Doing Research

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Defining a research question is a process of narrowing from a broad topic to a focused, searchable question that is neither too broad nor too narrow.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• The narrowing process: move from the outside in—start with all possible topics and narrow down until you can state precisely what you want to find out.
• Why it matters: once you have a realistically scoped question, it will guide the rest of your work; this process can be the hardest part of research.
• How to narrow: use the 5 W's (Who? What? When? Why? How?) to add specific focus to a broad topic.
• Common confusion: avoid getting too narrow—not every question is searchable; overly specific constraints (e.g., a particular city or province) can be too restrictive.
• Early exploration helps: background research helps you understand context, find specialized terms, and realize whether your question is searchable or needs modification.

🔍 The narrowing process

🔍 From broad to focused

Defining your research question is a process of working from the outside in: you start with the world of all possible topics (or your assigned topic) and narrow down until you have focused your interest enough to be able to state precisely what you want to find out, instead of only what you want to "write about."

• The goal is not just "what you want to write about" but what you want to find out.
• This shift from a general topic to a precise question is the core of narrowing.
• Example: "higher education" → "the high cost of tuition" → "How does the high cost of tuition impact the degree completion of mature college students?"

🎯 Realistic scope

• A good research question is realistically scoped: not too broad, not too narrow.
• Once you achieve this balance, the question will guide the rest of your research work.
• The excerpt emphasizes that this process "can be the hardest part of doing research."

🛠️ Tools for narrowing

🛠️ Use the 5 W's

The excerpt recommends asking some or all of the following questions to add specific focus:

Question	Example focus
Who?	First year students, mature students, part-time students
What?	Graduation rates, degree completion, attrition, dropout
When?	Last 10 years
Why or how?	Financial burden, employment, student debt

• Start with a broad topic (e.g., "higher education").
• Decide on a general area of interest (e.g., "high cost of tuition").
• Apply the 5 W's to narrow it down.
• Example result: "How does the high cost of tuition impact the degree completion of mature college students?"

📝 From topic to question

• The excerpt shows a concrete transformation:
  • Assigned topic: higher education
  • Initial interest: high cost of tuition (still too broad)
  • After applying 5 W's: a specific, searchable research question
• The key is to add layers of specificity by choosing particular aspects (who, what, when, why/how).

⚠️ Avoiding extremes

⚠️ Too narrow is also a problem

• Not every question you come up with will be searchable.
• The excerpt warns: "Be careful about getting too specific with your research question."
• Example of over-narrowing: trying to find information on the impact of rising tuition in a particular city or province may be too restrictive.
• Don't confuse: narrowing is necessary, but overly specific constraints can make a question unsearchable because there may be no available information at that level of detail.

🔄 Iteration is normal

• The excerpt notes that initial exploration "will also lead you to realize that your question might not be searchable, or that you are going to have to modify it a little."
• "That's ok. A little work up front will save you time later."
• Research question development is iterative: you may need to adjust scope based on what is actually searchable.

🧪 Early exploration

🧪 Why explore before narrowing

• The excerpt describes the early stage as "a process of exploration" that helps you develop a searchable research question.
• Even if you already have some familiarity with a topic, additional background work can bring a fresh perspective.

🧪 What exploration provides

• Context: understand how your topic relates to a larger picture.
• Specialized terms: discover vocabulary associated with your topic that you can use in search strategies.
• Feasibility check: realize whether your question is searchable or needs modification.
• Example: if a topic is completely new to you, background information is essential to understand the context.

📋 Review your assignment first

• Before starting research, make sure you understand the assignment requirements.
• Pay attention to:
  • The kinds of information sources you need
  • How you will be expected to incorporate them into your own work
• This step ensures your narrowing process aligns with what the assignment actually asks for.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

A balanced research question must be specific enough to guide your research but not so restrictive that it becomes unsearchable or excludes relevant information.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• The narrowing danger: not every question you come up with will be searchable—you can be too specific.
• What makes a question too narrow: adding unnecessary restrictions like specific cities or provinces when location may be irrelevant.
• How to find balance: work toward a question that is specific enough to guide you but not too restrictive.
• Common confusion: don't confuse "specific" with "narrow"—a large-scale study across Canada or North America can still address your specific question about tuition impact.
• Why balance matters: overly narrow questions limit the available information and may exclude useful, relevant research.

⚖️ The balance problem

⚖️ When specificity becomes a problem

• The excerpt warns that "not every question that you come up with will be searchable."
• Being too specific means adding restrictions that make it impossible to find enough information.
• The goal is not maximum detail but searchability: can you actually find sources to answer this question?

🚫 What "too narrow" looks like

A question is too restrictive when it includes unnecessary geographic, temporal, or demographic limits that exclude relevant information.

• Example from the excerpt: trying to find information on the impact of rising tuition in a particular city or province will be too restrictive.
• The location may be irrelevant to the search—the phenomenon you're studying might not depend on that specific place.
• Don't confuse: "specific question" ≠ "hyper-local question." You can ask about a specific impact (tuition on degree completion) without limiting it to one city.

🎯 Finding the right scope

🎯 The balanced research question

A balanced research question is specific enough to guide you in your research, but not too restrictive.

• "Specific enough to guide" means you know who and what you're studying (e.g., mature college students and degree completion).
• "Not too restrictive" means you don't add unnecessary filters that shrink your pool of sources.

🌍 Scale and relevance

• The excerpt emphasizes that a large-scale study across Canada or North America would likely yield relevant information.
• Broader geographic scope does not mean your question is vague—it means you're not artificially limiting useful data.
• Example: if tuition impact on mature students is similar across regions, restricting to one city excludes valuable evidence without improving your question.

🔑 Key questions to ask

🔑 Which restrictions matter?

Restriction type	When it helps	When it hurts
Who? (demographic)	Focusing on a specific group (e.g., mature students)	Adding irrelevant subgroups
What? (outcome)	Defining a clear outcome (e.g., degree completion)	Over-specifying measures
Where? (location)	When location is central to the phenomenon	When location is irrelevant and limits sources

• The excerpt highlights who and what as the important questions for the tuition example.
• Where (city or province) is flagged as potentially irrelevant and overly restrictive.

🧭 Testing your question

• Ask yourself: "Will this restriction help me find better sources, or will it just reduce the number of sources?"
• If a large-scale study would answer your question, don't force a narrow geographic limit.
• The bottom line from the excerpt: you are working toward balance—it's an iterative process, not a one-time decision.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Background reading during the early stages of research helps you learn the professional terminology and search terms that will lead you to the most relevant and scholarly sources for your topic.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Why do background reading: You may not know much about your topic yet, and reading helps you discover the terms professionals and scholars actually use.
• Search terms matter: The words you choose directly affect the kinds of sources you find—professional terms yield scholarly sources, while casual terms yield news or consumer sites.
• Wikipedia as a starting point: Well-developed Wikipedia articles provide roadmaps, definitions, related terms, and lists of credible external sources, but should not be cited directly.
• Common confusion: Using everyday language (e.g. "bird flu") vs. professional terminology (e.g. "avian influenza")—the latter retrieves government and scientific sources, the former retrieves news and consumer health sites.
• How to use Wikipedia effectively: Follow external links, supporting references, and further reading suggestions to locate sources in library collections or on the internet.

📚 Why background reading matters

📚 Learning your topic

• You might not know much about your topic at the beginning of your research.
• Initial reading builds foundational understanding before you dive into detailed searching.

🔑 Discovering professional terminology

• Background reading teaches you the terms used by professionals and scholars who have studied your narrower topic.
• These terms become your keywords or search terms later on.
• Learning relevant terms early saves time later in the research process.

🔍 The impact of search terms

🔍 Direct correlation between terms and sources

The search terms you use will have a direct correlation with the kinds of sources you find.

• Spending time early on learning relevant terms will save you time later.
• The choice of words determines whether you find scholarly sources or popular media.

🐦 Case study: Bird flu terminology

The excerpt provides a concrete comparison using the bird flu topic:

Search terms used	Types of sources found
"bird flu" and human risk	News outlets, consumer health websites
"avian influenza" and human risk	Government agencies, scientific journals

Key insight:

• Professionals and scholars usually use "avian influenza" instead of "bird flu" when writing about the topic.
• They also use strain identifiers like H1N1 or H1N9.
• If you didn't learn the professional terminology, you would miss the kinds of sources you eventually need for your assignment.

Example: A student researching pandemic risk who only searches "bird flu" will find news articles and general health advice, but will miss peer-reviewed studies and official public health reports that use "avian influenza."

⚠️ Don't confuse

• Everyday language vs. professional terminology: both may describe the same topic, but they retrieve very different source types.
• The more casual term is not "wrong," but it won't lead you to scholarly or official sources.

🌐 Using Wikipedia strategically

🌐 What Wikipedia offers

Wikipedia is a popular starting place and will likely appear at the top of Google search results.

A well-developed Wikipedia article provides:

• Content boxes and overviews that offer a "road-map" of your subject.
• Help focusing on related and narrower sub-topics.
• Definitions, related terms, and key historical dates in introductory paragraphs.
• Links to external references and further reading.

Important fact:

• No Wikipedia article can be published unless it is backed with a list of credible sources.
• Wikipedia has its own policy on Verifiability and discusses what counts as a reliable source.

⚠️ Limitations and concerns

Why instructors caution against Wikipedia:

• While it is not quite true that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, there are concerns about potential inaccuracies and misinformation.
• This is especially true for controversial topics.
• The "Talk" page of any article reveals how editors actively work to ensure information is free from bias and maintains neutrality.
• Unlike traditional scholarly sources, content on Wikipedia is continually changing.
• Instructors will probably discourage you from citing Wikipedia directly.

💎 The goldmine: external sources

What you can do with a Wikipedia article:

• Look at the external links.
• Examine the supporting references.
• Review the suggestions for further reading.

Why this matters:

• As someone new to a topic, these sources can be a goldmine.
• Try locating them in the library's collection or on the internet.

Don't confuse:

• Using Wikipedia as a research starting point (recommended) vs. citing Wikipedia in your final work (discouraged).
• The article itself (changeable, not citable) vs. the credible sources it references (stable, citable).

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Wikipedia serves as a useful starting point for research by providing overviews and reference links, but its editable nature and potential for bias mean it should be used primarily to locate credible external sources rather than as a citable source itself.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Wikipedia's strengths: provides road-maps, definitions, related terms, historical context, and links to external references that can guide further research.
• Wikipedia's limitations: concerns about inaccuracies, misinformation, and continual content changes make it unsuitable for direct citation in academic work.
• How to distinguish proper use: use Wikipedia to find credible sources (external links, references, further reading suggestions), not as a final source itself.
• Quality control mechanisms: articles require credible source backing and editors actively work to maintain neutrality, though controversial topics may still show bias concerns.
• Instructor expectations: most instructors will discourage citing Wikipedia directly but recognize its value in early research stages.

📚 What Wikipedia offers researchers

📚 Road-map and overview features

• Well-developed Wikipedia articles provide:
  • Content boxes and overviews that map out a subject
  • Help focusing on related and narrower sub-topics
  • Introductory paragraphs with definitions, related terms, and key historical dates

A well-developed Wikipedia article provides a "road-map" of your subject and helps you focus on related and narrower sub-topics.

• Example: A researcher new to a topic can quickly understand the landscape and identify which aspects to investigate further.

🔗 External references and further reading

• Every Wikipedia article must be backed with a list of credible sources (per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy).
• Articles provide:
  • Links to external references
  • Suggestions for further reading
  • Sources that can be followed up in library collections or on the internet

Why this matters: For someone new to a topic, these linked sources can be a "goldmine" for locating credible information.

