Evaluating Sources

This is Unit Twenty-Two of College Composition. Unit Twenty-One found sources. This unit decides which of them to trust, and for what. Carry one idea through this lecture. Asking whether a source is good or bad is less useful than asking whether this source suits this use, judged on currency, relevance, authority, accuracy and purpose together. A worked example near the end weighs four sources for one claim. By the end you will be able to test a source on five criteria. To detect bias, agendas and opinion presented as fact. To evaluate websites and compare two sources. And to write annotations that evaluate.

Six entries on why sources are evaluated and the five criteria applied to each.

Fit and trust.

CMP 0526 Why Evaluate

Evaluating a source means judging whether it fits your purpose and whether you can trust what it says. It depends on your use: a biased article is poor evidence for an accurate history but useful in an analysis of biased coverage. Labeling sources good or bad is less useful than asking whether this source suits this use.

When it was created.

CMP 0527 Currency

Check when a source was created, and consider what may have changed since. How quickly sources date depends on the field: literary criticism can stay current for decades, while research in fast-moving sciences can be outdated within a few years. Older sources are not automatically useless; for a study of change over time, old data may be exactly what you need.

Answering your question.

CMP 0528 Relevance

A relevant source addresses your research question at the depth your project requires. Overview materials, such as encyclopedias and general news, suit the start of research; a college paper's main sources should treat the topic in depth. A source can be credible and current and still not answer your question.

Who wrote it.

CMP 0529 Authority

Authority depends on who wrote the source and what qualifies them to write about this subject. Check the author's biography for education, publications and experience; an economist writing about a scientific question is outside their field. A source with no named author needs extra scrutiny of who published it and why.

Checking against others.

CMP 0530 Accuracy

Check a source's accuracy by comparing it with other sources: does its information support or contradict what they report? Reviewing a source internally also means seeing how other experts view the author and how the source fits the author's other work. A claim found in only one source, and contradicted by others, needs more support before you rely on it.

Purpose and perspective.

CMP 0531 Purpose and Point of View

Every source has a perspective: its author's purpose, assumptions, evidence, biases and reasoning. Ask who created the source and for what reason; an author's stated viewpoint may itself need checking, since the author wrote it. Perspective becomes easier to see after reading several sources, as their differences emerge.

Five entries on bias, critical reading, websites, documentation and agendas.

A slanted perspective.

CMP 0532 Bias in Sources

A biased source presents a subject from a slanted perspective, through what it includes, omits or emphasizes. Signs of bias include omitting relevant points, presenting opinion as fact, and evidence that only one side could find persuasive. Bias does not always disqualify a source; it means reading it with awareness and balancing it with others.

First and second questions.

CMP 0533 Reviewing Critically and Internally

Reviewing a source critically means asking first questions, about what is there, and second questions, about what it means. First questions identify the title, contents and headings; second questions analyze the assertions, evidence and language to reveal the author's perspective. Skimming answers first questions only; trustworthiness depends on the second.

Sites anyone can post.

CMP 0534 Evaluating Websites

Websites need careful evaluation, since anyone can post anything, though quality sources such as online journals appear there too. Check whether your instructor allows web sources. Identify the publisher and any named author with credentials, and the date of the content and its last update. Check whether the page cites sources you could verify, and whether its purpose is to inform, sell or persuade. Compare its claims with other sources. A professional-looking design proves nothing about accuracy; the tests are about authorship, evidence and purpose, not appearance.

A source's own sources.

CMP 0535 Checking a Source's Documentation

A trustworthy source documents its own sources thoroughly enough that readers could find and check them. Red flags include heavy reliance on one or two sources, many anonymous sources, outdated references, or missing citations for data and quotations. Popular magazines often name sources in the text instead of a bibliography; check whether your instructor accepts such sources.

Known positions.

CMP 0536 Ideological Agendas

An author or organization with a known ideological position will tend to present arguments that reflect it. A writer affiliated with a political think tank may produce useful material, but it should be read knowing the point of view it comes from. Recognizing an agenda is not a reason to dismiss a source, only to weigh it with others.

Seven entries on facts and opinions, using biased sources, comparing sources, the annotated bibliography, choosing the most credible source, and bias in research. The opening idea is paid off at the worked example.

Facts, inferences and opinions.

CMP 0537 Facts, Inferences and Opinions

Evaluating a source includes telling apart its facts, the inferences it draws from them, and its opinions. "Enrollment fell by a fifth" is a fact; "families are losing confidence in college" is an inference; "college is no longer worth it" is an opinion. A source that presents opinions as if they were facts is less trustworthy, however confident it sounds.

A slanted source used well.

CMP 0538 Using a Biased Source Carefully

A biased or misleading source can still be used well if the writer's purpose fits it. An analysis of how misleading coverage shaped public opinion needs examples of that coverage; the writer presents them as examples, not as reliable fact. Identify such a source's slant for readers, so they know how to weigh it.

Two sources side by side.

CMP 0539 Comparing Two Sources

Comparing two sources on one question shows which is more credible for your purpose. Compare authorship and credentials, date and currency, and documentation. Compare perspective: what each assumes, and whether either omits relevant points. Compare evidence, facts and data against opinion, and purpose, selling or persuading against informing. Where they conflict, ask which agrees with other sources. Weigh the answers together, rather than relying on one factor. The more recent source is not automatically better, nor is the more confident one.

Sources with notes.

CMP 0540 The Annotated Bibliography

An annotated bibliography lists sources in a citation style, each followed by a short annotation that summarizes and often evaluates it. It helps a researcher gather, evaluate and keep track of sources, and shows how each will serve the project. An annotation that only summarizes, without evaluating, misses half its purpose in most assignments.

Describing and evaluating.

CMP 0541 Writing an Annotation

An annotation describes a source and, when analytical, evaluates its usefulness. Give the full citation in the required style. State the source's purpose and audience, and summarize its main ideas in your own words. Note the author's point of view, expertise and any bias, and compare it with other sources. Evaluate its strengths, weaknesses and relevance, and state how you will use it. A descriptive annotation stops after the summary; an analytical one includes the evaluation. An instructor asking for analytical annotations expects judgment, so say whether and how the source will help.

Four sources, one claim.

CMP 0542 Choosing the Most Credible Source

A worked example, constructed for this course, pays off the opening idea. A student needs evidence on whether four-day school weeks affect achievement. A parent's blog has no data or citations; it can at most illustrate. A recent journal study by university researchers has methods and references; it is the strongest evidence. An advocacy group's report cites real data but only favorable studies; it can be used with its slant named, or its data traced to the originals. A dated news article is a lead to an earlier study the student should read directly. The advocacy report tempts because it is full of numbers, but numbers chosen for one side are still one side.

Bias in your own work.

CMP 0543 Bias in Language and Research

Bias can enter research through the questions asked, the sources chosen and the language used to describe people and findings. A researcher who searches only for sources that agree, or who describes groups in loaded terms, produces a slanted paper even with accurate facts. Check your own research for the same biases you look for in sources.

Look at what you can now do. You can evaluate a source for currency, relevance, authority, accuracy and purpose, judged against the use you have for it. You can detect bias, read critically past the surface, check a source's documentation, and separate facts from inferences and opinions. You can evaluate a website by authorship, evidence and purpose, compare two sources on every factor, and choose the most credible source for a claim. And you can write annotations that summarize and evaluate. Unit Twenty-Three turns to bringing sources into your own writing.