This is an important question in DH. At the very basic, you can transcribe the segment that you want to quote and then just include the podcast (with the information on your transcription) in your bibliography.

A podcast is not a separate genre however; it simply refers to the media format delivered for Web access. It can be a primary source in some cases (interviews, memoirs, speeches) but there is always a potential primary source that the information in these podcasts is based on. In that case, you might be interested in those sources.

DH is media agnostic by accepting non-textual content as part of the source material, and as long as it is coming from a reliable source that supports your thesis, you should be able to benefit from its use. If the speaker on the podcast is someone with many publications to his or her credit that will boost the credibility of your work as well.

I hope this helps.

Here in Brazil it's possible to do a quote with e-mail messages, podcasts and web sites... you only had to add all information about it: sender/whom post it, date, group, blog, site or social network where it was posted...

This is an important question in DH. At the very basic, you can transcribe the segment that you want to quote and then just include the podcast (with the information on your transcription) in your bibliography.

A podcast is not a separate genre however; it simply refers to the media format delivered for Web access. It can be a primary source in some cases (interviews, memoirs, speeches) but there is always a potential primary source that the information in these podcasts is based on. In that case, you might be interested in those sources.

DH is media agnostic by accepting non-textual content as part of the source material, and as long as it is coming from a reliable source that supports your thesis, you should be able to benefit from its use. If the speaker on the podcast is someone with many publications to his or her credit that will boost the credibility of your work as well.

I hope this helps.

I would agree with Arjun here, a podcast is just a different format of media, in some cases no different than a radio program or television show. You can always transcribe the section that is relevent to your own research and note it in the bibliography as you would any other media source.

I do agree with both my forerunners. Technically it is even easier as to quote a lot of other web-based contents as it presents information in linear form, so that you can quote it exactly by running time minute/second (and of course all relevant information on the website you got it from). As to the reliability of the contents packaged within the podcasts in question, this should be judged the same way as every other source - if used as a primary source, does it apply to your research questions, is it indicative of broader trends, does it capture unique attributes of what you want to get into, etc.; if used as secondary source, check the persons involved, where, how and why it got published, any interested parties, and so on. There is no basic problem arising from the 'digitality' of the format. Would you ask the same question about, say, a BBC radio feature? Just because it's on the net it's not out of science. This seems to be a kind of categorical anxiety of many who shy away from web-based content (no offense meant!), that there is some mysterious essential difference between 'the web' and 'the real world' which invalidates the contents of each one for serious use in the other. This is just not the case. The world wide web is just another part of our real world, nothing more, nothing less; it is here, it won't go away, we have to find ways to deal with it as well as with the other parts of the real world we are longer used to, for example, as in the present case, radio.

I think that it's a good way to reach all audiences and even to establish a discussion on a particular topic of a research field or debate about it. I think that can transmit some information to us, but as when we would like making an academic work serious, we should take with caution this information and check all possible origins of the sources.

@Tobias Winnerling: "Would you ask the same question about, say, a BBC radio feature?"

Actually yes, I would. My concern was more about the orality of the account than about it being on the net.

Thanks everyone for the great and helpful comments.

As others note, podcasts are another form of media that can be part of the researchers armamentarium. They are citable: e.g., the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th, is clear about how to cite podcast sources: See specifically, CMS 8.187 (Blogs and blog entries [treat podcasts as blog entires] and 14.221 (Published or broadcast interviews).

@ Torsten Wollina: "My concern was more about the orality of the account than about it being on the net." Could you specify then why you see this as a problem? Is it about orality or about probable colloquiality that you worry? This is just a guess right now, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your question goes in the direction of spoken contributions being more spontaneous, instantaneous than written ones and therefore perhaps less thought through, with less intellectual strictures and rigidity, making them in the end a less valuable and less strictly informative source of knowledge. There is a point in this, for after all, it is certainly difficult to add a footnote to something said. Perhaps then you should treat them not as articles but rather as essays, which in their freedom of style and referencing sources come closer to podcasts/radio features as other forms of writing, but are .nevertheless considered a valuable kind of source if treated with the necessary caution. Maybe it would be best to treat podcasts as essays read aloud

That is a good point. I guess, my uneasiness comes from spending to much time with editions of old manuscripts. You do not find many sound files dating back to the 15th century, after all.