⚠️ Limitations and concerns

⚠️ Editability and accuracy issues

• While not quite true that "anyone can edit," there are concerns about:
  • Potential for inaccuracies
  • Potential for misinformation
  • Especially problematic for controversial topics

🔄 Continual change vs. traditional sources

Wikipedia	Traditional scholarly sources
Content continually changing	Stable, fixed content
Multiple editors, ongoing revisions	Peer-reviewed, vetted before publication
Potential for bias on controversial topics	Formal editorial oversight

• Don't confuse: Wikipedia's dynamic nature makes it different from traditional scholarly sources, which is why citation policies differ.

🗣️ Neutrality and bias management

• The "Talk" page of any article reveals how editors actively work to:
  • Ensure information is free from bias
  • Maintain neutrality
• This process is ongoing and visible, showing both the effort to maintain quality and the potential for disputes.

✅ How to use Wikipedia effectively

✅ Recommended approach

What instructors typically advise:

• ❌ Do not cite Wikipedia directly in your research
• ✅ Do use Wikipedia articles to locate external links, supporting references, and further reading suggestions
• ✅ Do locate those sources in the library's collection or on the internet

🎯 Early research strategy

• Use Wikipedia as a starting point (it will likely appear in top Google search results)
• Extract the credible sources it references
• Follow up by locating those sources through proper academic channels
• Treat Wikipedia as a finding tool, not a final source

Example: A researcher investigating a topic finds a Wikipedia article, notes three journal articles in the references section, then locates those journal articles through the library database to use as actual sources.

📋 Wikipedia's own quality standards

• Wikipedia has its own policy on Verifiability
• Includes discussion of what constitutes a reliable source
• No article can be published without credible source backing
• These policies help ensure baseline quality while acknowledging the platform's limitations

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Library encyclopedias, handbooks, and dictionaries provide essential background information that helps researchers understand their topic's scope, controversies, and key concepts before formulating a focused research question.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Why use library reference materials: They offer structured overviews, sub-topics, controversies, key thinkers, and further reading recommendations that Google searches may not provide systematically.
• What encyclopedias and handbooks provide: Broad topic overviews, related issues, controversies, key researchers, and references for deeper exploration.
• What dictionaries offer: Definitions of your term and related terms that help develop your search strategy.
• How to access them: Use the library's Summon search tool with the "reference" filter, or browse subject-specific guides and the Find Background Information page.
• Common confusion: Starting with Google vs starting with library resources—library reference materials are specifically curated for academic research and provide more structured pathways.

📚 What library reference materials offer

📖 Encyclopedias and handbooks

These resources provide comprehensive starting points for research:

• Broad overview of your topic: A general understanding of the field or subject area
• Sub-topics and related issues: Helps you see connections and narrow your focus
• Controversies and criticism: Reveals debates and different perspectives in the field
• Key thinkers or researchers: Identifies important scholars whose work you may need to explore
• References and further reading: Points to recommended articles and additional sources

Example: An encyclopedia article on eating disorders would show you the scope of the topic, major theoretical approaches, ongoing debates, and leading researchers in the field.

📝 Dictionaries

Dictionaries offer a definition of your term and related terms that will be important as you develop your search strategy.

• Focus on precise terminology and related concepts
• Help clarify what you're actually searching for
• Reveal alternative terms that can expand or refine your searches

Don't confuse: A dictionary definition is not just for understanding a word—it's a strategic tool for building better search queries.

🔍 How to access library reference materials

🖥️ Using Summon search

The library's Summon search tool (the default search box on the library's homepage) provides access to reference materials:

• Apply the "reference" filter to focus your results on encyclopedias, handbooks, and dictionaries
• This narrows down results to curated reference sources rather than all library materials

🗂️ Other access points

Multiple pathways exist to find reference materials:

Access method	What it provides
Research Help guide	Links to Find Background Information page with reference collections
Subject-specific guides	Reference books organized by academic discipline
Print collection	Physical reference materials in the library

🎯 Strategic timing

The excerpt emphasizes visiting the library early in your research, after an initial Google search but before diving deep into your topic.

• Start broad with Google to get oriented
• Move to library reference materials for structured background
• Then proceed to developing your research question

Don't confuse: Library reference work is not a substitute for initial exploration—it's the bridge between casual browsing and focused research.

🎓 Practical application

🔗 Integration with research process

The excerpt positions library reference work as a specific stage:

1. Begin with quick Google search for orientation
2. Visit library reference materials (this chapter's focus)
3. Develop your research question (next step mentioned)

The excerpt states: "After this background work, you are now ready to start developing the research question you will try to answer for your assignment."

📊 Real example provided

The excerpt references an article from the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychology found using Summon:

• Demonstrates that subject-specific reference works exist for different disciplines
• Shows that these materials are accessible through the library's search tools
• Illustrates how reference articles can be explored interactively (though the interactive elements are excluded from this text version)

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Finding a research question is a process of exploration and refinement that moves from a broad topic through background reading to a focused, searchable question that is neither too narrow nor too broad.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Research as strategic exploration: developing a question begins with learning how to ask the right question, not jumping straight to answers.
• The refinement cycle: exploring a topic leads to developing a question, and further refinement helps focus it to an appropriate scope.
• Common confusion: balancing breadth—a topic can be too wide (unsearchable) or too narrow (no sources); the goal is a "balanced topic that is searchable."
• Six-step process: from picking a topic, narrowing it, doing background reading, adjusting based on search results, to listing potential questions.
• Background sources matter: encyclopedias and dictionaries provide foundational understanding before formulating the final question.

🔄 The iterative nature of question development

🔄 Exploration and refining as a cycle

• The excerpt emphasizes that finding a research question is not a one-step task.
• It is "a process of exploration and refining":
  • Exploring a topic → developing a question.
  • Further refinement → focusing the question.
• This cycle repeats until you reach something workable.

⚖️ Balancing scope: too broad vs too narrow

• The excerpt describes a student journey: starting from "a wide open topic," moving to "something too narrow," and finally "finding a balanced topic that is searchable."
• Too broad: the question is so general that search results are overwhelming or unfocused.
• Too narrow: the question is so specific that few or no sources exist.
• Balanced: the question is focused enough to be answerable but broad enough to have sufficient sources.
• Don't confuse: "narrow" is not always better—narrowing too much can make research impossible.

📋 Six-step process for developing a research question

📋 Step 1: Pick a topic

• Start with a topic (or consider the one assigned to you).
• This is the broadest starting point.

📋 Step 2: Write a narrower topic

• Take the initial topic and write a narrower version related to it.
• This begins the refinement process.

📋 Step 4: Do background reading

Background reading: using the Library's reference books (encyclopedias, dictionaries) and doing initial research in a library database.

• The excerpt skips Step 3 (likely a typo in the source).
• Background sources provide foundational knowledge before you commit to a specific question.
• Example: if your broad topic is "eating disorders," an encyclopedia entry can clarify subtopics, key terms, and current debates.

📋 Step 5: Readjust based on search results

• After initial searches, check the number of results:
  • Too few results: your topic may be too narrow; broaden it.
  • Too many results: your topic may be too broad; narrow it further.
• This step is the practical test of whether your question is "searchable."

📋 Step 6: List potential questions

• Once you have a focused topic, list potential questions that could logically be asked in relation to it.
• These questions guide your actual research.

🧩 Why this process matters

🧩 Research as strategic exploration

Key takeaway: Research is a process of strategic exploration, one that begins with learning how to ask the right question.

• The excerpt frames research not as "finding facts" but as "asking the right question."
• Strategic exploration means:
  • Not jumping to the first question that comes to mind.
  • Using background sources and search feedback to refine your direction.
• Example: an organization assigned a broad topic might explore subtopics through encyclopedias, test search terms in databases, and adjust until a clear, answerable question emerges.

🧩 Matching question to assignment requirements

• The excerpt notes that once you have your research question, you will need to "locate the information sources appropriate to your question and the requirements of your assignment."
• Different questions and assignments call for different types of sources (e.g., peer-reviewed articles, encyclopedias, primary sources).
• Don't confuse: the question-development stage (this chapter) comes before deep source selection; you need a focused question first.

🔗 Connection to broader research workflow

🔗 From question to source selection

• The excerpt transitions to the next module: "Once you have your research question, you will need to locate the information sources appropriate to your question..."
• It emphasizes understanding "how information is created and delivered through a variety of formats" to "select the best sources."
• This implies that a well-developed question makes source selection easier and more effective.

🔗 Information creation and formats

Key takeaway (from Part 2 preview): Information creation is a process that results in a variety of formats and delivery modes, each having a different value in a given context.

• The excerpt previews that different formats (e.g., encyclopedias, peer-reviewed journals, databases) serve different purposes.
• With many sources available, "the question is usually not whether sources exist for your project, but which ones will best meet" your needs.
• This reinforces the importance of a focused question: it helps you choose the right sources, not just any sources.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Different information sources—from social media to scholarly books—vary in expertise, audience, and timeliness, so matching the right source type to your research context and assignment requirements is essential.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Why source types matter: Information about any topic comes from many formats (blogs, research articles, government sites, books, etc.), each with different content, expertise levels, and audiences.
• Context determines value: The same source type can be highly valuable in one research context but inappropriate in another, depending on assignment requirements.
• Scholarly vs. popular trade-off: Scholarly sources undergo lengthy editorial processes and take longer to appear but offer academic rigor; popular sources are more timely but less formal.
• Common confusion: "More sources exist" is not the challenge—the real question is which sources best meet your specific information needs.
• Timeliness spectrum: Sources range from real-time (social media) to current events (magazines, newspapers) to in-depth analysis (scholarly books).

📚 The range of source types

📚 What you'll encounter on any topic

When researching a topic like the safety of genetically modified food, you will quickly find information from:

• Blogs and opinion pieces
• Natural medicine and consumer health sites
• Scientific research articles
• Government and NGO sites
• Books, newspapers, and magazine articles

Key insight: Each type is written by people with varying levels of expertise and for different audiences.

🎯 Why variety exists

• Different sources serve different purposes.
• Content depth, formality, and review processes differ widely.
• No single source type is "always best"—value depends on your research need and assignment requirements.

Don't confuse: "Many sources available" does not mean "all sources are equally useful." The challenge is selection, not availability.

⏱️ Timeliness and formality trade-offs

⏱️ The speed-versus-rigor spectrum

The excerpt presents a continuum of source types, ordered roughly by how quickly they appear and how formal their review process is:

Source type	Characteristics (from excerpt)
Social media	Real-time
Websites	Possible currency (timeliness varies)
Newspapers, news sites	Up-to-date; general audience
Magazines	Current events
Government/NGO	Reports, statistics
Scholarly articles	New research; lengthy editorial process
Scholarly books	In-depth coverage; academic audience
Encyclopedias, Wikipedia	Overview, background

📝 Scholarly sources: slower but rigorous

Scholarly, academic sources undergo a lengthy editorial process and therefore take longer to appear.

• These sources are required for some assignments because they offer vetted, peer-reviewed research.
• Trade-off: they are less timely than popular sources.

📰 Popular sources: faster but less formal

Other assignments may allow you to use less formal, popular sources of information that may be more timely.

• Popular sources (newspapers, magazines, websites) can capture current events and emerging issues quickly.
• Trade-off: they lack the rigorous review process of scholarly work.

Example: If your assignment asks for "the latest public opinion on genetically modified food," a recent news article or blog may be appropriate. If it asks for "peer-reviewed evidence on health effects," you need scholarly research articles.

🔍 Matching source to research need

🔍 Context determines appropriateness

The excerpt emphasizes:

Each of these types of sources will have a different value for you, depending on the context and requirements of your research need.

• The same source type can be highly valuable in one context and inappropriate in another.
• Always check assignment requirements: some explicitly require scholarly sources; others allow or even prefer popular or primary sources.

