Evaluating Credibility and Validity of Sources:

We learned that it is important to evaluate the credibility of the source and make a judgement on its relevance to our topic/argument. Credibility can be validated based off on the background of the author, impartiality, style and tone of article and currency. For instance for an argument on animal rights as described in…, the argument can be presented in different ways depending on the specialization of the author. A phychologist, philosopher or economist might present the argument in different style.
Also, the author’s personal interest to the subject might affect the an author’s opinion or treatment to the subject. For instance, an author who is vegetarian is likely to argue against using animals for food and may present argument in a way that’s less than impartial.
The publication

Alongwith the author’s background, it is also important to validate the author’s personal interest associated to the subject ;

We also learned that a special interest or preference might affect an author’s opinion or treatment to subject. In the simplest terms, a declared vegetarian is likely to argue against using animals for food and may present those arguments in a way that’s less than impartial.

The writing style and tone is another way to form credibility and validity of sources of information. You should determine whether the tone is professional or not. If it is indeed professional and the tone is for the targeted audience then more than likely the source of information is credible. Some examples of professional writing style and tones are citations are included whether it is footnotes or in the text, no misspelled words, appropriate vocabulary without slang, and there is no sarcasm.
Currency criteria is also an important factor. Always check the date! You should always find out when the source was published and if it has been revised. Recent primary sources are the most beneficial

Nazi persecution following the Anschluss. Three of Singer’s grandparents were subsequently killed in the Holocaust. Growing up in Melbourne, Singer attended
Scotch College and the University of Melbourne, where he earned a
B.A. in philosophy and history (1967) and an M.A. in philosophy (1969). In 1969 he entered the University of Oxford, receiving a B.Phil. degree in 1971 and serving as Radcliffe Lecturer in Philosophy at University College from 1971 to 1973.
At Oxford his association with a vegetarian student group and his reflection on the morality of his own meat eating led him to adopt vegetarianism. While at
Oxford and during a visiting professorship at New York University in 1973–74, he wrote what would become his best-known and most influential work,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (1975). Returning to Australia, he lectured at La Trobe University (1975–76) and was appointed professor of philosophy at Monash University (1977); he became director of
Monash’s Centre for Human Bioethics in 1983 and codirector of its Institute for Ethics and Public Policy in 1992. In 1999 he was appointed Ira W. DeCamp
Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton
University.
The article notes that Singer views ethical issues from a utilitarian point of view and so advocates actions that result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. He has written, cowritten, or edited 44 books, the most recent in 2009, some in areas of pure philosophy, but most dealing with matters of
EVALUATING PRINT SOURCES 3 4 1
0-312-62992-3 (c) Bedford/St. Martin's / bedfordstmartins.com ethical choice. He was chosen as the author of Encyclopedia Britannica’s article on ethics.
What do you learn from this information? Singer holds impeccable academic credentials and has had a long academic career at estimable universities.
As a philosopher, he is likely to root his work on animal rights in abstract arguments.
As an ethicist, he is likely to provide plenty of concrete examples to illustrate his arguments.
So far, Animal Liberation seems like an excellent choice for your preliminary bibliography and, quite probably, your final bibliography. Is there anything more that you need to know about Singer and his work?
Impartiality
Sometimes you have to consider whether an author has any personal interest in a subject, especially if it’s a contentious one like animal rights. In the simplest terms, a declared vegetarian is likely to argue against using animals for food and may present those arguments in a way that’s less than impartial.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with having one’s own point of view. Few people succeed in being totally detached or objective, whether about their beliefs or their areas of professional expertise. But there’s a big difference between an acknowledged personal interest and an underlying prejudice.
The issue here is bias: the special interest or personal preference that might affect an author’s opinion or treatment of a subject. The existence of bias needn’t prevent you from using and citing a source. It’s simply one factor that can affect your understanding of an author’s ideas.Adogmatic writer may want to convert you at all costs. A narrow-minded writer will ignore or downplay opposing points of view. You may conclude that either is too biased to be credible.