However, as I wrote earlier, I do not see any problem with podcasts as a source text, but I was not sure how to regard it as secondary literature. Thanks to all of you I am more confident now that I can found an argument at least partially on what an academic states in this format.

You will obviously not find audio files dating back to the 15th century, but it is a real joy to me each time I view the sound film of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's description of how he came up with the character Sherlock Holmes. Now that I know the tone of his voice when I read his novels I hear a similar voice in my mind as I read his writings. But back to the subject, if the material falls in your area of research then I would not see a problem quoting a podcast, especially when the material covered is not commonly presented in a published work. I don't know if posting a podcast is technically "publishing" an item or not. But I would consider it as such. But I like the "human" aspect of the voice, the same way you would interview a source.

The APA Style Blog has provided a format and examples for citing podcasts (http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/10/how-to-cite-a-podcast.html) but the user comments note the podcasts are not always easily retrievable by readers who wish to examine the source material. Perhaps the digital world needs a DOI (digital object identifier) system for Web-based sources.

Diane wrote: " user comments note the podcasts are not always easily retrievable by readers who wish to examine the source material. " I agree, the Internet is being promoted as the future but it is the least permanent medium around. You can post material to the internet, and as long as the monthly fee is paid to keep the material posted, it will be there. But just change one letter in the web address and the material may not be found again, even though that page is still on a server somewhere. After retiring from the computer field for 32 years, I can tell you the data written once has to be converted every few years to the new technology or the digital image or whatever you posted may not be retrievable later.

To my opinion podcasts can simply be treated as online resources in general and quoted by URL and date of access. It may, as is recommended for quoted websites, to download and save a copy of the material quoted for further reference.

As with anything you wish to cite, one should do due diligence to go to the primary source for the cited material used in a podcast. When the primary source is not available (out-of-print, unattainable or inaccessible (as Urbahns explained)), citing it as an online resource in general and saving a copy of the material quoted (as Helmstaedter suggested) seems reasonable.

I was thinking along these lines also. Potentially, everything could be a secondary source built on previously existing knowledge, but if the speech contains verifiably original material (theory, first-person account of an event or other anecdotal evidence not in any print format then it may as well become the primary source to support the writer's thesis. Perhaps contacting the speaker on the podcast may lead to those primary sources with important background information or context.

With proper citations, why not? Just as long as I and whomever is brave enough to share my words of "wisdom" know where the words of others have come from, everybody should be able to cope.

Good to see the positive and well formulated responses.

Podcast takes many forms/genres. Just as books do. As mentioned early in this thread, podcasts should be viewed as a form of media, rather by a pre-defined conception of its worth as a source of information. Loads of "scientific books" are worthless and devious.

Concerning the primacy, the validity of a source, I'm of the opinion that thoughts are build, ideas structured on former conception and further generating new ones, all inspired and transferred by each-other. The interaction is undeniable.

It's not so much about the media form in which information is presented, but rather by what way and by what method it is distributed. With the multitude of developing means of distribution of information and ideas, we just have to adapt. THIS SAID, there are complication as each method might enforce an ad hoc approach and criteria when examined - just as others have already mentioned. Orality, for example in a podcast, might be difficult to transcript or digitally embed in a work. A spontaneous dialogue might have its complications but also it's advantages. Interesting interactions between talkers, new ideas, metaphoric references or new formulations might occur. It might also be very precise and well formulated if not a direct reading of a text. Like an audiobook. And some lectures might be like that too; spontaneous and free-flowing or strict and precise. Then again, a text too could be bad written, poorly structured and generally confusing and yet well appreciated. In fact, i find this to be the case within many fields. Few researcher are good writers - both in humanities and natural sciences.