🧩 The selection question

With so many sources available, the question is usually not whether sources exist for your project, but which ones will best meet your information needs.

• Abundance is not the problem; discernment is.
• Taking time to understand how information is created and delivered helps you select the best sources.

Don't confuse: "I found many sources" with "I found the right sources." Quantity does not equal quality or appropriateness.

🎓 Key takeaway

🎓 Information creation as a process

Information creation is a process that results in a variety of formats and delivery modes, each having a different value in a given context.

• Recognizing that information goes through different creation processes (peer review, editorial oversight, informal posting) helps you evaluate which sources fit your research question and assignment.
• Once you have your research question, the next step is to locate sources appropriate to both the question and the assignment requirements.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Different research needs require different types of information sources—from real-time social media to in-depth scholarly books—and matching the right source type to your assignment context determines the value and appropriateness of the information you use.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Wide range of sources exists: blogs, scientific articles, government sites, newspapers, and books all provide information with varying levels of expertise and formality.
• Context determines value: the same source type may be valuable for one assignment but inappropriate for another, depending on requirements.
• Scholarly vs. popular distinction: some assignments require formal, peer-reviewed scholarly sources that undergo lengthy editorial processes, while others allow timely, less formal popular sources.
• Common confusion: "scholarly," "academic," "journal," and "peer-reviewed" articles all refer to the same category of formal research publications.
• Timeline of information creation: different source types appear at different speeds after an event, from immediate social media to slower scholarly books.

📚 The spectrum of information sources

📚 Source variety for complex topics

• The excerpt uses genetically modified food safety as an example of a controversial topic with many source types.
• Information comes from:
  • Blogs and opinion pieces
  • Natural medicine and consumer health sites
  • Scientific research articles
  • Government and NGO sites
  • Books, newspapers, and magazine articles
• Each type has different content, authors with varying expertise levels, and targets different audiences.

⚖️ Context-dependent value

• No single source type is universally "best"—value depends on your specific research need and assignment requirements.
• The excerpt emphasizes that the same source may be valuable in one context but not another.
• Example: a blog post might be appropriate for understanding public opinion but inappropriate for a scientific literature review.

🎓 Scholarly versus popular sources

🎓 Scholarly source characteristics

Scholarly articles (also called "academic," "journal," or "peer-reviewed" articles): formal research publications that undergo a lengthy editorial process.

• Take longer to appear due to the editorial process.
• Required for some assignments.
• The excerpt notes these terms are interchangeable: scholarly = academic = journal = peer-reviewed.

📰 Popular source characteristics

• Less formal than scholarly sources.
• More timely—can appear faster.
• Allowed for some assignments where timeliness matters more than formal peer review.

🔍 Why the distinction matters

• You need to recognize the difference to judge whether a source is appropriate for your assignment.
• This recognition skill applies whether searching in library resources or on Google.
• The excerpt promises later tutorials will teach how to focus searches to find scholarly articles specifically.

🏢 Trade and professional sources

🏢 A third category

Trade publications (also called "professional sources" or "magazines" in some databases): articles written for professionals and people within a particular field of work.

• Target a specialized audience within a profession.
• May report on primary research but from an applied or summary perspective (not full original research).
• May contain advertisements of interest to people in that profession.

🔍 How to identify them

• In library databases like Summon, these may be labeled as "trade publication" or "magazines."
• Don't confuse: trade publications are distinct from both scholarly journals and general popular magazines—they occupy a middle ground aimed at practitioners.

⏱️ Information creation timeline

⏱️ Speed of different sources

The excerpt introduces the concept that information creation follows a timeline after an event occurs:

Source type	Timing characteristic
Social media	Real-time, first to provide coverage
Online news sources	Immediate coverage
Magazines and newspapers	Follow after initial coverage

• The excerpt cuts off but establishes that different sources appear at different speeds.
• This timing affects which sources are available and appropriate at different stages of researching a topic.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Different types of information sources—from social media to scholarly articles—serve different research needs, and understanding their characteristics helps you select appropriate sources for your assignment requirements.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What distinguishes source types: content depth, author expertise, audience, and publication timeline vary across blogs, news, magazines, government sites, and scholarly articles.
• Scholarly vs popular articles: scholarly articles are academic, peer-reviewed publications written by experts for specialized audiences; popular articles are written for general readers.
• Common confusion: not all content in academic journals is peer-reviewed—letters, opinion pieces, and book reviews may be edited but not formally peer-reviewed.
• Timeline matters: social media and news appear immediately after events, magazines and newspapers follow shortly, while scholarly articles and books take much longer to publish.
• Trade publications: a third category written for professionals in a specific field, reporting applied or summary perspectives with specialized advertisements.

📚 Understanding source categories

📰 Range of source types

When researching a topic (the excerpt uses genetically modified food safety as an example), you will encounter:

• Blogs and opinion pieces
• Natural medicine and consumer health sites
• Scientific research articles
• Government and NGO sites
• Books, newspapers, and magazine articles

Each type has different characteristics:

• Content depth varies
• Author expertise ranges from general writers to specialists
• Target audience differs (general public vs experts)
• Value for research depends on your assignment context and requirements

⏱️ Information creation timeline

The process of information creation follows a timeline.

Source type	When it appears	Implication
Social media, online news	Immediately after an event	Real-time coverage
Magazines, newspapers	Shortly after	Up-to-date reporting for general audiences
Journal articles, books	Much longer	In-depth, researched content

Don't confuse: If you choose a very recent event, you likely won't find scholarly articles or books about it yet—you may need to look for similar events or broader treatments of the subject.

🎓 Scholarly vs popular articles

🔬 What makes an article "scholarly"

Scholarly articles may also be called:

• Academic articles
• Journal articles
• Peer-reviewed articles

These are published in academic journals and written by experts for specialized audiences.

📖 Key differences

The excerpt presents a visual comparison showing that popular and scholarly articles differ in:

• Author credentials (varying levels of expertise)
• Editorial process (length and rigor)
• Audience (general vs specialized)
• Publication speed (faster vs slower)

Some assignments require scholarly sources that "undergo a lengthy editorial process and therefore take longer to appear." Other assignments allow "less formal, popular sources of information that may be more timely."

🔍 The peer review process

🧪 What peer review means

Peer reviewed articles are published in scholarly or academic journals after they have gone through a lengthy editorial process which usually involves the author making many revisions.

Key characteristics:

• Reviewers are experts in the same field
• They judge: originality of research, methods used, validity of findings
• Double-blind review (highest standard): both author and reviewer identities are kept anonymous to prevent bias and subjectivity

⚠️ Important distinction

Don't confuse: Not all content in an academic journal is peer-reviewed.

Non-peer-reviewed content in academic journals may include:

• Letters
• Opinion pieces
• Book reviews

These may be edited but have not necessarily gone through formal peer review.

Example: An academic journal might contain both a peer-reviewed research article and a letter to the editor—only the research article went through the full peer review process.

💼 Trade and professional sources

🏢 A third category

Trade publications are written for professionals and people within a particular field of work.

Characteristics:

• Target audience: specialized (professionals in a field)
• Content: may report on primary research but from an applied or summary perspective
• Advertisements: of interest to people in that profession

🗂️ How they're classified

In library databases (Summon and article databases), these publications are labeled as:

• "Trade publication"
• "Magazines"

This is a middle ground between popular and scholarly sources—more specialized than popular magazines but more applied than pure scholarly research.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Trade and professional publications serve as a specialized middle ground between popular and scholarly sources, targeting professionals within specific fields with applied research and industry-relevant content.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What trade publications are: articles written for professionals and people within a particular field of work, not the general public or purely academic researchers.
• Target audience: a specialized audience within a profession or industry.
• Content approach: may report on primary research but from an applied or summary perspective rather than full original research methodology.
• Common confusion: in library databases, these are often labeled as "trade publication" or "magazines," which can be confusing since they differ from popular consumer magazines.
• Distinguishing feature: may include advertisements of interest to people in that profession, reflecting their industry focus.

📚 What makes trade publications distinct

📚 Definition and purpose

Trade and professional publications: a third type of publication written for professionals and people within a particular field of work.

• They occupy a middle space between popular magazines (for general readers) and scholarly journals (for academic researchers).
• The focus is on practical application and industry relevance rather than theoretical research or entertainment.
• Example: A publication for healthcare administrators might discuss new hospital management software, combining research summaries with practical implementation advice.

🎯 Specialized audience

• Unlike popular sources that target the general public, trade publications assume readers have professional knowledge in the field.
• Unlike scholarly articles that target academic researchers, trade publications focus on practitioners and working professionals.
• The writing assumes familiarity with industry terminology and concerns.

🔍 Content characteristics

🔍 Research reporting style

• Trade publications "may report on primary research but from an applied or summary perspective."
• This means they discuss research findings but emphasize practical implications rather than detailed methodology.
• Don't confuse: This is not the same as scholarly articles, which present full original research with complete methods and data analysis.

📰 Professional advertisements

• A distinguishing feature: trade publications "may have advertisements of interest to people in that profession."
• These ads reflect the professional context—industry products, services, conferences, or job opportunities.
• Example: A trade publication for architects might include ads for design software, building materials, or professional development courses.

🏷️ How to identify them

🏷️ Database labeling

Database term	What it means	Why it matters
"Trade publication"	Professional/industry-focused source	Appropriate for applied research needs
"Magazines"	May include both popular and trade publications	Need to examine the source to determine if it's consumer-focused or profession-focused

• In Summon and library article databases, these publications are called "trade publication" or "magazines."
• The "magazines" label can be confusing because it groups together very different types of sources.
• You must examine the actual publication to determine whether it targets general consumers or industry professionals.

🔎 What to look for

When examining a source to determine if it's a trade publication, check:

• Who is the intended audience? (professionals in a specific field)
• What kind of advertisements appear? (industry-specific products/services)
• How is research presented? (applied perspective, summary format)
• Does it assume specialized knowledge without extensive explanation?

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Information about events follows a predictable timeline from immediate social media coverage to delayed scholarly publication, which researchers must understand when selecting sources for recent versus historical topics.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Timeline of publication: social media and online news appear first after an event, followed by magazines and newspapers, with journal articles and books taking the longest to publish.
• Implication for research: very recent events will not have book or scholarly article coverage yet, requiring researchers to use other source types or broaden their topic.
• Strategic adaptation: researchers can look for similar/related events or broader treatments of the subject to find usable scholarly sources when direct coverage is unavailable.
• Common confusion: expecting all types of sources to be available immediately—publication speed varies dramatically by format and editorial process.

⏱️ The information creation timeline

⏱️ Speed of different formats

The excerpt establishes a clear sequence:

• Fastest: social media and online news sources provide coverage as soon as an event occurs.
• Moderate: magazines and newspapers follow "shortly after."
• Slowest: journal articles and books "take even longer to get published."

The process of information creation follows a timeline.

This is not about quality or reliability—it is purely about how long each format takes to produce and distribute.

📅 Why timing matters for research

• If you choose a very recent event, certain source types simply will not exist yet.
• The excerpt specifically warns: "you will likely not find information about it in a book or scholarly article."
• This is a mechanical constraint of the publishing process, not a gap in knowledge.

Example: An event that happened last month will have social media posts and news articles, but scholarly journals have not had time to complete their editorial and peer review processes.

🔄 Adapting your research strategy

🔄 When direct sources are unavailable

The excerpt offers concrete strategies:

• Expand your topic: look for a similar or related event that occurred earlier.
• Broaden the treatment: find sources that address the general subject rather than the specific recent event.
• Still usable: these broader or related sources "can still use to support your writing."

🎯 Don't confuse: unavailable vs. non-existent

• A lack of scholarly articles on a recent event does not mean the event is unimportant or unstudied.
• It means the publication timeline has not yet reached the book/journal stage.
• Researchers must match their source expectations to the event's recency.

