In many ways, collecting research is the easy part. I say that because we often do NOT assess information sources very carefully. Hopefully, this lecture and Project 3 will provide some useful assessment methods.
Typically, when we encounter an information source we read that source and outline the information it contains. Notice that I'm suggesting that we do NOT apply any critical standards to that information. For those of you with a liberal arts background that observation might seem anathema; after all, you have learned to critically read literature. That's certainly true; but, did you apply that same critical apparatus to the articles you read "about" literature? For instance, did you ever try to discover why a critic took issue with another critic? For those of you who lack even this critical perspective, I submit that you treat most information neutrally and uncritically. Let's consider a few examples to support my description of a two part assessment process.
First, you must be able to critically evaluate the "parent" article, the article that sends you on your assessment and research path. While this task can be accomplished ad hoc, applying a replicable method yields more useful results because they can be compared across findings. In the brief sample of a research article accessible through this link , I consider the content of each paragraph and simply list that content followed by "probes" or questions that occur to me.
Another approach is to "table" your findings, just as we did with paragraph cohesion earlier this term. In this parent article for example:
|
Paragraph Number |
Name the Topic |
Suggest a Question |
Motivate the Question |
|
1 |
Studies the difference between theory and application for technical communication |
What evidence will support the authors' perception that "pure" research has a positive influence on pragmatic issues faced by professional communicators? |
"Pure" research influences pragmatic communication issues, and the application of such research in this manner suggests additional research questions. The relationship is symbiotic and recursive. |
|
2 |
Although most professional communicators understand the importance of research, they have little training in either conducting or interpreting research. |
|
|
This approach, while admittedly time-consuming, has many advantages:
You should realize, however, that this process is merely a heuristic to help you understand the kind of mental discipline needed to assess others' research critically. At some point, you will have had enough practice and the process will become routine. For now, you should try to use a process that has the kind of structure I have suggested above. Once you have reviewed a parent article with the kind of rigor I've outlined, you can proceed to the second part of the assessment.
Articles about scientific or medical advances often appear in newspapers and popular magazines. In the case of medical advances, we are often excited to learn about new treatments and their implications for the general public. However, oftentimes such articles merely present the implications of "ongoing" rather than "applied" research. (See the Environmental Health Perspectives website for an example).
While it is unlikely that we would seriously challenge information in such public venues, if we were truly interested in the research how would we find additional information? Again, the process needs to be both routine and replicable, just as my description of the research process in Lecture 9. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the parent article focuses on "global warming."
1. Make a list of all of the people cited or quoted in the parent article. Make a similar list of any secondary sources cited. These latter references should include both formal (a list of additional reading, for example) and informal ("as the Brisbane News reported on December 11, 1998").
2. Armed with these two lists, begin a search for:
3. Once you find these sources, repeat the above process as often as needed based on "sibling" articles (the search may simply be limited by the relative "newness" of your topic) until you are certain you have "captured" as much detail as humanly (and sanely) possible about your topic.
After completing this two part assessment process, you should have both a substantial amount of supporting information and some idea about the problems found in the parent article. This background should allow you to assess the parent article in a much more informed critical manner.
Environmental Health Perspectives
End of Page
Last Modified: