One of the goals of this course is to build your research skills. Everyone needs to pick a blog topic / popular myth by this Wednesday (so exciting!), and you’ll soon begin researching your blog, if you haven’t already. This week’s blog assignment relates to the sources you’ll be using.
Blog Assignment 4 | Due Wednesday April 21 | 12:00 noon
GOALS 1) Develop criteria for the popular sources we use in this course 2) Practice applying those criteria
In order to investigate your myth, you need to be able to distinguish reputable and useful sources from questionable ones. Later in the course, we’ll talk about how to judge the quality of a published scientific journal article. But first, let’s look at popular sources, the kinds of things the average person would find when they do a quick internet search on a topic. After all, when someone has a question about something they've heard, these are probably the kinds of sites they will read first.
Your task this week is two-fold:
1) What makes a website, blog, or Wikipedia entry one that’s credible and reliable? Describe one or two standards that you would use to determine if a site a) is scientifically based or b) rises above the reasoning errors we’ve been discussing in class.
You can also elaborate upon a standard that someone else has posted. It’s perfectly fine to disagree with someone else’s post, but please do so courteously. Recall we’ve agreed that we won't make assumptions, we'll critique the idea, not the person, and because tone is very hard to convey online, we won't use sarcasm.
2) Post a website that’s related to the course and evaluate it based on the standard(s) you’ve proposed. The site could be one of the best sites you’ve seen or it could be abysmal – the point is to practice applying your criteria.
The topic of the site you choose should address something we will be discussing in class in the future. It could address
- popular myths about psychology in general
- the autism epidemic, which we’ll discuss on Monday
- the notion that memory works like a video camera (Wednesday’s topic)
- the complex issue of repressed memories (topic for Monday, April 26)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. See the author is an expert in the field (Gilovich, p.109): an expert may have more access to, and the ability to understand, primary research than non-experts; therefore, his or her claim is a) more scientifically-based, and b)counters the “exaggerated immediacy” (Gilovich, p.95)
ReplyDelete2. http://www.opposingviews.com/p/is-there-an-autism-epidemic--2
"Is there an Autism Epidemic?" (Kev Lietch)
The author is a web developer as well as an autism activist. His claim is less credible than an expert’s one; therefore, we may want to further check the sources he uses in the article.
1) For any website, and in particular for Wikipedia, because of its format, it is important to note the sources listed. Many Wikipedia articles have good information, and more importantly worthwhile sources in the footnotes where one can verify the information easily. Of course, the sources of Wikipedia articles themselves may not be credible, but they are slightly more likely to have some sort of merit.
ReplyDelete2) For example, the Wikipedia article for Popular psychology is informative, and lists credible looking sources, including published books, and the APA dictionary of psychology. However, the only external link at the bottom leads to a website that no longer exists. This article makes a good jumping off point for the topic, but by virtue of being a Wikipedia article, should not be considered to be factually correct. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_psychology)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The first thing I look for when using a source is the author or organization that the website belongs to. Whether it is a credible source or not is a crucial element to being a good reference to use in my research.
ReplyDelete2. How Does Human Memory Work?
by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
This website has a section in it devoted to describing various beliefs on how human memory works. In it is a reference to the video tape belief that we are reading about in Lilienfeld section 11 for tomorrow. Even though the website is on topic to use as a source, the authors that it's written by make it unreliable and an irrelevant site.
1. An important thing to look out for when you are searching for a website is its appearance. I know appearances should not matter as much as the actual wtiting, but it is the first thing a person notices when they view a website. It doesn't have to look flashy, but it should look professional. Professional in a sense that the pages are consistent in appearance and suited for the intended audience or purpose.
ReplyDelete2. This website addresses the myth about the autism epidemic. I think is an example of a non-credible source because there are too many things going on, like the ads and other things not even related to the topic that take up more than the writing itself.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-really-an-autism-epidemic
-HJ
1) In order to be credible, a source should definitely have an author and publishing date. If they don't have one of these, it seems like the source is hiding something, or is not an official document. Also, if an online source is kind of slapped together without a care of the appearance. This makes an online source seem sketchy. It is like they seem to be in a hurry and don't care about the appearance, making the information they are presenting in the first place irrelevant. Also, I look for opinion in a source. If there is a lot of opinion presented, it is most likely not totally scientific.
ReplyDelete2) http://www.minti.com/questions-and-answers/discussion/1025562/repressed-memories/
Here, the blog shows a lot of opinion on the notion of repressed memories. Though some of the information on repressed memories may be factual, the tone the entire blog is posted in condescending.
DD:
ReplyDelete1) One thing that makes a website very professional is the organization. There can not be too many links that go to random places, it can not be too scattered to the point where it takes hours to find a little piece of evidence.