📊 Practical implications

Event recency	Available sources	Strategy
Very recent (days/weeks)	Social media, online news	Use these formats or expand topic scope
Moderate (months)	Magazines, newspapers	May find some trade publications
Older (years)	Journal articles, books	Full range of scholarly sources available

📊 Planning ahead

• "Knowing this will be important in your research" — the excerpt emphasizes this as essential planning knowledge.
• Choose your topic with awareness of what sources will realistically be available.
• Adjust your search strategy based on how much time has passed since the event.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Peer review is a rigorous editorial process in which expert reviewers evaluate scholarly articles for originality, methodology, and validity before publication, ensuring high-quality academic research.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What peer review is: a lengthy editorial process where experts in the same field judge articles on research originality, methods, and validity of findings.
• Double-blind standard: the highest standard keeps both author and reviewer identities anonymous to prevent bias and subjectivity.
• Common confusion: not all content in academic journals is peer reviewed—letters, opinion pieces, and book reviews may be edited but not formally peer reviewed.
• How to recognize peer reviewed articles: use database filters ("academic," "scholarly," "peer reviewed") and look for clues like author credentials, references, submission guidelines, and scholarly publishers.
• Why it matters for research: assignments often require peer reviewed sources, so understanding the process and recognizing these articles is essential for meeting academic requirements.

📝 The peer review process

📝 What happens during peer review

Peer review: a lengthy editorial process in which articles are evaluated by expert reviewers before publication in scholarly or academic journals.

• Authors typically make many revisions based on reviewer feedback.
• The process ensures quality control before publication.
• It is not a quick process—this connects to why very recent events may not yet have peer reviewed coverage.

👥 Who reviews the articles

• Reviewers are experts in the same field as the author.
• They evaluate three main criteria:
  • Originality of the research
  • Methods used
  • Validity of findings
• This expert evaluation distinguishes peer review from general editorial review.

🎭 Double-blind review

• The highest standard of peer review.
• Both author identity and reviewer identity are kept anonymous.
• Purpose: ensure that bias and subjectivity do not influence the evaluation process.
• Example: a reviewer cannot favor or disfavor an article based on the author's reputation or institutional affiliation.

⚠️ What is NOT peer reviewed

⚠️ Other content in academic journals

The excerpt warns: "Not all of the content in an academic journal is subject to peer review."

Content that may appear in academic journals but is not necessarily peer reviewed:

• Letters
• Opinion pieces
• Book reviews

These items may be edited but have not gone through the formal peer review process described above.

Don't confuse: appearing in an academic journal ≠ automatically peer reviewed. You must verify the specific article type.

🔍 How to recognize peer reviewed articles

🔍 Database filters

The most straightforward method:

• Library search tools (Summon) and databases include filters or limits.
• Look for terms: "academic," "scholarly," or "peer reviewed."
• Different databases use different terminology, but these are the common options.

🔍 Clues within the article or journal

Clue	What to look for	Why it matters
Author's credentials and affiliations	Degrees, university or research institution affiliation	Peer reviewed articles show academic expertise
References	Lengthy list of sources used by the author	Demonstrates scholarly research standards
Submission guidelines	Link on journal's homepage for submitting articles for review	Indicates a formal review process exists
Journal publisher	Scholarly society or university press	Academic publishers typically use peer review

🔍 Practical tips

• You may need to "dig around a little" to find submission guidelines on a journal's website.
• Use multiple clues together—no single clue is definitive on its own.
• When in doubt, use database filters as your primary method.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Starting with just the main keywords of your research question—rather than typing the full question—produces more comprehensive and relevant search results.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Why keyword-only searches work better: typing a complete sentence forces the search tool to find all words present, severely limiting results; keywords alone allow the tool to find more relevant items.
• What to remove: non-essential words like "should," "be," "for," and other filler words that don't reflect the core concepts.
• Result difference: the example shows a keyword search returning over 15,000 items versus only ~1,000 for the full question.
• Common confusion: more words ≠ better results—adding extra words actually narrows the search too much and misses relevant sources.
• Bias awareness: avoid words like "benefits," "harms," "positive," or "negative" in your keywords, as they skew results toward one perspective instead of balanced coverage.

🔍 How keyword searching works

🔍 The core principle

• Search tools look for items where the terms you enter are present.
• When you type a full sentence or question, the tool tries to match all the words in that sentence.
• This drastically reduces the number of results because fewer items will contain every single word.

✂️ What to strip out

• Remove non-essential words from your research question.
• Focus on the main concepts or keywords that best reflect what you're investigating.
• Example: "Should vaccinations be mandatory for school-aged children?" becomes "mandatory vaccinations children."

📊 The impact on results

Search type	Example query	Number of results	Content mix
Full question	"Should vaccinations be mandatory for school-aged children?"	~1,000	Evenly split between journals and books
Keywords only	mandatory vaccinations children	Over 15,000	Many more journal articles

• The keyword search returns 15 times more results because only those three terms need to occur, not every word from the original question.
• The search tool also picks up related terms (e.g., "immunization") that you didn't explicitly type.

⚠️ Avoiding bias in keyword choice

⚠️ What confirmation bias means

Confirmation bias: the tendency to look for information that supports what we already believe to be true, while ignoring evidence that contradicts our assumptions.

• This bias is especially strong on hot-button issues we feel strongly about.
• It can lead us to make inferences about causal relationships where none exist.

🚫 Words that skew results

• Avoid terms that carry a built-in judgment or perspective:
  • "negative," "positive," "benefits," "harms"
• These words will skew your results toward one side instead of giving you balanced coverage.
• Example: searching "Why the minimum wage should not be raised" produces one-sided results; a better search is "minimum wage AND unemployment" or "minimum wage AND poverty."

🔄 Even neutral-seeming words can be biased

• Consider the difference between "anti-vax" and "vaccine hesitant."
• These similar terms correspond to very different groups of people.
• Searching with one or the other will bring different results.
• Goal: frame your questions objectively so your search results represent a balanced treatment of the topic.

🔁 Research as an iterative process

🔁 Why iteration matters

The research process is iterative: the results of initial searches help shape and improve subsequent searches.

• Research is seldom a linear process that starts and ends with a single question.
• You will likely perform a sequence of searches several times.
• You will use various tools—including Google and library resources—before getting a set of results that meets your needs.

🛠️ Components of a good search strategy

A complete search strategy should consist of:

1. Keyword searching (start here)
2. Examining initial results and adjusting keywords if necessary
3. Using filters or limits
4. Citation tracking

• This chapter focuses on Strategy #1: starting with just the keywords.
• The other strategies build on this foundation.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Confirmation bias leads researchers to search for information that supports their existing beliefs, so framing search queries objectively without biased language is essential to finding balanced results.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What confirmation bias is: the tendency to look for information that supports what we already believe to be true.
• How bias affects research: it can lead us to ignore contradictory evidence and make false causal inferences, especially on hot-button issues.
• How bias enters searches: using words like "negative," "positive," "benefits," or "harms" skews results toward one perspective.
• Common confusion: word choice matters—terms like "anti-vax" vs "vaccine hesitant" describe different groups and return different results.
• The goal: search for balanced treatment by framing questions objectively and avoiding loaded terms.

🔍 Understanding confirmation bias

🧠 What confirmation bias means

Confirmation bias: the tendency that most of us have to look for information that supports what we already believe to be true.

• It is not simply having an opinion; it is the unconscious pattern of seeking out only supporting evidence.
• This bias can cause us to ignore evidence or information that contradicts our own assumptions.
• We may even make inferences about causal relationships where there may not be any.

⚠️ When bias is strongest

• Confirmation bias is especially significant in highly-contested, hot-button issues that we feel strongly about.
• It may also be amplified by the sources we choose to get our news from.
• Example: If you already believe a policy is harmful, you might only search for articles confirming that harm.

🔤 How word choice introduces bias

🚫 Avoiding loaded search terms

When turning to Google or a library database, frame your questions objectively and without bias so that search results are not merely confirming what you already believe.

Words to avoid in searches:

• "negative" / "positive"
• "benefits" / "harms"
• Any term that could skew results in favor of one side or perspective

🔄 Inherently biased terms

Even the words themselves can be inherently biased.

Term	What it implies	Search impact
Anti-vax	A more negative characterization	Returns results focused on opposition
Vaccine hesitant	A more neutral description	Returns results about a different group with different concerns

• These are similar terms that correspond to two very different groups of people.
• Searching with one or the other will bring you different results.
• Don't confuse: using different terms isn't just stylistic—it fundamentally changes what information you find.

🎯 Searching objectively

✅ Better search strategies

The excerpt provides a concrete example of biased vs. objective searching:

Biased search:

• "Why the minimum wage should not be raised"
• This phrasing assumes a conclusion and will return results supporting that view.

Objective search:

• "minimum wage AND unemployment"
• Or any other concept you wish to investigate in relation to minimum wage, for example, "poverty" or "families."
• You should see a mixed set of results coming from mainstream media and organizations from across the political spectrum.

🎯 The research goal

Remember, you are searching for a balanced treatment of the topic.

• Objective framing allows contradictory evidence to surface.
• Balanced results help you understand multiple perspectives.
• Example: Instead of searching "benefits of mandatory vaccinations," search "mandatory vaccinations children" to get a range of viewpoints.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Summon, a discovery layer search engine for library collections, enables effective research when combined with well-chosen keywords, search operators, and careful examination of results to refine subsequent searches.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What Summon is: a discovery layer that functions as a search engine for an entire library collection.
• How to use it effectively: start with well-chosen keywords, then use tools to narrow thousands of results to more precise and relevant ones.
• Why examining results matters: top results reveal related terms, synonyms, and alternate perspectives that improve subsequent searches.
• Common confusion: throwing in one or two keywords vs. using search operators—operators (AND, OR, phrase searching) vastly improve results beyond simple keyword entry.
• How operators work differently: AND narrows results by requiring all terms; OR broadens results by accepting any term; quotation marks find exact phrases.

🔍 What Summon is and why it matters

🔍 Discovery layer definition

Discovery layer: a search engine for the library's entire collection.

• Most libraries now use this type of tool.
• At KPU Library, the discovery layer is called Summon.
• It searches across the full range of library holdings, not just one database or format.

🎯 Starting point for research

• Summon is described as "a great place to start your research."
• A few well-chosen keywords will return thousands of results.
• The challenge then becomes narrowing those results to more precise and relevant items.
• The excerpt emphasizes that you will "need to use various tools to narrow your search."

🔎 Examining results to refine searches

🔎 Why look closely at top results

• Summon and most library databases rank results by relevance.
• The top few items often contain related and more specific terms that help in subsequent searches.
• Example: searching a topic might reveal terms like "vaccine exemption" and "vaccine hesitancy," which provide slightly different perspectives and correspond to different disciplinary approaches.

🧩 Finding alternate terms and synonyms

• Examining results helps you discover:
  • Narrower terms (more specific concepts)
  • Alternate terms (different ways to describe the same idea)
  • Synonyms (e.g., "immunization" instead of "vaccination," "herd immunity")
• These additional terms make your searches more complete.
• Example: "vaccine exemption" examines the issue from a legal perspective (individual's right vs. population health), while "vaccine hesitancy" examines it from a philosophical or psychological perspective (opinions, trust in government, misinformation).

🤔 Relating terms to your research question

• As a researcher, ask yourself how these narrower and alternate terms relate to what you want to find out.
• This reflection is "an important part of your search strategy."

🛠️ Building effective search statements

🛠️ What a search statement is

Search statement: a combination of keywords and operators that indicate how you want your search to be run.

• Both Summon and most library databases allow for specific words and symbols called operators.
• Using even one or two operators will "vastly improve your results beyond just merely throwing in one or two keywords."

