Sources are the main building blocks of a research paper. Without sources there isn't a way to research a topic in the first place. The only problem with just any source is that not all are reliable. Many sources like scholarly articles and published books can be very helpful, honest, and truthful which are great backing for a research paper. The hard part is sifting through all of the biased and opinionated blogs and non-evaluated articles like seen in newspapers, magazines, and most web searches. The key is to evaluate each source to see what it's effectiveness is. Questions to ask are, is enough evidence offered? Is the right kind of evidence offered? Is the evidence used ethically? Is the evidence convincing? And is the source of the evidence provided? The source itself should always be evaluated but researching credibility on the author is also a great cautionary step to take. If I was researching facts in the effectiveness of animal trials (such as using mice) for human advancement; Hopefully my source's author would be a credible scientist that has many benefactors to offer, and not some outraged PETA blogger. Maybe if I were looking for personal counter arguments and opinions that back the arguments, PETA might be my best bet; As for the credible facts, a contributing scientist should be my go to source.
Sources and authors should definitely be evaluated, but it doesn't hurt to continue the credibility investigation with the publisher, timeliness, genre, and comprehensiveness too. These can be evaluated in a similar manner too. Electronic sources and field sources should be evaluated in a slightly different manner but can be resourceful nonetheless (example: web source's domain should be examined such as .edu, .com, .gov, etc.)
No comments:
Post a Comment