I've learned a lot recently about conducting research online. Nowadays, almost anyone can have a blog, or a website, or write an article to post online. It's become really important to analyze the sources you use when commenting on a topic when you want to show your credibility in discussing that topic. I personally conducted an online search for some good sources, and I definitely found those, but along side them, were plenty of sources that only appear credible. I've learned a lot about this form of research, and will share some techniques and things to look for to separate the good ones from the "not-so-good" ones.
When discussing family and technology, there are a lot of people who are educated and qualified in speaking on this area. The key is searching for those people. I found numerou
s articles from http://www.helium.com/, all of them titled "How family communication is harmed by technology." After reading through the articles, I could easily see how these articles could be viewed as credible from an untrained eye. Take Angela S. Young's article for instance. Everything in her article made sense. She was great at combining broad comments with stories from her own life, but I looked at her profile for helium.com and found that she has absolutely no background in the area of family or communication. Though she does have a Master's Degree, it's in Education, and though she has a family of her own and sees how technology affects them, she doesn't have the grounds to comment on the trends of families as a whole.
However, with further investigation of those articles on Helium, I found one that was written by Jane Evans, who has both her Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Communication Studies. Unlike Young, Evans has a lot of background in communications, and even though she doesn't have a degree in communications in the context of families, she is still more credible than some other authors who are merely writing based on their personal stories.
I discovered another article; this one however was on a different website, http://www.clic
kz.com/. The website’s name in itself didn't seem credible, but I hoped that maybe I had jumped the gun in judging this website. I read through an article by Enid Burns called "Technology Brings Family 2.0 Closer" and really thought I had stumbled upon a good source. It was a relatively old source, being from 2006, and it was short, but she named a source, and included a statistic. Silly me, I should have known better. Not only is there no works cited or bibliography at the end (unless you count the brief noting of a source in her first sentence), but when I looked to get more information on Burns herself, all I got was a site that pointed me to more of her articles.
Note to self, and all of those reading my blog: always be sure to find the background of the author. If they have no background in the topic, or they don’t have one on the website at all, that’s the first red flag. Also, if they don’t site any sources, or even have a bibliography at the end of their article, that’s another red flag. Finding good sources definitely isn’t as easy as finding the bad ones, but with practice, it’ll get progressively easier in spotting the difference.
When discussing family and technology, there are a lot of people who are educated and qualified in speaking on this area. The key is searching for those people. I found numerou
s articles from http://www.helium.com/, all of them titled "How family communication is harmed by technology." After reading through the articles, I could easily see how these articles could be viewed as credible from an untrained eye. Take Angela S. Young's article for instance. Everything in her article made sense. She was great at combining broad comments with stories from her own life, but I looked at her profile for helium.com and found that she has absolutely no background in the area of family or communication. Though she does have a Master's Degree, it's in Education, and though she has a family of her own and sees how technology affects them, she doesn't have the grounds to comment on the trends of families as a whole.However, with further investigation of those articles on Helium, I found one that was written by Jane Evans, who has both her Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Communication Studies. Unlike Young, Evans has a lot of background in communications, and even though she doesn't have a degree in communications in the context of families, she is still more credible than some other authors who are merely writing based on their personal stories.
I discovered another article; this one however was on a different website, http://www.clic
kz.com/. The website’s name in itself didn't seem credible, but I hoped that maybe I had jumped the gun in judging this website. I read through an article by Enid Burns called "Technology Brings Family 2.0 Closer" and really thought I had stumbled upon a good source. It was a relatively old source, being from 2006, and it was short, but she named a source, and included a statistic. Silly me, I should have known better. Not only is there no works cited or bibliography at the end (unless you count the brief noting of a source in her first sentence), but when I looked to get more information on Burns herself, all I got was a site that pointed me to more of her articles.Note to self, and all of those reading my blog: always be sure to find the background of the author. If they have no background in the topic, or they don’t have one on the website at all, that’s the first red flag. Also, if they don’t site any sources, or even have a bibliography at the end of their article, that’s another red flag. Finding good sources definitely isn’t as easy as finding the bad ones, but with practice, it’ll get progressively easier in spotting the difference.
Photos from:
I'm commenting here after reading your posts on BOTH the good and bad sources. You make excellent points about the credentials of the person posting the information. Two comments: 1. your "bad" source(s) definitely focus on sites maintained by an individual or individuals. This is in contrast to organizations or corporations that post information only after review by a team or board of experts. 2. In the context of the individuals who do not have advanced credentials or established expertise, what are your thoughts about someone who can link to several good sources that support his or her claims? Could a well orchestrated collection of excellent sources be used on a blogger's site to add credibility to the person who may not have a doctorate or medical degree? If so, how much so? If not, does that mean a blogger could NEVER compete with a larger organization?
ReplyDeleteI definitely understand what you're saying. If a Blogger, or anyone else for that matter is able to pull in credible sources to back up their arguments, then while I wouldn't necessarily say that individual is a credible primary source, their work definitely would be reliable. However, I would have to go into all of their sources to verify that their sources are in fact credible.
ReplyDelete