➕ AND operator (narrows results)

• What it does: narrows your search by combining all keywords and phrases.
• How it works: all results must contain every term connected by AND.
• Effect: the more words you combine with AND, the fewer results you will find.
• Example: children AND poverty returns only results containing both "children" and "poverty."

➗ OR operator (broadens results)

• What it does: broadens your search by retrieving sources that contain at least one term.
• When to use it: useful when there are alternative or related terms you need to use.
• Effect: the more words you combine with OR, the larger the number of results you will find.
• Example: wage OR income returns results containing either "wage," "income," or both.

🔤 Phrase searching (exact matches)

• What it does: finds an exact phrase by using quotation marks.
• How it works: excludes results that do not contain the exact phrase (words next to each other in that order).
• Example: "social media" finds results with the exact phrase "social media" (the words social and media next to each other).
• Don't confuse: without quotation marks, the database finds the word "social" and the word "media" separately, which returns many irrelevant results.

⚠️ Avoiding bias in searches

⚠️ Confirmation bias in research

Confirmation bias: the tendency to look for information that supports what we already believe to be true.

• This bias can lead us to:
  • Ignore evidence or information that contradicts our assumptions
  • Make inferences about causal relationships where there may not be any
• It is especially significant in highly-contested, hot-button issues we feel strongly about.
• May be amplified by the news sources we choose.

🎯 Framing questions objectively

• When turning to Google or a library database, frame your questions objectively and without bias.
• Goal: ensure search results are not merely confirming what you already believe to be true.
• Avoid search words that may lead to bias in results: "negative," "positive," "benefits," "harms," etc., could skew results in favor of one side or perspective.

🔤 Word choice matters

• The words themselves can be inherently biased.
• Example: "anti-vax" vs. "vaccine hesitant"—similar terms that correspond to two very different groups of people; searching with one or the other will bring different results.
• Remember: you are searching for a balanced treatment of the topic.

📋 Example of biased vs. better searches

Biased search	Problem	Better search
"Why the minimum wage should not be raised"	Frames the question with a predetermined conclusion	minimum wage AND unemployment or minimum wage AND poverty or minimum wage AND families

• A better search investigates concepts in relation to the topic without assuming a conclusion.
• You should see a mixed set of results from mainstream media and organizations across the political spectrum.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Examining your initial search results closely reveals more precise and related terms that will strengthen subsequent searches and help you develop a more complete research strategy.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Why examine results: The top few results contain narrower, more specific terms and synonyms that improve future searches.
• What to look for: Related terms that reflect different disciplinary perspectives (e.g., legal vs. psychological approaches to the same topic).
• How results are ranked: Summon and most databases rank by relevance, so the top items are the best place to mine for better search terms.
• Common confusion: Don't stop at your first search—alternate terms like synonyms expand coverage, while narrower terms refine focus.
• Strategic thinking required: Ask yourself how these new terms relate to your research question to guide your next steps.

🔍 Mining your search results for better terms

🔍 What examining results means

• After running a search in Summon (the library's discovery layer), don't just pick the first article and stop.
• Instead, look closely at the top few results to identify:
  • More specific terms
  • Related concepts
  • Synonyms or alternate phrasing

🎯 Why the top results matter

Tip from the excerpt: Summon and most library databases return search results ranked in order of relevance.

• The most relevant items appear first.
• These top items are the richest source of vocabulary for refining your search.
• Always examine the top few closely before moving on.

🧩 Types of terms to extract

🧩 Narrower and more specific terms

• Initial broad searches return general results; examining them reveals narrower concepts that zoom in on your topic.
• Example from the excerpt: A search on vaccination refusal might surface the more precise term "vaccine exemption" or "vaccine hesitancy."
• These narrower terms help you focus on exactly what you want to find out.

🔄 Synonyms and alternate terms

• Different sources use different words for the same idea.
• Example from the excerpt: "vaccine" vs. "immunization"; related concepts like "herd immunity."
• Using synonyms makes your searches more complete—you won't miss relevant sources just because they use different vocabulary.

🌐 Terms reflecting different disciplinary perspectives

• The same topic can be studied from multiple angles, and each discipline uses its own terminology.
• Example from the excerpt:
  • "Vaccine exemption" → legal perspective (individual rights vs. population health)
  • "Vaccine hesitancy" → philosophical or psychological perspective (opinions, trust in government, misinformation)
• Recognizing these perspectives helps you decide which angle fits your research question.

Term	Disciplinary lens	Focus
Vaccine exemption	Legal	Individual rights vs. public health
Vaccine hesitancy	Philosophical/Psychological	Opinions, trust, misinformation

🧠 Strategic thinking: connecting terms to your research question

🧠 Ask how terms relate to your goal

• As a researcher, don't just collect terms—ask yourself how these narrower and alternate terms relate to what you want to find out.
• This reflection is "an important part of your search strategy."
• It guides which terms to use in your next search and helps you stay focused on your research question.

🔁 Iterative process

• Examining results is not a one-time step.
• Each search teaches you new vocabulary, which feeds into the next search, gradually refining and expanding your results.
• Don't confuse: this is not about finding the "perfect" term on the first try—it's about building a richer, more precise search over multiple iterations.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Using search operators (Boolean, phrases, truncation) to combine keywords systematically produces more relevant and focused results than simply entering one or two keywords.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Core claim: employing even one or two operators vastly improves results beyond throwing in keywords.
• Boolean logic: AND narrows (all terms required), OR broadens (at least one term), and they can be combined with parentheses.
• Phrase searching: quotation marks find exact phrases, preventing unrelated results where words appear separately.
• Common confusion: truncation vs wildcards—truncation finds alternate word endings (statistic*), wildcards handle different spellings (wom?n).
• Why it matters: these techniques help you move from general keyword searches to focused database searches that return scholarly, relevant sources.

🔤 Boolean operators

🔤 AND: narrowing your search

Using AND will narrow your search results by combining all the keywords and phrases in your search statement.

• How it works: all terms connected by AND must appear in every result.
• Effect: the more words you combine with AND, the fewer results you will find.
• Example: children AND poverty returns only results containing both "children" and "poverty."
• When to use: when you have multiple distinct concepts that must all be present.

🔤 OR: broadening your search

Using OR will broaden your search results by retrieving sources that contain at least one term.

• How it works: results need only one of the terms connected by OR.
• Effect: the more words you combine with OR, the larger the number of results.
• Example: wage OR income returns results with either term or both.
• When to use: when you have alternative or related terms (synonyms) for the same concept.

🎯 Precision techniques

🎯 Phrase searching with quotation marks

• What it does: finds an exact phrase, excluding results where words appear separately.
• Example: "social media" finds the exact phrase (words next to each other).
• Without quotes, the database finds "social" and "media" separately, returning unrelated topics like "social relationships portrayed in media."
• Also useful for: author names ("George Orwell"), titles ("Brave New World").

🎯 Parentheses and nesting

• Purpose: group keywords joined by OR to include synonyms or related terms.
• How it works: the database searches what is inside parentheses first.
• Example: (young adults OR adolescents) AND gaming searches for either synonym combined with "gaming."
• Nesting: performing several Boolean searches at once by combining grouped terms.
• Example: (obesity OR overweight) AND (young adults OR adolescents) AND women processes each parenthetical group before combining them.

🔧 Expanding search coverage

🔧 Truncation with asterisk

Broaden your search results by using a truncation symbol that allows you to search for alternate word endings.

• Most common symbol: asterisk (*), but check the database help option.
• Example: statistic* returns results with "statistic," "statistics," "statistical."
• Don't confuse with wildcards: truncation handles word endings; wildcards handle spelling variations.

🔧 Wildcards for spelling variations

Wildcards increase your search results by including words with different spellings.

• How they differ from truncation: wildcards replace a single character within a word, not at the end.
• Symbols vary by database: check the help option.
• Example: wom?n returns "woman" or "women."
• Example: labo?r returns "labor" or "labour."

📚 Moving to databases

📚 Why move from general search to databases

• More focused results: library databases bring a more focused set of results than general searches.
• Example from excerpt: searching "vaccine hesitancy" in Academic Search Complete yields articles from academic journals, indicating it is a term used by researchers.
• Subject terms reveal perspectives: results may concentrate on public health, parental attitudes, or immunization generally, showing how different fields approach the issue.

📚 Database features

• The library subscribes to over 200 databases; some are subject-specific, some multi-disciplinary.
• Academic Search Complete: a large multi-disciplinary database covering over 6,000 journal titles.
• Relevance ranking: Summon and most databases return results ranked by relevance; examine the top few items for more precise search terms and synonyms to add to your next search.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Moving from general search engines to specialized library databases produces more focused, scholarly results that reveal how different academic fields approach a research topic.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Why move to a database: library databases deliver more focused results than general searches, especially for academic research.
• What databases reveal: the subject terms and journal sources show how different disciplines (public health, parental attitudes, immunization) approach the same issue.
• Search techniques that broaden results: truncation (using * for alternate word endings) and wildcards (using ? for spelling variants) increase the number of relevant hits.
• Boolean grouping with parentheses: nesting searches with OR inside parentheses lets you combine synonyms and related terms efficiently.
• Common confusion: phrase searching vs. keyword searching—use quotation marks for exact phrases (e.g., author names, titles) to avoid unrelated results.

🔍 Why databases matter

🎯 Focused results vs. general search engines

• General web searches return broad, often unrelated topics (e.g., social relationships in media when searching for vaccine topics).
• Library databases concentrate on scholarly and academic sources, filtering out irrelevant material.
• Example: searching "vaccine hesitancy" in Academic Search Complete yields articles from academic journals, not popular press.

🗂️ Understanding disciplinary perspectives

• Database results show subject terms that indicate how different fields frame the same issue.
• The excerpt notes that some articles focus on public health, others on parental attitudes, and others on immunization generally.
• This helps you see "how the issue is approached by different perspectives, and what might be most relevant for your own research."

🔧 Search techniques for better results

📝 Phrase searching with quotation marks

Use quotation marks around exact phrases to search for them as a unit.

• Prevents the database from splitting your terms and returning unrelated results.
• Useful for:
  • Author names (e.g., "George Orwell")
  • Titles of articles, books, or films (e.g., "Brave New World")
• Example: without quotes, searching for an author's name might return results about social relationships in media instead of works by that author.

🌳 Truncation with the asterisk (*)

Truncation symbols (most commonly *) let you search for all words that share the same root.

• Broadens your search by including alternate word endings.
• Check the database help option to confirm which symbol to use.
• Example: searching statistic* returns results with "statistic," "statistics," and "statistical."

🔀 Wildcards for spelling variants

Wildcard symbols (often ?) replace a single character to capture different spellings.

• Increases results by including words with variant spellings.
• Wildcard symbols vary by database, so check the help option.
• Examples:
  • wom?n returns "woman" or "women"
  • labo?r returns "labor" or "labour"

🧩 Parentheses and nesting for Boolean logic

Use parentheses or brackets to group keywords joined by OR, so the database searches grouped terms first.

• Allows you to include synonyms or related terms efficiently.
• The database performs the search inside the parentheses before moving to other terms—this is called nesting.
• Example: (young adults OR adolescents) AND gaming searches for either synonym combined with "gaming."
• More complex example: (obesity OR overweight) AND (young adults OR adolescents) AND women performs multiple Boolean searches at once.

Don't confuse: nesting with parentheses vs. simple AND/OR chains—parentheses control the order of operations, ensuring synonyms are treated as a group.