2) This is very professionally written because it provides a nice link for references, and there are no links that take me to PLACES WHERE I CAN FIND A MICROWAVE OVEN FOR EXTREMELY CHEAP!! No. None of that lol.
Is There an Autism Epidemic?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551540
1. When deciding if a website is credible and reliable, I always look to the web address, the about section of the website and the design. If a web address is titled www.ohhhyeahhh.com, I already know that it is not worth my time in searching, especially if the topic I’m researching is the affect of alcohol on the brain. Also I learned that the endings of website addresses (.com, .gov, .edu) all stand for the type of website it is. Federal government sites end in .gov and college or university websites end in .edu. Second, the about section of a website gives reasons to why the page was created in the first place and can also give the audience insight on the type of company or person who created the website that would deem it as credible. Lastly, the design of the website can determine the type of audience it is trying to reach or is made for.
ReplyDelete2. http://kidshealth.org/kid/health_problems/brain/autism.html
The website address ends with an .org, which means that the website is created by a non-profit organization. Also, the about section clearly states that the website is created by a non-profit organization called Nemours. By the design, the website is clearly made for kids. Also the language used in the entry is easy to understand, especially for children reading the website. It isn’t an in depth scientific explanation of Autism, however it is an explanation tailored for children.
- LQ
What makes the website credible for me is to know who is exactly funding/sponsoring the site and if there is a publication date and how recent that date is. If the site includes a reference section or detailed information about where the information that they present came from, example detailed information about the author(s).
ReplyDeleteThe Autism Epidemic: Fact or Artifact?
http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(09)62151-1/abstract
This site provides detailed information about the authors, who they are affiliated with, and has a very recent publication date.
1) Gilovich (1991) warns us about the subtle distortion of an expert's position, reminding us to "look carefully at what is actually quoted and what is only implied" (110). In particular, areas where the "expert" is introduced and the sentences that precede or follow it should be thoroughly examined for misuse. Lack of experts or vague/inappropriate use of experts can give us warning signs that (a) the article may not be scientifically based and (b) help us recognize areas that are “sharpened” and “leveled” to serve a specific agenda or "narrowed self-interest" (Gilovich, p. 102).
ReplyDelete2) Confronting Autism Epidemic This article expresses an immediate urgency to address the autism epidemic. Many financial estimates for autism are presented but organizations/experts are vague, lacking specific details to create a more balanced approach to the issue. A closer read reveals that use of a senator as the directly quoted expert "sharpens" an implied political agenda to imply immediacy of funds needed. The author "levels" the details about what she means by "autism epidemic" and where it comes from. Additional sources such as "a 2009 article in the journal Pediatrics on autism" are vague, where no expert is assigned, which makes it hard to look up the specific article the author is summarizing. -MCS
Hi everyone, I found a link to html code for embedding a link. The table shows you an example of how to do it. I think you can find other sources, but here's the one I used: HTML Code for Embedding Link Hope it helps for people who don't have the shortcut. ^^ -MCS
ReplyDeleteI think reliable and creditable sources are really important, so I always look for some sources cited as a book because I think book should be done with lots of researches to support their point of view. or you can found some sources related to specific organizartion, like if you are researching autism, you can go some website which held for family dealing with autism (some official organizations) those sources are more reliable than others.
ReplyDeleteI agree strongly with all of the suggestions made above: 1)Check the credibility of the Author; 2)Check how recent the website/article is and when it was last updated; 3)Always be skeptical of the source of information (i.e. Who's paying for this? What kind of website is this? Is it professional?); 4)Check the website's sources.
ReplyDeleteThis website False Memory is a .com website, the author is Robert T. Carroll who has earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy and taught at Sacramento City College from 1977-2007, and the format of the website is a dictionary of sorts. (I'm a little skeptical about this Skeptic'sDictionary at this point.) However Carroll uses many relevant examples which are easy to understand, he has a multitude of references (both article and website) which seem fairly relevant and are recent, and this particular piece was last updated 2/23/09. All in all I think this article would be a great place to start when looking into the infallibility of memory.
I'm really pleased with the insights that have been raised so far. Links to microwave ads (Daniels point) probably aren't as bad as links to porn sites, but a good overall thing to watch for.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I'd like to add to the discussion is whether the site describes limitations to the research findings. Good science (and scientists) consistently describe the extent to which their findings generalize and say "We cannot jump to the conclusion that..." or "Further research is needed to test the relationship between...."
Summary: the sites that are trying to be true to the research explain the limitations. Sites that have a narrow self-interest typically omit such qualifying statements.
Having sources that are verifiable is very important. The more sources that a website has that have direct links to the original sources, usually the more reliable the source. The easier it is it obtain the original source, the more legitimate the website
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stopbadtherapy.com/myths/repress.shtml
Here is an example of a site that does not have sources that are easily verifiable. I "googled" the first four sources and didn't get any legitimate hits.
