Forum Replies Created
- Posts
In the reference list, how do we deal with the full name of the abbreviated in-text citation. Is it Harvard to do it as below? I searched high and low and couldn’t find consistent advice. Most started with the full term which would be inconsitent with in-text.
FRC [Financial Reporting Council] (2016). The UK Corporate Governance Code. London: The Financial Reporting Council Limited. Available at: <website address>
Is it a good idea to shorten the title? It’s taking up just about 30 words with the organisation name inserted!
Yes: the three different documents will have different letters. (M&S, 2016a) (M&S, 2016b) etc
Yes in the reference list you put the full details of what the document is.
I also hope that you understood the part where she says a document needs only appear once in the reference list (for example, even if you cite the 2016 annual report 20 times in-text in the reference list it must appear once)
This site might help you. https://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm on how to cite other documents.
Trephena says the key is consistency.
The reference list should be a seperate file. See page 65 of the information pack which tells us what to upload and in which format we must do it.
P.S. I am also a student like you. So please verify everything I tell you.
@bigbig While you wait for Trephena’s response, perhaps rule no.4 might help you. It says
Each different document referred to must have its own unique designator If for example you are using several different articles from the same newspaper in the same year you MUST distinguish between the various articles. You do this by using ‘appendages’ added to the year e.g. 2015(a), 2015(b) 2015(c). If during the course of your work you refer to the same document more than once then you should always use the same designator as used previously (so do not change it to a different appendage from the one given originally).
If you google havard referencing multiple works by same author same year it will give the same advice. I hope this helps a bit.
Thank you.
(Yes I endend up introducing another question there without explicitly stating.. sorry for the confusion. Somethings come to mind while writing on something else.)
Final question (I hope).
Throughout my report I mentioned how issues came to the attention of the board. Which was for most of the part through third parties (i.e. a customer, a whistleblower etc). I’m commenting on tone at the top now and bringing in the point that with what our ‘man’ good-ol Jes did it’s no wonder that issues have always come through outsiders.
My question dear Trephena is, am I expected to cite all the issues here (author, date) when I discussed them elsewhere in the report or I can get away with saying; it’s no wonder all the issues identified in this report……
I read somewhere that in the conclusion one must not bring up something that is not mentioned in the main report. I was going to do this! So one day if you have a little time to kill please do a little explanation for us on why this is so. I know I’m not the only one to have fallen to this – the temptation comes when starting out the conclusion because we don’t know what much to say after ‘they did this but didn’t comply with this’.
Thanks
Lexa
Hi Trephena
I’ll just use an rough example for my question so that I don’t drown it too many words.
The main principle requires division of responsibilities at the head of the company (Code, 2016, s.1.1). To this end, the roles of Chairman and CEO should be seperated (Code, 2016, s.1.3).
Does the second reference need have “author, date” in this case or just the section will suffice?
@ngeleja A tip for the Financial Times online – keep trying!
It will allow you a number of articles per day (about 3). If you have two devices the better. Sometimes I cannot access some articles with my computer but I can access the same articles with my ipad. If I reach my limit on the computer, I switch to the ipad 😉
Yep! James Edward Staley the man himself. (see what he did with his initials there?) 🙂
Oopsy. Sorry I should have mentioned I’m researching into the practices of a bank.
Thank you so muchTrephena.
I think I went overboard in my evaluation in some parts. I’ll have to tone it down.
Another question please. Other issues outside the code that I wish to evaluate, say money laundering or senior manager regime, I have to introduce under business models first like we do for The Code & Mendelow? And then apply in part 3?Hey, Trephena and fellow T 17-ners
I could really use some advice on the stakeholder analysis.
Under business models I stated I would use Mendelow’s matrix. I ‘defined’ it and discussed its strengths & limitations.My issue is with the quadrant and the mapping. Where do I do this?
In part 2 where I discuss the matrix? If so it means in my ‘impact on stakeholders’ section in part 3 its a matter of stating the stakeholder and typing away all the nasty things that happened to them?I’ve been stuck the whole day and I’m panicky. My word count is creeping into the red.
For the first request.
https://static.brookes.ac.uk/business/website-assets/acca-assets/rr-exemplars.pdf
Please ignore my question above. I didn’t phrase it well to bring out what exactly I wanted to know. I’ll give it another go below;
I assume that I have to direct the reader to the exact place from where the provision I quoted was taken. Is it correct to do it as follows
e.g Principle B2 of the code (FRC 2016) states,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (p.22)At the end of the quotation should I put page numbers or the principle B2 is enough to guide?
Hi Trephena,
I hope this question is acceptable to ask.
I am having trouble citing code principles/ provisions, that is, I am not sure of the appropriate way to do it at the end of the narration of what the principle requires.
At first I thought I have to cite the code for example (FRC, 2016). But if I do it this way it means each principle/ provision I cite, will have (FRC, 2016) after it.
Then I thought maybe I should cite : (section B.1 ).
Is the first method the required one?
Hey Trephena,
I have another silly little question please.
I have an uneasy feeling about directly quoting the code principles and regulation throughout (e.g. the principle states ” every company should do such and such…”.
My question: is it permissible (or advisable) to paraphrase the principle to avoid quoting? I will reference.Thank you Trephena for the prompt and helpful response. I feel like I have bitten off more than I can chew with this topic or maybe it’s my choice of bank! You see, of the 6 issues I identified from 2012 up to 2017, 5 are based on events that took place prior to the year 2012! Take for example the charges laid against the bank and four former executives on June 20th this year. The charges are based on events that took place in 2008. Investigations began in 2012.
That leaves me with only one recent event so far which is dubious behaviour of the Chief Exec in trying to unmask the identy of a whistle blower (2016) and interfering in a matter involving a client of the bank and his brother in law (2017).I think I am better off looking at a different company otherwise I may risk padding like you mentioned on a different post.
Hi Trephena & Everyone
At the risk of sounding stupid, one of my chosen company’s misconduct was investigated and penalised in 2012. However, the period under investigation was 2007 to 2010.
My question therefore is, since wrong doing was confirmed and punished in 2012 does this particular governance failure qualify for the ‘…within the last 5 years’ requirement..’ of the topic.There are sufficient other failures to work with without the one mentioned above. I would not want to take the risk of going against instructions if there is doubt in anybody’s mind.
Thank you for your time.