📚 Types of library databases

🗃️ Multi-disciplinary vs. subject-specific databases

Database type	What it covers	Example from excerpt
Multi-disciplinary	Broad range of fields; good for exploring how different disciplines approach a topic	Academic Search Complete (over 6,000 journal titles)
Subject-specific	Focused on one field; more relevant as you specialize	The excerpt mentions "over 200 databases," some subject-specific

• Academic Search Complete is recommended as a starting point to "search with more precision for academic and peer reviewed articles."
• Over time, you will learn which databases are most relevant to your field of study.

📖 Library catalogue for books and videos

• A search of the library catalogue yields books, ebooks, and videos.
• Results are ranked by relevance.
• Examining the first few items gives you further ideas for searching.

Don't confuse: article databases (journals, peer-reviewed articles) vs. the library catalogue (books, ebooks, videos)—use the catalogue when you need longer-form sources or multimedia.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Academic Search Complete is a large multi-disciplinary database that provides powerful search tools and filters to help you find and refine academic and peer-reviewed articles from over 6,000 journal titles with greater precision than general searches.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What Academic Search Complete is: a multi-disciplinary database subscribed by the library, covering over 6,000 journal titles, useful for exploring academic and peer-reviewed articles.
• When to use it: a good starting point when you need to search with more precision across multiple disciplines, especially before moving to subject-specific databases.
• How it differs from general searches: moving from a general search to this database brings a more focused set of results, with better tools to manage and refine them.
• Common confusion: the library subscribes to more than 200 databases—some are subject-specific, some are multi-disciplinary; over time you learn which are most relevant to your field, but Academic Search Complete is a strong exploratory tool.
• Key features: the database offers powerful tools to refine results, including filters and limits for content type, date restrictions, and source types.

🔍 Why move to a database

🔍 From general search to focused results

• Doing a keyword search in a general tool may return broad or unrelated results.
• Moving your research to one of the library's databases brings a more focused set of results.
• Example: searching for "vaccine hesitancy" in Academic Search Complete yields results primarily from academic journals, indicating the term is used by researchers and scholars rather than in popular or mainstream press.

📊 Understanding result focus

• A close look at subject terms in database results shows how the issue is approached from different perspectives.
• Some results concentrate on public health, others on parental attitudes, others on immunization more generally.
• This strategy tells you what might be most relevant for your own research and how different fields approach the same topic.

🗂️ What Academic Search Complete offers

🗂️ Scale and scope

• The library subscribes to more than 200 databases; some are subject-specific, some are multi-disciplinary.
• Academic Search Complete is a large database covering the contents of over 6,000 journal titles.
• Over time, you will learn to use databases most relevant to your field of study.

🛠️ Powerful search and refinement tools

• The database provides powerful tools to refine your results.
• It is a good place to explore how to search with more precision for academic and peer-reviewed articles.
• The excerpt mentions a short video on how to build a search and use tools to manage results (content not provided in the excerpt).

🎯 Key features to review

• The excerpt references an interactive element summarizing key features of Academic Search Complete (specific features not detailed in the excerpt).
• Users are encouraged to watch, listen, and learn through embedded resources to understand the database's capabilities.

🧰 Using filters and limits

🧰 What filters and limits do

Filters or limits: specialized features within library search tools (Summon, databases, and the catalogue) that allow you to further refine your results list.

• After an initial search, look for these tools to further refine your search.
• They help ensure you are getting the content you need.

📋 Common filter categories

• Content type: scholarly journal, book/e-book, newspaper article, video, etc.
• Date restriction: does your assignment require sources from a specific time period?
• Source type: can you use a video, or must you use only certain kinds of sources?

💡 When to use filters

• Part of your strategy should be to ensure you are getting the content you need.
• Ask: Does your assignment require only certain kinds of sources? Is there a date restriction?
• Tip: Use a filter or limit after an initial search to focus on what you actually need.

⚠️ Don't confuse

• Filters are not the same as Boolean operators or search syntax; they are applied after you run a search to narrow down the results list by type, date, or other criteria.
• They work alongside search strategies (like Boolean logic, truncation, and wildcards) to refine results, not replace them.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

The library catalogue is a specialized search tool that retrieves books, ebooks, and videos, and by examining catalogue records and subject terms you can refine your search and discover additional relevant resources.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What the catalogue searches: books, ebooks, and videos in the library collection (not journal articles).
• Results are ranked by relevance: the first few items often suggest further search ideas.
• Catalogue records contain rich metadata: subject terms, item details, and filters help you refine and expand your search.
• Common confusion: the catalogue is accessed separately from the main Summon search box—select it directly from the library homepage.
• Why it matters: entire books or single chapters in edited works may be highly relevant to your research topic.

📚 What the catalogue searches

📚 Types of resources

A search of the library catalogue will yield books/ebooks, as well as videos in the collection.

• The catalogue does not search journal articles; it focuses on longer-form and multimedia resources.
• You may find:
  • Books whose entire contents are useful.
  • Edited works with a single relevant chapter.
  • Videos related to your topic.

🔍 How results are ranked

• Results are ranked by relevance.
• Examining the first few items gives you further ideas for searching.
• Example: the top results may reveal new keywords or subject terms you hadn't considered.

🗂️ Using catalogue records to refine your search

🗂️ What a catalogue record shows

• Each item has a detailed record with metadata.
• The excerpt mentions an activity that highlights "what kind of information about an item is available in the catalogue."
• Key fields include:
  • Subject terms: controlled vocabulary that describes the content.
  • Item details: format, publication date, location, etc.

🧭 Subject terms and filters

• The video introduction covers "using subject terms and filters."
• Subject terms help you:
  • Understand how the library organizes topics.
  • Find related items by clicking on the same term.
• Filters (discussed in the next chapter) let you narrow by content type, date, and other criteria.

🎯 How to access the catalogue

• The catalogue is accessed directly from the library's homepage.
• It is located above the Summon search box.
• Don't confuse: Summon searches broadly across many sources; the catalogue searches only the library's owned collection of books and videos.

🛠️ Practical search strategies

🛠️ Start broad, then refine

• Run an initial search in the catalogue.
• Look at the top results to identify:
  • Relevant subject terms.
  • Useful books or chapters.
• Use those terms to search again or browse related items.

📖 Edited works and chapters

• Not every book is a monograph on a single topic.
• Edited works contain chapters by different authors.
• Example: a book on vaccines and children might have one chapter on parental attitudes and another on public health policy—only one chapter may be relevant to your research.

🎥 Videos in the collection

• The catalogue also retrieves videos.
• Check assignment requirements: can you use a video as a source?
• Videos may provide interviews, lectures, or documentary content relevant to your topic.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Using filters and limits in library search tools allows you to refine your results to match the specific types of sources, dates, and subjects your assignment requires.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What filters/limits do: specialized features in Summon, library databases, and the catalogue that let you narrow down your results list.
• Why use them: to ensure you get the right content type (scholarly journal, book, video, etc.), publication date range, and subject focus your assignment needs.
• When to apply them: after an initial search, look for filter/limit tools to further refine your search.
• Common confusion: filters are not just about narrowing quantity—they help you match assignment requirements (e.g., "scholarly only" or "last 10 years").

🔍 What filters and limits are

🔍 Definition and purpose

Filters or limits: features within library search tools that allow you to further refine your results list.

• These are specialized features found in Summon, library databases, and the library catalogue.
• They help you focus on the kinds of resources you need, not just reduce the number of results.
• Example: if your assignment requires only scholarly journals from the last five years, filters let you exclude newspapers, books, and older articles.

🎯 Part of your search strategy

• The excerpt reminds you that information comes in a variety of sources.
• Part of your strategy should be to ensure you are getting the content you need.
• Ask yourself:
  • Does your assignment require only certain kinds of sources?
  • Is there a date restriction?
  • Can you use a video?

🛠️ How to use filters effectively

🛠️ When to use them

Tip from the excerpt:

Use a filter or limit after an initial search; look for these tools to further refine your search.

• Don't apply filters before you search—run a broad search first, then narrow.
• This approach helps you see what's available before you restrict too much.

📋 Common filter types

The excerpt provides a table matching research needs to the appropriate filter:

What do you need?	Filter/Limit to use
Scholarly journal? book/e-book? newspaper article? video?	Content type or source
Recent? last 10 years?	Publication date
Focussed on a specific subject	Subject headings, discipline, or topic

• Content type or source: narrows by format (journal article, book, video, etc.).
• Publication date: restricts to a time range (e.g., last 10 years, recent only).
• Subject headings, discipline, or topic: focuses on a specific subject area.

🧩 Matching filters to assignment requirements

• Before you filter, review your assignment instructions.
• Example: if the assignment says "use only peer-reviewed articles published after 2015," you would apply both a content-type filter (peer-reviewed/scholarly) and a publication-date filter (2015–present).
• Don't confuse: applying filters is not about getting fewer results for convenience—it's about getting the right results that meet your assignment criteria.

📚 Context: filters in the broader search process

📚 Recall earlier concepts

• The excerpt references "the second module," where you were introduced to the idea that information comes in a variety of sources.
• This chapter builds on that by showing you how to select the right source types using filters.

📚 Integration with other strategies

• This is Strategy #3 in a series of search strategies.
• The excerpt is part of a larger guide that includes using the library catalogue (mentioned in surrounding text) and citation tracking (Strategy #4, mentioned in the following chapter).
• Filters work best after you've done an initial keyword search and before you dive into reading full articles.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Citation tracking—examining the reference lists and cited-by links of sources you find—enables you to join the scholarly conversation and discover additional relevant resources by following the connections researchers make with one another's work.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What citation tracking is: paying attention to the reference lists or bibliographies of works you find, and using links to see who cites your article.
• Why it matters: scholarship is a conversation among researchers; your task is to understand the connections between viewpoints and integrate them into your own work.
• Two main methods: follow authors/works mentioned in introductions or literature reviews, and use database links (Cited By, Recommended, Related) to find citing and related articles.
• Common confusion: citation tracking is not just reading one article—it's tracing the network of sources backward (references) and forward (who cites it) to build a fuller picture.

📚 Understanding scholarship as conversation

💬 The conversational model

Scholarship is a conversation among researchers on a particular subject, with everyone offering evidence, theories, and criticism to advance what is known and what may not be known about a topic.

• Research is not isolated; it builds on and responds to prior work.
• Each source represents one voice in an ongoing dialogue.
• Your role: understand what connections are being made between viewpoints, how to integrate them, and what conclusions or advances you might add.

🔗 What citation tracking reveals

• Shows which researchers are influencing each other.
• Helps you see which works are foundational or frequently referenced.
• Reveals the evolution of ideas over time.
• Example: If multiple articles cite the same foundational study, that study is likely important to understanding the topic.

🛠️ Two practical methods for citation tracking

📖 Method 1: Follow references in the text

• Look at the introduction or literature review section of your first article.
• Note the authors and works mentioned there.
• These are sources the author considered important enough to discuss or build upon.
• Example: An article on populism might cite earlier theories or studies in its introduction; tracking those down gives you the background the author used.

🔍 Method 2: Use database citation links

• Summon, library databases, and Google Scholar provide links to:
  • Cited By: articles that cite your current article (forward tracking)
  • Recommended: algorithmically suggested related works
  • Related articles: similar content based on subject or keywords
• These links let you see how your source has influenced later research.
• Don't confuse: "Cited By" shows newer work that references your article; the reference list shows older work your article references.

🎯 Applying citation tracking in practice

🧩 Building your research network

• Start with one good source.
• Check its reference list to go backward in time (what influenced this work?).
• Check "Cited By" to go forward in time (who has built on this work?).
• Repeat with the most relevant sources you find.
• This creates a web of interconnected sources around your topic.

