- Welcome
- Scholarly vs Popular
- Understanding the Information Cycle
- Evaluating Popular and Web-Based Sources
Welcome
In this era when anyone can write and publish anything, thinking critically about what you read is vital. Does the article make sense? Is there a bias towards one viewpoint or does the reporting seek to address multiple views or sides of an issue? How does the source report the facts, are they sensationalized or distorted? The goal of this guide is to help you understand the information cycle (what may be published when) and to give tips to evaluating what you read. Remember, both scholarly and popular sources are appropriate for research - depending on the context of your research.
Scholarly vs Popular
What is the distinction between popular and scholarly sources? Below is a chart comparing works with a more scholarly focus and those that are less so. Additionally, there are three main types of publications:
- Scholarly sources are intended for academic use with a specialized vocabulary and extensive citations; they are often peer-reviewed. Scholarly sources help answer the "so what?" questions and make connections between variables (or issues).
- Popular sources are intended for the general public and are typically written to entertain, inform or persuade. Popular sources help you answer "who, what, where, and when" questions. Popular sources range from research-oriented to propaganda-focused.
- Trade publications share general news, trends, and opinions in a certain industry; they are not considered scholarly, because, although generally written by experts, they do not focus on advanced research and are not peer-reviewed.
For a detailed chart comparing these three types of publications, visit:
| More Scholarly | More Popular |
| Publishing source: Academic journals, government, some magazines and journals | Publishing source: Trade journals, magazines, newspapers, websites, blogs |
| Author: Expert on the topic, someone who works in or knows that field | Author: Anyone; may be a reporter or someone who feels like writing on the topic |
| Audience: Specialized (often of peers or students), people interested in the topic | Audience: The general public |
| Goal: To inform or present research; answer the "so what?" questions, make connections between variables/issues | Goal: Generally to entertain or persuade, may inform; answers the "who, what, where, and when" questions |
| Content: Research-based | Content: Reporting events, the findings of others, or personal experiences; opinion-based |
| Reviewers/Editors: Generally peer-reviewed or fact-checked by peers or staff editors | Reviewers/Editors: Staff editor may review |
| Format: Standardized (for scholarly articles and formal reports); variable for other publications | Format: Variable: includes websites, blogs, and infographics |
| Citations: Generally includes references, footnotes and/or links to sources | Citations: Usually none, may link to related resources |
| Vocabulary: Complex, generally technical and focused on the field, formal | Vocabulary: Familiar, non-technical; may focus on an emotional appeal |
| Graphics: Used to illustrate a point | Graphics: Used for visual impact |
| Title: May include: report, study, findings | Title: Often general, usually catchy |
| Examples: Annals of Psychology, Mother Jones, National Academies Press | Examples: People, Time, My Blog |
Understanding the Information Cycle
The Information Cycle is the progression of media coverage of a particular newsworthy event. Understanding this cycle will help you know what information is available on your topic and to better evaluate information sources covering that topic at that time.
(For a larger view of this chart, right click and open in a new tab).
Evaluating Popular and Web-Based Sources
Once you have located online sources you are considering using for your research project, it is important to critically evaluate the source for reliability.
One method to evaluate sources is the SIFT Method, developed by Mike Caulfield.
The SIFT Method
The SIFT method is used for critically navigating and assessing digital information. It is designed to evaluate the credibility of information, understand its context, and decide on its reliability. It involves four critical moves: Stop, Investigate the Source, Find Better Coverage, and Trace Claims to the Original Context. This method Adopting SIFT establishes a critical mindset when you pause to consider the source, search for diverse perspectives, and locate the original source of claims, fostering a more informed and critical approach to consuming digital content.
The four critical moves of SIFT:
- Stop: Before engaging with content, pause to consider your familiarity with the source and its credibility. This step encourages mindful information consumption Ask yourself whether you know the website or source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the website is.
- Investigate the Source: Take a moment to understand the source's background. Knowing the author or publisher's expertise and agenda aids in interpreting the content accurately.For example, watching a video promoting milk benefits created by the dairy industry, recognizing the source's vested interest is key to understanding biased reporting. This awareness informs your understanding and critical assessment of the information presented.
- Find Better Coverage: Look for reputable sources that cover the same topic. This helps in understanding different perspectives and the consensus around a claim. Should you start to feel bogged down while verifying facts, pause and reflect on your goal. For intentions like sharing, reading for enjoyment, or grasping basic concepts, confirming the credibility of the source may suffice. However, for in-depth research, it's beneficial to meticulously investigate and confirm each claim made in an article on your own.
- Trace Claims to Original Context: Go back to the original source of the information to see it in its true context, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the material. Online content often lacks the full context, such as potentially misleading captions on seemingly real images. Similarly, health claims might reference research findings ambiguously. To address these issues, it's advised to track back to the original source of any claim, media, or quote to understand its true context and verify the accuracy of the claim you encountered.
Additional Evaluation Techniques
When finding sources online, ask yourself the following questions to determine if they are appropriate to use (SCAAN test):
- Source type: Does this source answer your research question? Is it an appropriate type (scholarly or popular, for instance) for your question? Does this contain the information you need to support your argument?
- Currency: Is this source up-to-date? Do I need a resource that contains historical information?
- Accuracy: Is this source accurate? Does its logic make sense to me? Are there any internal contradictions? Does it link or refer to its sources? Does more current data affect the accuracy of the content?
- Authority: Who created or authored this source? Could the author or creator bring any biases to the information presented? Is the author or creator a reputable or well-respected agent in the subject area?
- Neutrality: Is this source intended to educate, inform, or sell? What is the purpose of this source?
Other Evaluation Acronyms
- CARBS: Currency, Authority, Relevancy, Biased or Factual, Scholarly or Popular
- CARS: Credibility (authority), Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support
- CRAAP: Currency, Relevance (source), Accuracy, Authority, Purpose (neutrality)
- DUPED: Dated, Unambiguous, Purpose, Expertise, Determine (source)
- IMVAIN: Independent, Multiple sources quoted, Verified with evidence, Authoritative, Informed, Named sources
- RADAR: Rationale, Authority, Date, Accuracy, Relevance
Finally, consider your own biases when reviewing your information. If the paper/presentation/article had the opposite position/result, would your opinion of its validity change?
