Course Reflection — Source Evaluation is Key!
Throughout the second half of the spring semester in 2017, I took an online Library Science course called “Accessing Information in the 21st Century.” As a psychology major, with minors in sociology and entrepreneurship, I entered the course with a solid understanding of how to conduct scholarly research within the social sciences. I have taken several research methods courses in the past that gave me a strong framework for conducting academic research. That is, I was capable of accurately conducting and documenting my own research. However, throughout this semester, we have analyzed the foundations of scholarly, academic research from a much broader, holistic perspective. This universal analysis of scholarly research quickly revealed to me that, although my research within the social sciences was proficient, I was lacking the ability to analyze the credibility of all types of sources, especially online articles and secondary sources. In retrospect, my experience in this course has given me to ability to accurately evaluate all types of sources using a variety of tactics centered around, what Hemmingway once called, “crap detection.”
Throughout Week 2 of the course, we discussed several unique ways to accurately evaluate the credibility of a source. We analyzed several sources that highlighted the foundations of reliable academic research. Prior to these lessons, my ability to accurately evaluate the credibility of an online source was very weak; my analysis of credibility was usually limited to broad characteristics, such as “.com websites vs. .org websites.” Fortunately, our analysis, discussion, and application of these source evaluation tactics have undeniably increased my confidence in my research as a whole, especially when evaluating the credibility of online sources.
There are six general characteristics that I now use to evaluate the overall credibility of a source: authority, ownership, objectivity, purpose, currency, and accuracy.
The authority dimension refers to the qualifications and credentials of the author; are you able to locate the author of the article or website? What makes him/her/it qualified to talk about the topic?
The ownership dimension refers the possession of the source; who owns the source? What is the website domain (i.e. .edu vs. .org)?
The objectivity dimension is directly linked to the neutrality of the source as a whole; are you able to locate any indicators of biased opinions? Is there a balanced presentation of information?
The purpose dimension refers to the goals and aims of the source; why was this source created (i.e. to persuade, inform, sell, entertain, etc.)?
The currency dimension refers to the present-day relevance of the source; when was the source first produced? Has it been updated since this date? How does this impact your research? (NOTE: also check the links on the website — are they still working?)
The accuracy dimension refers to the presentation of information within the source; does the article draw on empirical research? Is the data comprehensive and understandable? Have the methods of data collection been explained? Has it been peer-reviewed (or reviewed at all)? Are the facts and statistics presented in an organized an understandable way? Are all sources properly cited?
A strong understanding of these six fundamental principles has irrefutably increased my capacity to conduct and analyze scholarly research. Although the “.com vs. .org” analysis is an essential aspect of the ownership dimension, this just one among many different ways to accurately evaluate an online source. In order to truly evaluate the overall credibility of an online source, I now use a combination of authority, ownership, objectivity, purpose, currency, and accuracy.