1. When determining if a website is credible I usually check to see if the author has sited many reference is their article including all the little annoying extras that no one read like the list the books they wrote and universities that the person attended. It’s a lot easier to tell if something is not credible when the article is full of opinions or has a one sided argument in it.
ReplyDelete2. http://library.adoption.com/articles/girls-aggressive.html
This is a website that speaks about the overlooked aggression that girls show in comparison to boys’ aggression. Throughout the article it cites many references that came from scholarly articles even ones that we have read in class. It also mentions a woman that has done research at the University of Minnesota making this article more credible than many others that can be found on the internet.
1. A website is credible based on the expectations implemented on the site they're posting on (an oxford essay, perhaps, vs. a personal blog), the credibility of the sources it sites and, relatively, the number of sources it sites, and finally the tone it holds--whether it is presenting itself as objective and empirical or a strongly biased argument or opinion. Easy ways to check this are: Are you able to cite the site? That is, does it have an author, publication date, etc? And also whether or not there is "feedback". Usually, if there is feedback or comments on an article/post, it is not credible in that the medium it is being posted on is clearly up for opinion/debate. Things with free graphics, colors, large text, and general distractions are overly easy indicators of lack of credibility--they are clearly making up for a lack of information with aesthetically pleasing substitutes.
ReplyDelete2. http://www.astrology-online.com/
An immediate indicator of not only this sites lack of credibility but its blatant appeal to ignorance is the glaring blue color and overall layout. It is not a friendly layout to those who are internet savvy, like myself, at all. It involves scroll and simply imaging instead of one page with perhaps div'd boxs for scrolling text. Beyond that, it cannot be cited--beyond that it is "designed and maintained" by one sir Michael Thiessen. It very blatantly appeals to the untrained eye, to be frank.
The internet is an ever expansive spiderweb of interconnected links and pathways to and from one another. Regarding scholarly articles, a huge majority of sources on the internet are actually linked to online databases run from either the government, peer-reviewed journals, or colleges and universities throughout the world. The most surefire method of accessing reliable sources is to access these databases. If this is not possible, ensure that whatever site you are using has sources linked from aforementioned databases or journals.
ReplyDeleteLastly, a commonly overlooked problem that could arise from any scientific article is forgetting to look how recent it is. An old article can present evidence that is now void.
Consider this link from a reputable source:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep05/forget.aspx
However reputable it may be, it concludes with this:
There is no evidence that traumatized people repress memories of traumatic events," Kihlstrom says.
Anderson acknowledges that his studies are only the beginning of what will need to be many more years of research--but he says he thinks that such work will be worthwhile.
Remember to pay attention to the conclusions.
This post is a little late again, however I'll still contribute.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a website, blog, Wikipedia entry one that's credible and reliable? - The question.
Standards
To determine if a site is scientifically based, one easy standard is to simply look at the type of site. Is it wikipedia (semi-science), is it livejournal (most likely opinionated blog) or is it a ebsco peer reviewed journal. That's the number one indicator of it's scientific-ness. Second, I like to analyze the author's prose or style, what is the motive and how well is it written. Although grammatical and sentence structure have have nothing to do with content, those factors are still indicators of the time and effort put into the article itself. Rarely will you see a professional peer reviewed study containing incomplete sentences and numerous spelling errors. If these two criterion are not enough already, to distinguish above reasoning errors, articles must not be solely opinionated, with opinions comes reasoning. Facts usually do not contain reasoning errors unless they are implied facts. That's why I search for articles backed by empirical studies as well as studies that are falsifiable. That is studies that can be proved invalid, not studies that are theories thrown out there where the reader has to disprove the case.
Part 2: Example
Science Daily is one of the few more scientific psychology sites on the web today; there's only a little 'pop' culture about, generally it remains empirically sound. The article I have selected as an example is that of repressed memories.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090707170958.htm
First, this site quotes authority figures on the subject. Proper authority is always essential in supporting a case. Second, the article immediately whips out the statistics or factual reports. The truth is in the numbers, not the 'theories'. Lastly, and I feel most importantly, the author himself makes no appearance in the text. In other words, the author acts as conduit for authority figures on the subject. Rather than read every dissertation and scholarly text from each authority figure, the author has selected the most important quotes and compressed hundreds of pages of research into the most relevant and critical information regarding repressed memories.
So, all in all, this article may not be as scientific as a scholarly peer reviewed, lab conducted article. But for a blog which is inherently unprofessional, it has performed an exquisite service of condensing variously random studies into an article backed with statistics, authority figures, and objectivity. I give it a thumbs up!