I have a disambiguation problem and have been unable to find a solution!
I am using Chicago style.
I have a chapter composed of two interviews with the same person conducted on different days.
When I cite them, in the first instance they are referenced in full:
Smith, Bob, interview by me, location, July 25, 2014.
Smith, Bob, interview by me, location, January 1, 2012.
But in subsequent references they are only referred to as:
Smith, Bob.
Smith, Bob.
This gives no indication which of the two interviews they are from.
My only solution so far is to change the style of ‘Interview - Short’ to include the interview date… but this is overkill for interviews with other people that I only interviewed once.
On relfection I realised that it was more of a question about the Chicago style so I contacted them and got the following response which might be helpful for others:
First, when you write a citation in a note, write the name in the normal way: Bob Smith. Otherwise the note is hard to read, especially if you have several citations in a row. (The last name comes first only when you make an alphabetical list, like a bibliography, that uses surnames for alphabetizing.)
Second, you are right –the name by itself is useless, so add the date. Smith, interview, January 1, 2012.
I would certainly add the date to all citations that wouldn’t make sense otherwise.
As for the others, rather than worry about consistency, give the readers what they need. If something in the text tells the reader when the interview took place, you don’t need to add it in the citation. If you did all your interviews in March 2012, it might not matter to readers which day it was. (Although it might, if some event hinged on the interview or if the interview was affected by some event.) If your interviews were over a twenty-year span, a reader might need to be oriented, and they probably won’t remember from the first time you cited it.