I don't think they are approved practices, but how common they are is definitely worth checking.
I think the basic problem is that in Ethnic Studies you are trying to find support to a pre-determined conclusion, and so any evidence in support of it is not generally questioned unless there's a pre-existing controversy.
Let's say I write a Physics paper and cite a source to prove Newton's Laws. Is anyone going to question that the source is correct? Everyone knows Newton's Laws are valid, so there's no need to check the source ... right?
Let's say Ward Churchill writes a paper where he says that a certain document says that a specific "blood quantum" is required - that is, to be an Indian, you have to have some Indian blood in you. Does anyone check? Of course not! It all sounds perfectly reasonable.
Actually, the document says nothing of the kind.
Also, understand that Churchill lied about his Indian blood and nonetheless some consider him a member of a tribe, at least by marriage. But others think he's an obnoxious fool who does not speak for Indians at all. So the blood quantum requirement, which he would flunk, is an enormously emotional issue for him.
To you or me it may seem that there is nothing wrong with requiring that someone be an "Indian" in order to receive Indian benefits, but of course he does not. He claims in his papers that to require the blood quantum means extinguishing Indian tribes as they intermarry with non-Indians and the "blood quantum" decreases.
So he had a big emotional stake in this issue and I think that caused him to muddy the waters.
The cold truth is that unless you have severe critics, nobody's going to check your sources. It's easy to simply believe him unless someone on the other side has a similar emotional stake.
D
Have you read this ?
"...Ward Churchill would do himself some good to express a profound apology to people he has offended and misled.
He should also come clean about his appropriated American Indian identity. "
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410293