⚠️ What to watch for

• Pay attention to which names and works appear repeatedly—these are key voices in the conversation.
• Note the publication dates to understand the timeline of the conversation.
• Look for shifts in perspective or methodology over time.
• Example: If an article from 2010 is cited by many 2015–2020 articles, it likely introduced an important idea or method.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Choosing the right library research tool at each stage of your research saves time and helps you find sources best suited to your assignment.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Core strategy: Learning which tools to use at various stages of research decreases search time and improves source quality.
• Four main tools: Summon (everything), Catalogue (books/ebooks), Article Databases (peer-reviewed journals), and Google Scholar (scholarly content beyond library collections).
• Common confusion: The Catalogue does NOT contain journal articles—only books, ebooks, government documents, and videos.
• When to start: Use Summon when new to a topic to see the breadth of available materials; switch to specialized tools as your focus narrows.
• Key principle: Research is a circular process involving questions whose answers lead to revised questions or new lines of inquiry.

🔍 Understanding the four main research tools

🔍 Summon: The starting point

Summon: A comprehensive search tool containing everything the library has in its collection.

What's included:

• Books and ebooks
• Journal, magazine, and newspaper articles
• Government documents
• Reference books
• Videos

When to use it:

• Start here when you are new to your topic or assignment
• Great for seeing the breadth of what is available on your subject
• Helps you understand the full scope before narrowing down

📚 Catalogue: For books and specific titles

Catalogue: Almost everything the library has in its collection, except articles.

What's included:

• Books and ebooks
• Government documents
• Videos

When to use it:

• When you know you are looking for a book or ebook
• When you are looking for a specific title
• Note: Many books will have a table of contents available

Important limitation:

• You will NOT find journal articles here
• The catalogue does not have the full-text of items (only metadata and sometimes tables of contents)

📄 Article Databases: For peer-reviewed content

Article Database: Specialized or multi-disciplinary collections of scholarly and professional publications.

What's included:

• Peer-reviewed journal articles
• Some trade/professional publications
• Some newspapers

When to use it:

• When you know you need peer-reviewed journal content
• Learn which databases are focused on particular subjects for more targeted searching
• Use specialized databases as your research focus becomes clearer

🌐 Google Scholar: Beyond library walls

What's included:

• Scholarly journal articles
• Conference proceedings
• Research/government publications

When to use it:

• While not technically a library tool, it brings results from beyond the library's collection as well as subscribed content
• Use the Library Links feature to access subscribed content
• Critical warning: NEVER pay for articles—ask library staff how to enable the Library Links feature

🎯 Matching tools to research stages

🎯 Early stage: Broad exploration

• Use Summon to understand the landscape of available materials
• Goal: See what types of sources exist on your topic
• Example: A student starting research on populism would use Summon first to discover books, articles, government reports, and videos all at once

🎯 Middle stage: Focused searching

• Use Article Databases when you've identified that you need scholarly, peer-reviewed sources
• Use Catalogue when you've identified specific books or need book-length treatments
• Goal: Find high-quality sources that match your refined research question

🎯 Advanced stage: Comprehensive coverage

• Use Google Scholar to find materials beyond your library's collection
• Goal: Ensure you haven't missed important scholarly work
• Don't confuse: Google Scholar is different from regular Google—it focuses on scholarly materials

📊 Quick reference comparison

Tool	Articles?	Books?	Best for	Key limitation
Summon	✓	✓	Starting broad searches	May be overwhelming with too many results
Catalogue	✗	✓	Finding specific books/titles	NO journal articles
Article Database	✓	✗	Peer-reviewed content	Subject-specific; need to choose right database
Google Scholar	✓	Sometimes	Comprehensive scholarly search	Not all content is free; need Library Links enabled

🔄 Research as a circular process

🔄 The iterative nature of research

Research is a circular process that involves asking questions whose answers will lead to revised questions or new lines of inquiry.

What this means:

• You don't search once and stop
• Initial findings help you refine your questions
• Better questions lead you back to different or more specialized tools
• Example: You might start with Summon, discover a key concept, then return to a specialized database to find more peer-reviewed articles on that specific concept

🔄 Tool selection evolves with your understanding

• As your topic knowledge grows, your tool choices should become more targeted
• Early stage: broad tools (Summon)
• Later stage: specialized tools (subject-specific databases)
• Final stage: comprehensive coverage (Google Scholar for materials beyond library)

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Research is a circular, iterative process that requires applying multiple search strategies and critically evaluating sources with both skepticism and an open mind to find information best suited to your research needs.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Research is circular: asking questions leads to answers that generate revised questions or new lines of inquiry, not a linear path.
• Tool selection matters: different library research tools (Summon, Catalogue, Article Databases, Google Scholar) serve different purposes at different research stages.
• Evaluation is essential: all sources—whether blog posts or journal articles—require critical assessment of authority, purpose, quality, and relevance.
• Common confusion: many assume library resources don't need evaluation, but even peer-reviewed articles must be assessed for suitability to your specific research project.
• Skepticism + open-mindedness: experienced searchers balance critical questioning with receptiveness to new information.

🔧 Choosing the right research tool

🔍 Summon: breadth-first exploration

Summon: contains everything the library has in its collection, including books/ebooks, journal/magazine/newspaper articles, government documents, reference books, and videos.

• When to use: Start here when you are new to your topic or assignment.
• Why it helps: Shows the breadth of what is available on your subject.
• Example: If you're beginning research on a completely unfamiliar topic, Summon lets you see the range of available materials across formats.

📚 Catalogue: book-focused searching

Catalogue: contains almost everything the library has except articles—books/ebooks, government documents, and videos.

• When to use: When you know you need a book or ebook, or when looking for a specific title.
• Important limitation: You will NOT find journal articles here.
• The catalogue does not have full-text of items, but many books include a table of contents.

📰 Article Databases: peer-reviewed content

Article Database: specialized or multi-disciplinary collections containing peer-reviewed journal articles, some trade/professional publications, and some newspapers.

• When to use: When you know you need peer-reviewed journal content.
• Strategy: Learn which databases focus on particular subjects for more targeted searching.

🌐 Google Scholar: beyond library walls

Google Scholar: contains scholarly journal articles, conference proceedings, and research/government publications.

• Not technically a library tool, but useful with Library Links feature enabled.
• Brings results from beyond the library's collection as well as subscribed content.
• Critical reminder: NEVER pay for articles—ask library staff how to access content through your institution.

🔄 The circular nature of research

🔄 Iterative questioning process

• Research does not follow a straight line from question to answer.
• Each answer generates revised questions or new lines of inquiry.
• This circular process is normal and expected, not a sign of failure.
• Don't confuse: completing one search does not mean research is finished; it often opens new directions.

🧐 Evaluating sources critically

🎯 What needs evaluation

• All sources require assessment: blog posts, journal articles, library resources, and Google results all need critical examination.
• Evaluation criteria include:
  • Expertise of the author
  • Purpose of the information
  • Quality of the content
  • Relevance to your specific research needs

⚖️ Balancing skepticism and openness

Experienced searchers view information with a degree of skepticism as well as an open mind.

• Skepticism: question the credibility, accuracy, and suitability of every source.
• Open-mindedness: remain receptive to information that may challenge assumptions or open new directions.
• These two attitudes work together, not against each other.

🔍 Going deeper than checklists

• Evaluation checklists (CRAAP test, RADAR, etc.) are starting points, not endpoints.
• Beyond the checklist: dig deeper by conducting additional searches about the site, author, or publisher.
• Develop your own internalized set of evaluation questions through practice.

👤 Authority and credibility

🎓 Academic authority indicators

Within the academic publishing world, determining expertise is somewhat straightforward: advanced degrees, a publishing record, and an affiliation with an institution of higher learning or research are conventional indicators of authority.

• These are standard markers in academic contexts.
• They provide a baseline for assessing credibility in scholarly work.

🤔 Authority is complicated

• The concept of authority extends beyond academic credentials.
• Different contexts may require different types of expertise.
• The excerpt notes that authority "can be complicated," suggesting evaluation requires nuance beyond checking credentials.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Evaluation checklists help novice researchers systematically assess whether sources meet key criteria, but effective evaluation also requires deeper investigation beyond simply ticking boxes.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What checklists do: they are memory devices that help novice researchers remember evaluation criteria (e.g., CRA(A)P test, RADAR).
• Beyond the checklist: evaluation should involve digging deeper through Google searches about the site, author, or publisher.
• Starting point, not endpoint: the provided list is meant to help you develop your own internalized set of questions.
• Common confusion: checklists are tools to guide thinking, not just boxes to check off mechanically.

📋 Understanding evaluation checklists

📋 What checklists are

Evaluation checklists: devices to help novice researchers remember the criteria by which they should evaluate the information they find.

• Many checklists exist with different names (CRA(A)P test, RADAR, Rate my Source, etc.).
• All serve the same fundamental purpose: helping researchers remember what to look for.
• They are explicitly described as "devices" or tools, not rigid rules.

🎯 Purpose and limitations

• Primary function: help you remember evaluation criteria.
• Not sufficient alone: the excerpt emphasizes that evaluation should go "beyond checking that your source satisfies some of the criteria."
• Developmental tool: meant as a "starting point for you to develop your own internalized set of questions."
• Don't confuse: a checklist is a learning scaffold, not a complete evaluation method by itself.

🔍 Going deeper than checklists

🔍 Additional investigation needed

The excerpt stresses that proper evaluation involves "digging a little deeper":

• Conduct Google searches about the site.
• Research the author.
• Investigate the publisher.

🧠 Developing your own approach

• The goal is to internalize evaluation criteria.
• Over time, researchers should develop their own set of questions rather than relying mechanically on external checklists.
• Example: An experienced researcher might automatically ask "Who is this author?" and "What can I learn about this publisher?" without consulting a formal checklist.

🎓 Context for evaluation

🎓 When evaluation matters

The excerpt places checklists within a broader research context:

• Timing: "At this point in your research, you've likely found several sources of information that might work for your assignment."
• Scope: Applies to all information types—both general Google searches and library resources.
• Universal need: "Whether you are considering a blog post or a journal article," evaluation is necessary.

🤔 The researcher's mindset

Most experienced searchers view the information they find with a degree of skepticism as well as an open mind.

• Skepticism and open-mindedness must coexist.
• Evaluation involves critical questions about "suitability for your research project."
• Factors to consider include: expertise of the author, purpose, quality, and relevance.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Author credibility is crucial for evaluating sources, but authority varies across communities and requires looking beyond surface credentials to verify genuine expertise in the specific subject area.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Authority is context-dependent: academic credentials indicate scholarly authority, while other communities recognize expertise through different means like professional credentials or practical experience.
• Academic authority has clear markers: advanced degrees, publishing records, and institutional affiliations are conventional indicators in scholarly work.
• Expertise is domain-specific: having credentials in one field does not automatically confer authority in another unrelated field.
• Common confusion: peer-reviewed publication vs. author expertise—a source may be scholarly but the author may lack specific expertise in the topic they're writing about.
• Verification requires active investigation: library tools, Google Scholar, and journal homepages help confirm an author's credibility and track record.

📚 Understanding authority in different contexts

🎓 Academic authority indicators

Within the academic publishing world, determining someone's expertise is somewhat straightforward in that advanced degrees, a publishing record, and an affiliation with an institution of higher learning or research are the conventional indicators of authority.

• These three markers work together to establish scholarly credibility
• The excerpt emphasizes this is "straightforward" within academia specifically
• Library research tools can help verify these credentials quickly

🌍 Authority beyond academia

• Different communities have their own ways of recognizing expertise
• Professional credentials and practical experience serve as authority markers outside scholarly circles
• Example: mainstream press journalists gain credibility through professional codes of ethics and lengthy publishing records
• Don't confuse: authority is not universal—what counts as expertise depends on the community and context

🔍 Verifying author credibility

🔎 Domain-specific expertise matters

The excerpt provides a clear warning:

Having an advanced degree in theoretical physics does not necessarily make someone an expert in evolutionary biology.

