Types of Sources
In order to be successful you will need to know how to identify a peer-reviewed or "scholarly" source. These videos can help you learn the difference between the different types of sources, can help you identify the differences between primary and secondary research, and introduce you to the different types of data. This page also provides information on important questions to ask as you determine the quality of the sources you find.
This video will help explain the difference between popular (or non-scholarly) sources and scholarly sources.
Q: Are master's theses and doctoral dissertations considered scholarly sources?
A: Yes. They are peer-reviewed by committees of experts and are an example of peer-reviewed scholarly work.
Q: Are trade publications considered a scholarly source?
A: No. While they may be selected by their editors for their quality content, and many contain reliable information, they are not generally considered a scholarly source. They are not usually peer-reviewed and the purpose of their publication is to inform an industry, not to further the scholarly conversation.
Q: Are government reports considered a scholarly source?
A: No. Government reports contain valuable and useful information but they are individual pieces of information gathered to help policy-makers make a decision and are not peer-reviewed scholarship produced to further the study of a specific field. While government reports can form a piece of your reference list, you would need other scholarly articles to support the information.
Many scholarly journal articles are available online which can cause some confusion. Should you cite it as a journal article or as a web page? Journal articles and web pages have distinct characteristics. Both web pages and journal articles are often found by clicking a URL or link, but even when a journal article is accessed through web page, you would still cite it as a journal and not as a web page.
This video covers the difference between primary and secondary research, as well as explaining the differences between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research.
Reading a text in isolation can be dangerous. Thinking about evaluating sources as "good" or "bad" is misleading. There is a lot of grey and information is all about CONTEXT.
The way information is created today is interconnected and complicated; context is the key to understanding the credibility of the source. When you incorporate lateral reading into your process of evaluating a source, it encourages you to dig deeper to see the bigger picture and to wonder about how this source is interconnected with others. When you're properly evaluating a source, you're not just wandering around looking for an article to use for your paper, you're wondering about uncovering any bias within the source and how it fits within context of your knowledge, research, and purpose.
Lateral reading means you spend less time on the source you're thinking of using and more time searching for information about the source. Instead of going to the About Us page of a website to learn about the organization you've never heard of (vertical reading), you'd open up a new tab and search for other sources about the organization, it's founders, and it's reputation (lateral reading).
There are plenty of organizations that have a veneer of authenticity and neutrality as a disguise for advocacy or lobbying and plenty of publishers that have leaning agendas that won't ever run a story that doesn't support the narrative they want to portray. Lateral reading encourages you to ask many of the 5 W's (especially who, what, why) with the underlying goal of discovering "what sort of public memory does this information invoke?". These steps help you understand the context of the source, uncover nuances and subtle signaling that only are revealed through critical thinking.
Instead of asking whether this is a "good source" or a "bad source" ... you're asking "why would I use this source" and making your decision based on the context you've uncovered.
Sources:
Civic Online Reasoning (n.d.). Curriculum. https://cor.stanford.edu/curriculum/
Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Stanford History Education Group Working Paper No. 2017-A1, Oct. 9, 2017.
Stop: Understand who created this information and why
Investigate the Source: Know what you are reading before you read it
Find Better or Other Coverage: Look for other reporting or analysis on the claim
Trace Quotes, Media and Claims to Original Source: Understand the original context
Sources:
There are many methods for critically considering information resources. One is Joseph Bizup's BEAM model.
The BEAM method is especially helpful when deciding how to use a resource.
B: Background Background information is general information or factual evidence used to provide context
E: Exhibit Exhibit or Evidence are materials you can analyze or interpret
A: Argument Argument information comes from critical views from other scholars and experts. You can engage with these claims to become part of the scholarly conversation. You can refute, refine, extend, build upon, or affirm them.
M: Method Method information refers to the methods or theories used by the author to analyze and interpret the evidence. You can use these to adopt a concept, a work process, or a manner of thinking.
Learn more on our guide to Evaluating Information with BEAM
When looking at an information source, try asking yourself the Five W's.
Currency: the timeliness of the information
Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Authority: the source of the information
Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content
Purpose: the reason the information exists
By scoring each category on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = worst, 10=best possible) you can give each site a grade on a 50 point scale for how high quality it is!
45 - 50 Excellent | 40 - 44 Good | 35 - 39 Average | 30 - 34 Borderline Acceptable | Below 30 - Unacceptable
Predatory journals are money-making scams that do not contribute to the scholarly conversation. They take advantage of authors by charging fees to publish, and they do not follow best practices for peer review.
Adapted from: Shameer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., Clark, J. Galipeau, J., Roberts, J., & Shea, B.J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-section comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(28). 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9