Chicago vs MLA?

[Averroes MD]

I always use Chicago style... What about you? I find MLA to be less academic... Am I correct in this judgment or is this my own prejudice?

Thanks!

[alain]

I think it's just that different disciplines prefer different citation styles. History uses Chicago whereas English/lit/critical theory use MLA, at least in my experience. I don't think any of them are more academic than the other, just different ways of accomplishing the same thing. 

[Averroes MD]

20 minutes ago, alain said:

I think it's just that different disciplines prefer different citation styles. History uses Chicago whereas English/lit/critical theory use MLA, at least in my experience. I don't think any of them are more academic than the other, just different ways of accomplishing the same thing. 

 

Thanks. I wonder what Theology & Religious Studies use. I'm assuming Chicago?

[emhafe]

Yes, theology and religion use Chicago as well. As least I did all my theology work with Chicago.

[xypathos]

Most RS and Theology programs use the notes and bibliography style of Chicago, while sciences use the author-date style of Chicago. Yes, there's two forms of Chicago but not much difference.

While Turabian use to be an ever slight deviation from Chicago, that's no longer the case. I *think* Turabian finally gave up and fully merged with Chicago in the latest addition.

Like you Averroes, I don't care much for MLA but that's b/c I've been using Chicago for the last 10 years or so.

[krystasonrisa]

I think it depends on your region and experience. I use MLA and APA because I started in Lit/Critical Theory and APA is standard in Latin American social sciences. 

 

I personally don't like Chicago. It's too exclusive for my tastes and needs.