2

I have some interviews in the bibliography, so far I've used

 @article{gigi2018,
  title={Interview with Gigi Pilotino},
  author={Gigi, Pilotino},
  journal={John Smith},
  year={2018}
}

The problem is that I'd like to have in the bibliography the name of the interviewee, the year, the name of the interview and "by John Smith"

I am using biblatex, any idea?

Andrea
  • 99
  • 3
    Possible duplicate of Best way to cite interviews or conversations with BibTeX? – Coby Viner Jun 05 '18 at 14:39
  • 2
    Unless the interview is published in a journal (named, say, John Smith), there can be no justification for using the @article entry type. Please do tell us in which form the interviews were published: In a book, in a working paper, on a website, someplace else? – Mico Jun 05 '18 at 14:41
  • They were not published but are going to be attached in the paper I am writing – Andrea Jun 05 '18 at 15:10
  • I concur with Mico that it is crucial how the interview was published. I would not list the interview in an unusual way in the bibliography: After all the bibliography is supposed to help people find the sources and unusual constructions (like putting the interviewee first even though the work is associated with the interviewer in the source) have the potential to confuse people. If you can emphasise the fact that the interviewee said the words by making it clear in the text and by using the optional arguments to \cite: \cite[Anne Elk in][13]{interviewbyJC} – moewe Jun 05 '18 at 15:10
  • 1
    Mhhh, if it is not published and only available in the appendix of your paper then it makes little sense to put it in the bibliography at all. Just link to the appendix directly. Of course you may include something like "(Gigi Pilotino interviewed by John Smith, see appendix A)" See also the "personal communication" in http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWcitations.html – moewe Jun 05 '18 at 15:13

1 Answers1

5

If the interview is published you should cite the interview in the same way that you would normally use to cite a source of that type.

If it can be found in a book authored by John Smith, then that would mean that the source is primarily associated with John Smith even though he is the interviewer. If it can be found on the web, cite it as an @online entry.

The APA (http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2010/10/what-belongs-in-the-reference-list.html and also https://alliant.libguides.com/c.php?g=692717&p=4908255) as well as http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWcitations.html recommend not to list personal communication and research interviews in the bibliography/list of reference if they are not publicly available.

Since you plan to include the interviews in the appendix of your paper or otherwise, I would not add the reference to the bibliography. Instead I would add a short note and a link to the appendix in the text

\enquote{All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much \emph{thicker} in the middle,
and then thin again at the far end.} (A.~Elk as interviewed by G.~Chapman,
see \cref{appendix:elk:2008})
moewe
  • 175,683
  • 1
    I agree that, given the interview is included in the Appendix, that's the most pertinent approach. But I do not concur in the overall meaning that the only reason of a citation/bibliographical reference is to "help people find the sources". It should do that, of course, if possible, but it is first a way to "reckon the sources". In my area, at least, I frequently meet with sources which must be cited, and are from hard to impossible to reach publicly. Interviews being one of those, but mainly archival sources in less accessible archives (e.g. personal archives which somehow access [...] – gusbrs Jun 05 '18 at 16:31
  • [...] has not been granted to the public. You name it, a "family" an "enterprise" and so on). – gusbrs Jun 05 '18 at 16:32
  • 1
    Sorry, I think I've fallen trap to a false cognate. I meant "acknowledge" in place of "reckon". – gusbrs Jun 05 '18 at 16:58
  • @gusbrs I guess this is field and culture dependent. I can definitely see that it makes sense to mention sources that are hard to locate like private archives and the like, but personal communication is more tricky. Advertising this in the text would be enough for me since adding it to the bibliography does not really add value for locating the source. If, on the other hand, the bibliography is used as a (rather crude, if I may say) tool to trace the origins of ideas in the text or give credit (why would credit in the text not be enough?) then things are different. – moewe Jun 05 '18 at 19:40
  • moewe, Agreed. :) – gusbrs Jun 05 '18 at 19:42