But a third author, who also cares passionately about a subject, may argue the issue strongly and yet remain credible. Such writers are usually aware of and acknowledge their bias—and seek to persuade or convince rather than bludgeon their readers into submission. If you think that an author has a special interest in the subject, either disregard the bias as harmless, or adjust your judgment to allow for its influence, or—if the bias is clearly prejudice in disguise—reject the source as not worth your time.
Impartiality: Peter Singer: Looking further at the Britannica profile, you notice that Peter Singer’s books tend to have strong titles, urging action: Animal
Liberation, In Defence of Animals, Ethics into Action, Democracy and Disobedience.
Clearly, he’s not an ivory tower philosopher, and so, curious to learn more about his activities, you do aWeb search. You don’t even have to click on any of the items on the results lists to learn that Singer has been called the world’s
“most controversial ethicist” and that a petition was started to protest his appointment to a named chair at Princeton. There are references to his “infanticide excesses” and “utilitarian horrors” as well as comparisons with Hitler’s
3 4 2 8 / EVALUATING SOURCES
0-312-62992-3 (c) Bedford/St. Martin's / bedfordstmartins.com
Nazism. On the other hand, other Web sites support his views and praise his reasoned defense of his ethical beliefs.
Since these searches have taken only a few minutes, you try one more, and find an article in Contemporary Authors that provides an analysis of reactions by reviewers to many of Singer’s works. Focusing on those that deal with Animal
Liberation, you find praise for his documentation and for his “quite unhysterical and engaging” style. He is also referred to as a propagandist, and he is apparently a successful one, since Animal Liberation is described by one reviewer as “one of the most thoughtful and persuasive books that I have read in a long time.”
What can you conclude now? That the present controversy over Singer may or may not concern his 1975 work, which is the one that’s most relevant to your research. That he has his detractors and his supporters, which is understandable given his contentious subject. That you should judge for yourself by reading Animal Liberation, while being alert for the possibility of a biased presentation.
Style and Tone
Writers aim their work at particular audiences and adjust the content and style accordingly. Achildren’s book about kindness to animals would be an unsuitable candidate for inclusion in a research paper; both style and content would be too simplified to be taken seriously. At the other extreme, technical papers in the sciences and social sciences are often written in a dense style, with a vocabulary incomprehensible to someone outside the discipline; essentially, one academic is writing for an audience of peers. You would probably want to avoid reading—and citing—a journal article that focuses on the methodology for a survey of animal rights activists or analyzes the chemical basis of nutrients needed in a vegetarian diet.
Nonfiction books are often categorized as:
Popular: intended to attract the widest possible audience and, therefore, be accessible to people with a wide range of educational backgrounds. A popular treatment of a serious subject is likely to emphasize colorful detail and stories rather than abstract, complex ideas.
General interest: intended for an audience that is interested in a subject but has no special grounding in it. General interest books provide a thorough introduction, with some level of complexity, but without a lot of technical description.
Academic: intended for a limited audience in the field. An academic book is usually published by a university press and contains a level of scholarship and depth of analysis thatmight well be beyond the comprehension of the general public.
EVALUATING PRINT SOURCES 3 4 3
0-312-62992-3 (c) Bedford/St. Martin's / bedfordstmartins.com
As a rule, you would do well to include some general-interest books and some purely academic books—at the more accessible end of the academic spectrum— in your preliminary bibliography.
To determine whether a book is appropriate and potentially useful for your research, look at the table of contents, the introduction, and a sample from a middle chapter that will give you a sense of style and tone. Also check the index to see how often your topic appears. Does the book have a bibliography? Footnotes or other documentation to make it academically credible?
Periodicals also serve a wide range of readers. Most have a marketing
“niche,” appealing to a specific audience with well-defined interests and reading habits. Since readership varies so greatly, articles on the same subject in two different periodicals are likely to differ widely in their content, point of view, and presentation.Anewsmagazine like Time or Newsweek might provide factual information on an animal rights demonstration; the article would be short and lively, filled with concrete illustrations and quotations. It would not have the same purpose, nor cite the same kinds of evidence, nor use the same vocabulary as a longer article on the animal rights movement in a general-interest periodical like Psychology Today. And that, in turn, would have little in common with an essay in a scholarly journal on the moral basis of the contractarian argument supporting the rights of animals. Researchers must allow for this wide variation in style and tone when they select and use their sources.