In general, my opinion is that, we should focus more on constructive criticism upon the content rather than the media. This seems obvious, but is rarely the case. We are creatures of structure and habits - we like to stick with what works and what we know; safety. But more over, we are creatures of logic. No organism, have been so inventive as humans. Adapting to new circumstances and changing our environment to our advantage is what we do. Media is communication. Better communication strengthens our development and survivability. Don't reject new media. Embrace it. Modulate it.

Hi,

as far as concerning the APA style guide it is possible. Please have a look at http://library.csus.edu/guides/rogenmoserd/general/apa.html#electronic

all the best

In a research paper quality of content is ensured by the the fact that the paper has been peer reviewed. I am not sure how will you enure this in a podcast. Therefore i will prefer the original source to a podcast. My research paper will always remain for posterity to refer to its references but not necessarily the podcast.

Cite URL and ref by minute & second for start of relevant segment - give time range if you want to confine citation. Since we are putting our whole civilization on the fragile new digital media, of course this method is best as you can hyperlink.

I agree with Johannes Delund that we should focus on the discourse, and not the media because new media is here to stay. Just go back a few thousand years when Sumerians established archives. The media was clay and tools to write in cuneiform: that was "new" media then, and where would we be without them? Then much later came papyrus, which replaced stone, and now we are looking at digital media instead of paper-, film-, and magnetic media, which are no less valuable now than they were at the time of being created.

Digital Humanities is fortunate for being able to inspire and sustain discourse that transcends media, and as an archivist I see the opportunity and challenge to integrate old and new media into that discourse. There is still an ethical expectation to cite the sources, so other researchers can verify and discover other information in those sources you used.

Des Carne wrote "Since we are putting our whole civilization on the fragile new digital media, of course this method is best as you can hyperlink."

Absolutely, but that depends on the citation style you use. Some are very meticulous while others very minimalistic. Either way, there is room to provide details related to very large media files. Providing that extra information is your proof that you have used the digital content before it went down, and if it did, it may still be available on Internet Archive's site: http://archive.org/index.php

Madhu Kumar wrote "In a research paper quality of content is ensured by the the fact that the paper has been peer reviewed. I am not sure how will you enure this in a podcast. Therefore i will prefer the original source to a podcast."

That is true in most cases, but recorded speeches have been credited as the very source of theories, hypotheses in some cases. Now, one may argue that the presentation notes may be those truly primary sources (and there may be previous writings to contain some of that material), but speakers often digress and elaborate on critical points raised by the audience. Additionally, if you record intersubjective reading sessions, that might also be a source for new original material.

Archives are full of recordings and transcriptions that may not have had time to go through peer review because the speaker passed away or the material was restricted form public access. We are narrowing our field of vision if we restrict ourselves to privileged publications (books, journals, magazines). Also, in some political systems, you can be the best scientist and still be silenced by those in powerful positions in governments and national academias of science, so the podcast may be all you have as primary evidence on competing theories. You see that in movies sometimes when the CD is the only surviving copy with tested reliable data, but I am not building on fiction here. The peer review is not a 100% indicator of quality, but in most cases that process produces the most reliable results.

This just means, we have to remain extra critical of podcasts as well as non-peer-reviewed print material but remain open to the valid points made in non-text media, which has an increasing chance of being the primary source. Media without the mention of sources is what we really need to look out for because it is difficult to verify information forming the basis of theories on those recordings, so you do raise an important point.

Respectfully submitted.

Of course, it is fine to not only quote but also to use podcasts. All you have to do is to be sure the author has the proper credentials to qualify as a expert on the subject. Simple.

I am wanting to use a podcast on imagination in my dissertation. Its from the BBC and features professors in the subject. Do you think this will be of cost to my mark?