliographic entries found in a list of references at the end of your paper.

APA: In-text Parenthetical Citations
The American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines require that you use parenthetical citations to document quotations, paraphrases, summaries, and other material from a source used in your paper. These in-text citations correspond to the full bibliographic entries found in a list of references included at the end of your paper.

Turabian: Footnotes
Footnoting is the method for documenting quotations, paraphrases, summaries, and other material offered in your paper required by Kate A. Turabian’s A Manual for Writers of Terms Papers, Thesis, and Dissertations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996 (known simply as “Turabian”). Footnotes are listed serially at the bottom of the page, preceded by superscript numerals (1Twain, Mark); Endnotes are listed serially at the end of the paper, preceded by a regular typed numeral, followed by a period (1. Twain, Mark). (Note that when using superscript footnotes, the first line of the citation is indented 5 spaces).

Direct Quotations

Direct Quotations

Direct quotation is simply that – using the source’s exact words within the context of your own prose. Quotes should be identified with quotation marks or by a block quote format in order to separate them from your words or the words of other sources. Direct quotations have three parts:

  • Quote: Material taken directly from the author
  • Tag: Material that explains the quote
  • Source: Material that documents the source, such as page numbers

All direct quotes contain these three parts. Note the following examples, in which the tag and source are marked:

  1. In Duin’s and Graves’ study of vocabulary instruction, it is noted that “traditional vocabulary instruction is not effective” (328).
  2. “Traditional vocabulary instruction is not effective,” notes a recent study (Duin and Graves 328).
  3. “Traditional vocabulary instruction,” notes a recent study, “is not effective” (Duin and Graves 328).

Why should I tag my sources?

Remember that tags are an excellent place to give the credentials of your source, no matter what types of citation you are using (summaries, paraphrases, direct quotations). Reference lists rarely give degrees or offices held. Use tags to add credibility to the information within the citation–particularly to information gained through interviews. Tags also can be used to add needed information to the actual quotation, summary, or paraphrase without detracting from your reference material. For example:
According to Lloyd Benson, veteran lead dispatcher for the Dixie National Forests, “In my experience, forest fires can frequently be predicted with careful attention to weather conditions” (Smith 4).
Without the tag, we would have no reason to believe the source.

Summarizing involves giving the “gist” of a statement or idea, using your own words and not the author’s. There are several purposes for summary:

  • To convey a general idea
  • To give all necessary information (excluding the unnecessary)
  • To shorten material
  • To reference material
  • To set up quoted material

Summaries are generally informative and descriptive. They use concise, coherent sentences to relay important information. They may include simply deleting extraneous material, highlighting key words, synthesizing the overall meaning, or miniaturizing primary ideas. The length of the summary depends on what is being summarized.

Paraphrasing involves a rephrasing of the author’s ideas or statements. Paraphrases restate or repeat something in new words. They do not simply substitute synonyms for the author’s words but substantially rewrite the original without changing its meaning. Paraphrases become especially important when you are writing to a varied audience. They allow you to translate technical information into lay terms, selecting words more suited to a new audience. Paraphrases are used:

  • To explore meanings
  • To restate
  • To clear away confusion
  • To explain something to a lay audience
  • To set up quoted material

Essay Question
Who Governs?
Introduction Context

  • Basic question of politics = question of power
  • “Governs” = here defined as who determines the shape of public policy
  • Democracy, as an institutional arrangement, is about distribution of power and therefore makes important normative and empirical claims about who governs
  • Scope of the answer = liberal/capitalist democracies

Theme or hypothesis

Theme or Hypothesis

No-One Governs: public policy as outcome of intended/unintended inter-institutional dynamics

Plan of Essay

  • Section 1: About the nature of the possible groups that could dominate,
  • Section 2: About the importance of institutional interaction to political process,
  • Section 3: About the output of the policy process.

Section 1: Social Groups


  • No single group dominates

Suggested groups (capitalist class for Marxists [e.g. Miliband, 1976]/business for neo-pluralists [e.g. Lindblom, 1977], or social elites for elitists [e.g. Mills, 1956]) that dominate are in fact internally divided (therefore lacking agreed goals) and unable to control entire outcome of political system


  1. Capitalists/Business = fragmented along national/international lines (e.g. division over whether protectionism is promoted or decried)
  2. Social elites = lacking homogeneity with changing nature of class (e.g. new middle class interests in public sector conflicting with old middle class defence of private sector entrepreneurializm)

Section 2: Institutional Interaction


  • Public Policy is often determined by institutional interaction which no single group could control (even if it were unified)

Although social groups can (and do) dominate institutions, it is the interaction between the institutions that determines the overall contours of public policy and it is that interaction which is so hard for social groups to control because it is a dynamic process


  1. Division between different institutions of government with differing agendas (e.g. legislature, executive, judiciary and bureaucracy)
  2. Division between institutions of politics apart from the formal institutions of government (e.g. market/state interaction, government/economy interaction)
  3. Different levels of politics (e.g. national vs. local)

Section 3: Policy Outcomes


  • Public Policy does not have a unified character

Public policy favours different social groups in different policy arenas and even favours different social groups in the same policy arenas at different times


  1. Labour favoured in welfare/social policy and business favoured in fiscal/taxation policy (e.g. policy in the 1990s)
  2. Different regions getting different policy preference (e.g. contrast between the policy towards the North in the 1960s and 1980s)


Statement of Argument:

  • No-One Governs because (1) no social group is unified enough; (2) the complexity of institutional interaction mitigates the possibility of a dominant social group; and (3) public policy is essentially diverse in its outcomes


  • Essentially negative conception of power (form of anarchy perhaps?)

The conditions for one group to dominate might exist if the scope (and therefore complexity) of state action is reduced and is society becomes dichotomized (rather than fragmented). This might be the way politics is going and so we are nearer the potential of the dominance of a social group but are currently under the reality of no-one governing.