[Closed] Academic types, how to reference a reference in a reference...

Reference the work which originally has the information you're referencing - no need to tell everybody how you found it was there.

Two aspects to my answer:

Firstly, should you really be citing this? It is third hand evidence and it would be better to read the original content. Can you access the original to read the quote in context?

Secondly, does you university not have a guide to citations? Something like this: [url= http://www.citethemrightonline.com/ ]Cite them right[/url]Each institution can have its own conventions and you will need to follow them rather than the views of STW

Thanks all. Midlifecrisis, it's not a direct quotation, it's discussion of an idea in a source that is then discussed in another work and finally mentioned in the one I've read. So the one I've read cites as follows:
"(Sackett et al. (1997) in Van De Luitgaarden (2009) p247)"

I've looked on the pages of the uni's support for learning guide to citations and it's rather general, simply stating that the school my course is in expects the Harvard style and gives general guidance about how to insert quotations and reference in the body of an essay. It doesn't mention secondary, or indeed tertiary, referencing.

As midlifecrisis (2013) states, either find the original citation or find another way to quote the info you need...

"Thanks. Will do."
(Cardwell, J. 2013, p1)

an idea first suggested by Pants et al and then developed by Cardwell - 2 citations for the price of one !

In the body I'd be tempted to say something like "Smith's commentary (1) on Brown's analysis (2) of Muppet's work (3) " and then cite them separately...

Stoatsbrother, I like that idea! Would be easier, it's an effing nightmare trying to get e-access to the body of the works I want to read. I can't get to the library until at least Sunday and even then I can't guarantee access to them.

As above, find an alternative source. It's not good practice to referance second (or third) hand material. You run the risk of mis-quoting which is never good. It does happen though. A colleaue of mine has been referred to over 20 times. The silly thing is that the paper was never written, let alone published. The paper was simply listed in a proposed special edition that never appeared. This undermines the peer-review process. That's marine science. You appear to be in social sciences but I presume it's the same.

[img] [/img]

Always try and find the original. It might contain extra information which is useful. You could also find your interpretation is different to the two other authors and hen your got the chance to critique them.

Stoats brother +1 and if you've not already got bibliographic software, then have a look at mendeley, it makes the mechanics of citing and listing the references dead easy http://www.mendeley.com/

Is there a tutor you can ask? I'd check with the person who is going to be marking it, they're the only person whose opinion really matters.

Is there any specific aspect, different information in any of the sources you are referencing? It's always best to exploit your quotes (direct and indirect) as much as possible - so which of the papers has the most relevant discussion of the idea to your paper - I'd cite that one, and if it is the third one in the train, then cite them in sequence as above - but if word count allows - then identify the aspects that each of the references has added, and relate them back to your work.