Sourcing
CMGT Writing Workshop 3
Fall 2014
Sourcing
• Generating effective key words
• Evaluating sources
• Handling sources in the writing process
Finding sources: common problems
• Too many search results
• Too few search results
• Off-topic results
• Low-quality results
Too many search results
Too many search results
• Combine
• Refine
• Exclude
Too many search results
• “Combine”
• Generate new KW
• Journalistic questions: who, what, where, when, why, how
• Brainstorm in terms of methodology
• Search using multiple KW
Branding
Where?
Of what?
Targeting whom?
Reason(s) for campaign?
Platforms?
Alt: use a heuristic
Too many search results
Branding
China
Coke
All ages
Expand market
Social media
KW brainstorm
Note: this search used SmartText searching
Too few results
• Search “all text” rather than “subject terms”
• Eliminate KW
• Change KW
Too few results
• Change KW
• Use bubbl.us
• Use a thesaurus
• Use the database itself
Too few results
Use subject terms to discover
how the database organizes
research on your topic(s)
Too few results
Database searching
• Experiment with different KW
• Experiment with “advanced search” options
• Harvest KW from an on-topic source
• Harvest references from an on-topic source
• Note: source should be reliable
A key objective of the process: identifying the standard texts on
your topic
Evaluating sources
• Peer review: distinguishes scholarly research from non-scholarly research
• What is peer review?
• Anonymous vetting process conducted by academic journals and publishers on work
submitted for publication
• How can I tell if the source has been peer-reviewed?
• Look for: an editorial board
• Must I always check the source for this?
• If the journal has VOLUME and ISSUE #s, you are usually safe
• If the press is a university press, you are also usually safe
• Often you can restrict your database search to peer-reviewed sources
This suggests we can rely on the source.
Volume/issue numbers indicate reliability
Title page of a book
The publisher (MIT) tells you the source can be relied upon.
Reliable non-academic publishers
• These non-academic publishers issue work by established scholars:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Routledge
Basic Books
Penguin (some titles)
Vintage (some titles)
Verso
Palgrave, Palgrave MacMillan
Continuum
Sage
Basil Blackwell
W. W. Norton
Taylor & Francis
When in doubt, read the author bio.
Look for: university affiliation, other signs
of expertise, publication record
Signs of potential bias or unreliability
• Conflicts of interest on author’s part (check bio for affiliations)
• An absence of citations or references
• A journal lacks volume and issue #s
• An article is referred to as a “paper” or “conference paper”
• While often written by scholars, these have usually not been peer-reviewed
Sounds pretty good
(except for the boasting),
but . . .
A look at the summary
indicates a clear bias
Research workflow (a suggested process)
1. Preliminary library research
• Develop key words
• Identify gaps in the field
• Frame a research question
2. Targeted library research
• Compose an annotated bibliography
• Collect articles & citations manually or using RefWorks, Zotero, etc.
3. Draft your paper
Handling sources in the drafting stage
• Things to keep in mind:
• Paraphrases are preferable to quotations
• Citations are required for paraphrases and quotations
• Quotations (when needed) should not be used for data (e.g., statistics)
Consult your handout
“Tagging” your sources
Vary the structure of and diction in your “tags”
To tag or not to tag
• Tag a source when:
• It is directly relevant to your work
• You are situating your work in relation to the source
• You are devoting significant space to the source (more than 1 sentence)
• Provide only a parenthetical citation when:
• You are describing broad research trends
• You are citing a fact or datum
• The source is tangentially relevant
Tagging vocabulary
Grouping sources together
Playing nice
Avoid obvious judgments and harsh language, even if the source is, in fact, wrong.
Language to avoid
incorrect, wrong, mishandle, ignore, overlook, failed to, puzzling result, strange result,
bizarre hypothesis, incomprehensible how
Language to use instead
Unlike X (1999), Y (2000)
Although X (2000) found _____, Y (2000) _____
Whereas X (2000) suggested _____, Y (2000) _____
X (2000) _____; however, Y (2000) _____
By contrast
Exercise with draft
1. Check all tags
• Necessary?
• Varied?
• Punctuated correctly?
2. Check all quotations
• Necessary?
• Punctuated correctly?
3. Check all parenthetical citations
• Punctuated correctly?