Articles in social science journals tend to follow a conventional structure and use professional terminology that can sometimes seem like jargon. At the beginning of such articles, you’re likely to find a “review of the literature”: a summary of the contributions that other sociologists or psychologists have made to an understanding of the topic. Here’s a typical paragraph taken from
“Social Work and Speciesism,” an article by David B. Wolf in the journal Social
Work:
There are many connections between our treatment of animals and environmental integrity; these touch on issues such as hunger, poverty, and war. Toffler (1975) suggested that the most practical hope for resolving the world’s food crisis is a restriction of beef eating that will save billions of tons of grain. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1972) reported that production of a pound of meat requires 40 to 100 times as much water as the production of a pound of wheat. Altschul (1964) noted that in terms of calorie units per acre, a diet of grains, vegetables, and beans will support 20 times as many people as a diet of meat. . . .
In effect, Wolf is summarizing the evidence of his sources in the topic sentence and then citing them, one by one. This pattern of presentation should not be imitated in an essay written for a basic writing course, nor is it usually a good idea to include such a “review of the literature” as a source within your essay. You would be quoting or paraphrasingWolf,who is paraphrasing Toffler orAltschul.
3 4 4 8 / EVALUATING SOURCES
0-312-62992-3 (c) Bedford/St. Martin's / bedfordstmartins.com
Better to eliminate the middleman (Wolf) and go directly to the source (Altschul or Toffler).
You can often decide to dismiss or pursue an article just by considering the title of the periodical. In a ProQuest search for journal articles on “animal rights,” the results list included periodicals ranging from Chemical and Engineering
News to Poultry World to Transport Topics to Vegetarian Times. It’s highly unlikely that articles in any of those four periodicals would be suitable for a research essay on “animal rights.” What about Gender and Society? If you’re especially interested in gender issues and wonder whether activism on behalf of animals may be gender-specific, that might be an excellent article to review for your preliminary bibliography. Animal Law? That depends on the technical level of the article. You’d have to see it to decide whether the issues are presented in accessible language or in professional “legalese.” Audubon? Here, again, the issue is audience. Is the article intended to appeal to a limited group of nature lovers, or is its content intended for a broader audience?
The style and tone of a book or article should be appropriate for your level of research.
If you find a source too erudite, then you’ll have difficulty understanding it and presenting it to your readers. If you find that a source is written in a superficial, frivolous, or overly emotional style, then it’s not serious or authoritative enough to include in your essay.
Style and Tone: Peter Singer: In the case of Singer’s Animal Liberation, you’ve already found out from the Contemporary Authors summary that his style is regarded as accessible; according to one reviewer, it was “intended for the mass market.” Something can also be learned about the style and tone of a book just by considering the publisher. Most of Singer’s books come from Oxford
University Press or Cambridge University Press, but Animal Liberation was published by Random House, a “general interest” company eager to sell books to the general public. Finally, you open the book to a chapter that particularly interests you and glance at a few sentences:
Becoming a vegetarian is not merely a symbolic gesture. Nor is it an attempt to isolate oneself from the ugly realities of the world, to keep oneself pure and so without responsibility for the cruelty and carnage all around. Becoming a vegetarian is the most practical and effective step one can take toward ending both the killing of nonhuman animals and the infliction of suffering upon them. The language is clear; the sentences compelling. You hope that Singer will at some point present the arguments of the nonvegetarian and realize that, if he does not, it will be your job to find the appropriate sources and do so.
EVALUATING PRINT SOURCES 3 4 5
0-312-62992-3 (c) Bedford/St. Martin's / bedfordstmartins.com
Currency
One further indication of a work’s usefulness for your purpose is its date.
