As you continue to search for information that is relevant to your research question, you’ll need to keep in mind what is valuable information and what is not so valuable.
Below is what we talked about on 10/22
Evaluating secondary sources:
-
- how is it relevant to your research question?
- who wrote it (expert? google or google scholar. expert but are they expert in subject they are talking about?)?
- Reputation of publisher?
- What are author and publisher’s goals and why?
- How recent was this, potentially outdated?
- how credible are sources they cite?
- how specialized?
- who was this written for?
- enough information here to support your research?
- can you access full document?
- what is left out?
- can it be corroborated by other sources?
- what is web address and is that clue for credibility?
- does it cite sources for claims?
- mix of perspectives represented fairly?
These are great questions to ask, and you should consider these questions carefully as you look at each potential source you find. The second reading for today is a more streamlined version of these sorts of questions. Go to page 165 and 166 in the textbook and read through each of the 6 questions.
In a comment below, answer each of the 6 questions to the best of your ability for one potential source you could use in your research project. Use the readings from last week to help you here (especially “Evaluating Sources”)!
If you do not have a source yet…find one! Use the previous page in the module to go find some stuff!
After commenting below, click on the button to continue the module:
1. my source was written by multiple. psychologists who are working with the effects of social media on mental health.
2. It was published by a scholarly society.
3. This source was peer reviewed and includes many citations to statistics and information.
4. The authors use data driven information with experiments and data that is able to back up any claims that are made in the paper.
5. It was written in 2016
6. not sure how to answer this question, the topic I chose is well known, but this source is credible and full of evidence
1. The book I will be using is written by a military historian and theorist..
2. It was published by Cassell in London.
3. The author has written and edited many books about military and warfare. Aside from that, his book that I will use was edited by the publisher.
4. The author uses anecdotal evidence.
5. It was written in 2000.
6. Because I’m researching about implications of a text on business and economics, it makes sense to read about an experienced military historian. It also makes sense to use anecdotal evidence, because it is one of the best ways to analyze how the text was applied.
1. The video is narrated by Jay Z but does not make it clear who wrote the narration. But since it speaks to his personal experience I would say he at least partially wrote it. I will do more research on that
2. It is published by the Drug Policy Alliance
3. It was edited and illustrated by the Alliance but again since it speaks towards personal experience, I believe Jay Z had a lot of creative control
4. Jay Z speaks on the laws that were implemented, stats on incarceration, and experience
5. It was written in 2016
6. The Drug Policy Alliance is in favor of changing the way the government handles drug addiction and usage
1. This article was written by Simon Moore, an investment fund manager
2. Forbes
3. Articles written for Forbes do go through and editing process
4. Moore draws evidence from the US economy, specific sectors of the economy (like oil), and from other research done by professionals
5. This was published on September 8th, 2020
6. Since I’ll be dealing with facts and not opinions, I don’t think I need to worry about people questioning the quality of my sources. I do need to make sure that the people who wrote the articles I will use for research are successful in what they do.
1. the article was written by Christian Dona, a researcher for the National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning
2. eScholarship
3. Peer reviewed
4. Research and analysis
5. 1994
6. It could be seen as a little outdated but in the field of psychology theories and laws that are a century old are still considered relevant
1. The source I chose is written by Chavella T. Pittman who is a Professor of Sociology with vast experience in higher education, marginalized statuses, and interpersonal interactions.
2. The source was published by Journal of Negro Education (JNE), which is a refereed scholarly periodical that was founded at Howard University in 1932.
3. The source is peer-reviewed.
4. The researcher sought to establish the role of race in the lives of African American attending a predominantly white campus by citing the scholarly work of other writers in her field.
5. The research is not outdated because it was performed in 2012 and the issue of racial microaggression is still prevalent in the United States.
6. I do not think that the audience will question the source because it is well-backed up by credible evidence from peer-reviewed sources.
1. John Freebairn
2. MDPI AG from volume 11 issue 4
3. The source was peer reviewed
4. The authors researched other scientists findings on the same topic
5. was published in March of 2020
6. If my audience were to look at this source they would feel confident in my argument
1. It’s an editorial authored by the European Society of Cardiology.
2. It was published in the Cardiovascular Research journal.
3. There are a huge amount of doctors attached to this, so it must have been reviewed by most, if not all of them. It was also reviewed by the editors of the journal.
4. There is another editorial article referenced from Columbia University Press, an article about financial conflict of interest from the NYT, and a study about the spread of false news online.
5. The sources are recent, well-known, and credible.
6. Even with the sources, the content is anecdotal. However, it isn’t as if these aren’t professionals in their field. I believe that’s why so many doctors signed off on this.
1. The plan of the National Mall.
2. Landscaper and individuals from the National Park service.
3. Federal document that layouts the plan of action and the reasons behind it.
4. To layout an agenda for the park renovations.
5. Fall 2020
6. The authors are credible because they were authorized to write the official plan for the National Mall.