Only in the last few years has animal rights emerged as an issue of international importance. As a rule, in the sciences and social sciences, the most recent sources usually replace earlier ones. Unless you’re interested in writing a historical review of attitudes toward animals, your research would probably focus on representative works published over the last 10 or 20 years. An article about vegetarianism as practiced in the 1930s would probably be of little value to you.
On the other hand, Singer’s 1975 Animal Liberation is now regarded as a seminal work—a key influence on later writers about animal rights—and would therefore not lose currency.
For research on historical and biographical topics, you need to know the difference between primary and secondary sources.
A primary source is a work that is itself the subject of your essay or
(if you are writing a historical research essay) a work written during the period that you are writing about that gives you direct or primary knowledge of that period.
“Primary source” is frequently used to describe an original document—such as the Constitution—or memoirs and diaries of historical interest, or a work of literature that, over the years, has been the subject of much written commentary.
Your interview or survey notes are primary sources.
A secondary source can be any commentary written both after and about the primary source.
A history textbook is usually a secondary source. So are most biographies.
While you generally study a primary source for its own sake, the secondary source is important—often, it only exists—because of its primary source:
_ If you are asked to write an essay about Huckleberry Finn, and your instructor tells you not to use any secondary sources, you are to read only
Mark Twain’s novel and not consult any commentaries.
_ T. E. Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom is a secondary source if you are interested in guerrilla warfare, but a primary source if you are studying
Lawrence.
_ If you read the New York Times to acquire information about Lawrence’s desert campaign in World War I, you are using the newspaper as a primary source since it was written during the period you are studying.
But when you look up a Times movie review of Lawrence of Arabia, then you are locating a secondary source in order to learn more about your primary subject.
3 4 6 8 / EVALUATING SOURCES
0-312-62992-3 (c) Bedford/St. Martin's / bedfordstmartins.com
Currency is not always essential for research about historical and biographical subjects, which usually includes primary sources. Even out-of-date secondary sources can be occasionally useful. Lowell Thomas’s 1924 biography of T. E. Lawrence is still of moderate interest in part because Thomas was present during the desert campaigns and could provide firsthand (although not necessarily unbiased) information. Nevertheless, because research is always unearthing new facts about people’s lives, Thomas’s work has long been superseded by new biographies providing a broader range of information. For a biographical or historical essay, you should consult some primary sources, one or two secondary sources written at the time of the event or during the subject’s lifetime, and the most recent and reliable secondary sources. It is the sources in the middle— written a few years after your target date, without the perspective of distance— that often lack authenticity or objectivity.
Evaluating books and articles shouldn’t dominate your research process. If you’re building a preliminary bibliography of 10–15 sources and you’re writing an essay in which you anticipate that no single source will be emphasized, don’t waste time looking up every author. On the other hand, if you’re likely to be working with only a few key sources, invest some time in finding out about these authors and their qualifications.
EvaluatingWeb Sources
Checking the credibility of print sources—books and periodical articles— can strengthen your research. It is useful to do so, but not always essential.
Evaluating the reliability of Web sources can be crucial to the quality of your essay.
It should become a routine part of your research practice.
You need to evaluate Web sources for two reasons:
_ An overabundance of information. The profusion of material on theWeb far exceeds the number of available print articles and books. What do you do when the keyword “animal rights” in a Yahoo! search produces
681,000 Web sites? First, you refine your search; next, you evaluate what’s left and decide which sites are worth examining.
_ An absence of editorial or peer review. When a book or article is submitted for print publication, editors or specialist reviewers judge its quality, accuracy, and timeliness, based on their knowledge of comparable material.
If the work is published, the reader can assume that it meets reasonably high standards. There is no comparable process for reviewing most material appearing on theWeb. No one at Google or Yahoo! or
Bing is charged with making choices or maintaining standards. Each of the 681,000 Web sites on animal rights is presented as equal to the rest.
Even search engines that claim to rank responses do not actually do so
EVALUATING WEB SOURCES 3 4 7
0-312-62992-3 (c) Bedford/St. Martin's / bedfordstmartins.com in a meaningful way. The basis for ranking—if any—tends to be commercial, not intellectual.
Here are a few ways to avoid the quagmire of endless results lists