• Credentials must match the subject area being discussed
• Surface-level authority checks are insufficient
• You need to verify the author's expertise in the particular area they're writing about

🛠️ Practical verification steps

The excerpt recommends several concrete actions:

Tool	What to check	Why it matters
Library database records	Author affiliations, credentials listed	Quick initial credibility assessment
Google Scholar	Author's full publication record	Shows breadth and depth of expertise
Journal homepage	Peer review process, scope and aim	Confirms quality standards and topical fit

📖 Going deeper than peer review

• The scholarly/peer-reviewed filter in databases is a starting point, not the endpoint
• "Looking a little more closely at the author and the journal" is necessary
• Quick Google searching supplements database information
• Check what else the author has written to understand their expertise trajectory

⚠️ Critical evaluation mindset

🤔 Skepticism with an open mind

The excerpt emphasizes that experienced searchers approach information with:

a degree of skepticism as well as an open mind

• This dual stance applies to all sources, not just non-academic ones
• Authority evaluation is an active, ongoing process
• Even credentialed authors require verification for the specific topic at hand

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Verifying an author's credibility is essential for evaluating sources, and library database records combined with additional searches can help researchers determine whether an author has genuine expertise in the specific topic area.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Authority varies by context: academic credentials signal expertise in scholarly work, while other communities recognize authority through different credentials or practical experience.
• Database records provide clues: article records in library databases contain information that helps assess authors' credibility.
• Expertise is domain-specific: having an advanced degree in one field does not automatically make someone an expert in another field.
• Common confusion: don't assume all published authors are equally authoritative—verification requires checking both the author's background and the journal's peer review process.
• Go deeper with searches: Google Scholar and journal homepages offer additional verification through publication records and peer review descriptions.

🎓 Understanding authority in different contexts

🎓 Academic authority indicators

Within the academic publishing world, determining someone's expertise is somewhat straightforward in that advanced degrees, a publishing record, and an affiliation with an institution of higher learning or research are the conventional indicators of authority.

• These three markers work together to establish scholarly credibility.
• The excerpt emphasizes that this system is "somewhat straightforward" within academia specifically.

🌐 Authority outside academia

• Different communities have their own ways of recognizing expertise.
• The excerpt gives the example of mainstream press journalists, who gain credibility through:
  • Professional codes of ethics
  • Lengthy publishing records
• Authority can also come from specific credentials or practical experience, depending on the field.

Don't confuse: Academic credentials with universal expertise—the excerpt warns that authority is context-dependent.

🔍 Using library tools to verify credibility

🔍 Database limits and filters

• Library research tools like Summon and databases offer scholarly or peer-reviewed limits.
• These filters provide a quick first-pass determination of authority.
• The excerpt notes this was covered in a previous module.

🔬 Domain-specific expertise matters

Having an advanced degree in theoretical physics does not necessarily make someone an expert in evolutionary biology.

• This is a critical distinction: credentials must match the topic area.
• Even highly qualified researchers may lack expertise outside their specialty.
• Example: An author with a strong publication record in one discipline may not be authoritative when writing about an unrelated field.

Don't confuse: General academic credentials with topic-specific expertise—always check whether the author's background aligns with the subject matter.

🛠️ Practical verification steps

🛠️ What database records reveal

The excerpt describes an interactive activity showing how article records provide credibility clues:

• Database records contain embedded information about authors.
• The activity uses Academic Search Complete as an example.
• Researchers should examine these records closely rather than accepting sources at face value.

📚 Going one step further

The excerpt recommends two additional verification methods:

Method	What to look for	Why it matters
Google Scholar search	Author's full publication record; what else they have written	Shows breadth and depth of expertise in the field
Journal homepage search	Author submission guidelines; peer review process description; journal scope and aims	Confirms the publication uses quality control and operates within a defined scholarly area

🔎 The deeper search mindset

• The excerpt asks: "What can you learn from a Google search about the site, author, or publisher?"
• This reflects the broader principle stated earlier: experienced searchers view information with both skepticism and an open mind.
• Verification is not about distrust but about responsible research practice.

Don't confuse: A single credential check with thorough verification—the excerpt emphasizes that "looking a little more closely" and "doing some quick Google searching" are necessary steps beyond initial database filters.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Currency evaluation requires understanding your assignment's time requirements and recognizing that the importance of recency varies by discipline, topic, and research purpose.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What currency means: determining whether a source is recent enough for your specific research needs.
• Assignment requirements come first: you must know what your assignment asks for before deciding if a source is current enough.
• Discipline differences: history and literature may use sources older than 10 years, while sciences and technology often require up-to-date information.
• Common confusion: "current" is not absolute—sometimes research examines changes over time and deliberately needs sources spanning different periods.
• Key questions to ask: publication date, whether it's a reprint or new edition, availability of newer information, and how perspectives may have changed.

📚 What currency evaluation involves

📚 Matching sources to assignment needs

• Currency is not a fixed standard; it depends on what your assignment requires.
• You may be allowed to use older sources, or you may need current information—the assignment dictates this.
• Before evaluating currency, first understand your assignment's expectations.

🔍 Discipline and topic dependency

Currency is somewhat discipline or topic dependent.

• Different fields have different standards for what counts as "current":
  • History or literature: may involve using sources older than 10 years.
  • Sciences and technology: up-to-date information can be extremely important.
• The nature of the topic itself affects whether older sources are acceptable.
• Example: researching a historical event may require older primary sources; researching a new medical treatment requires the latest studies.

❓ Questions to ask about currency

❓ Core currency questions

The excerpt provides a checklist of questions to guide your evaluation:

• What is the publication or copyright date?
  • This is the starting point for determining age.
• Is it a reprint of a previous work? A new edition or revision?
  • A recent publication date might mask older content if it's a reprint.
  • A new edition or revision may contain updated information even if the original is old.
• Is there newer information available on the topic?
  • Even if a source meets basic currency requirements, check whether more recent work exists.
• How might ideas and perspectives have changed since the work was published?
  • Consider whether the field's understanding has evolved.
  • Don't confuse: an older source isn't automatically invalid, but you need to know if thinking has shifted.

🕰️ When older sources are appropriate

🕰️ Examining change over time

• Sometimes research specifically involves examining how thinking or perspective has changed over time.
• In such cases, you may deliberately need sources spanning a certain period.
• Example: studying how public opinion on a topic evolved would require sources from different decades, not just the most recent ones.
• This is a research design choice, not a failure to find current sources.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Evaluating a source's purpose helps you judge whether its information is accurate, because understanding why something was published reveals potential bias and motivations that affect reliability.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Purpose matters for accuracy: asking why something was published is part of critical assessment to decide whether to use it.
• Formal sources have built-in checks: peer-reviewed articles, scholarly books, government reports, and mainstream news undergo fact-checking and aim to provide unbiased information.
• Web sources need close scrutiny: Google search results require asking whether authors use unbiased information or might spread misinformation.
• Common confusion: not all published material has the same review process—formal publications differ from open web content in reliability safeguards.

📚 Formal vs. informal publication types

📚 Formal sources and their safeguards

Formal sources include peer-reviewed journal articles, books published by scholarly or professional publishers, government reports, and stories from mainstream news outlets.

• Why you can trust them more: their purpose is typically to provide unbiased information or contribute to knowledge about a topic.
• Built-in quality control: a large part of the formal review process includes careful fact-checking by reviewers.
• Example: A peer-reviewed article goes through expert review before publication, so reviewers verify claims and check facts.

🌐 Web sources and their risks

• Google search results need different treatment: these sources require close scrutiny because they lack formal review.
• Key difference: unlike formal publications, web content may not have undergone fact-checking or editorial oversight.
• Don't confuse: a professional-looking website does not automatically mean it has been reviewed or fact-checked like a scholarly publication.

🔍 Questions to ask about purpose and bias

🔍 Why does the source exist?

• Ask about the website's reason for being: why does this website exist? What is its overall purpose?
• This question helps reveal whether the source aims to inform, persuade, sell, or mislead.

⚠️ Potential for bias and misinformation

Key questions to ask:

• Are the authors or creators likely to be using unbiased information?
• Might they be motivated to spread inaccuracies or misinformation?
• What evidence do they use to support their claims?

Why these matter: motivation affects accuracy—sources with hidden agendas or commercial interests may present distorted information.

Example: An organization funded by an industry may present research that favors that industry's interests, even if the information appears factual.

📊 Comparison of source types

Source type	Review process	Purpose assumption	Your evaluation effort
Peer-reviewed journals, scholarly books	Formal review with fact-checking	Contribute unbiased knowledge	Lower—can be fairly confident
Government reports, mainstream news	Editorial oversight and fact-checking	Provide unbiased information	Lower—can be fairly confident
Google search results, open web	No formal review	Unknown—must investigate	Higher—requires close scrutiny

🎯 Practical approach

• For formal sources: you can be fairly confident about accuracy and purpose.
• For web sources: you must actively investigate purpose, authorship, and evidence before trusting the content.
• The excerpt emphasizes that making "some judgment as to the purpose" is necessary to "determine whether the information it contains is accurate."

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

The SIFT method provides a quick, practical strategy for evaluating unfamiliar information sources by stopping to assess familiarity, investigating the source through lateral reading, finding better coverage, and tracing claims back to their original context.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• What SIFT is: a four-move method adapted from professional fact-checkers' practices, designed to help students quickly assess source reliability.
• How it differs from checklists: moves beyond simple criteria to active investigation strategies that reveal context, bias, and credibility.
• Lateral reading as key technique: investigating a source by reading about it in external sources before diving into its content.
• Common confusion: don't feel obligated to stay with your first source—the method encourages moving on to find better coverage.
• Tracing to originals: claims and citations can be misrepresented; verifying the original context prevents accepting distorted information.

🛑 The First Move: Stop

🛑 What stopping means

STOP: pause when encountering a source and ask what you already know about the author, publication, or website.

• This is not about reading the content yet; it's about checking your existing knowledge.
• Ask: Is this source familiar? Do I already know it to be reliable?
• If the answer is yes and you're confident, you may not need the other moves.

✅ Recognizing reliable domains

• The excerpt uses a fluoride research example where results include Harvard School of Public Health (.edu) and Centres for Disease Control (.gov).
• Even unfamiliar sites can be quickly checked: HealthLinkBC revealed itself as part of BC Ministry of Health (.gov.bc.ca) with one click.
• Example: If top results come from recognizable educational or government domains, you can proceed with more confidence.

🔍 The Second Move: Investigate the Source

🔍 What investigating means

• Find out about the author, publisher, sponsoring organizations, and partners before spending time reading the content.
• Understanding context helps reveal potential biases, hidden agendas, purposes, and misinformation.

↔️ Lateral reading technique

Lateral reading: the practice of reading through various external sources about your source to assess its credibility.

• "Get off the page" and open new tabs to investigate the source itself.
• Fact-checkers invest time reading about a site up front before turning to its content.
• This is different from staying on the page and reading through it linearly.

🧪 Investigation example: Natural News

The excerpt walks through investigating an unfamiliar site:

Investigation step	What to do	What it reveals
Google the website/owner	Search the site name and owner's name	How mainstream press and Wikipedia regard it
Check topic on Wikipedia	Look at the topic's Wikipedia page and Talk page	Editor comments indicate controversy and concerns
Notice advertisements	Observe heavy presence of product ads	Suggests commercial purpose beyond information

• Don't confuse: investigating the source is separate from evaluating the content—you're checking who is speaking before deciding whether to listen.

📰 The Third Move: Find Better Coverage

📰 Why finding better coverage matters

• You are not obligated to stay with any specific source.
• Investing time up front to determine quality pays off.
• The goal: understand the context of a topic and identify credible authors and organizations that provide consensus and agreement.

🔎 Search strategies for better sources

• Consider re-wording your initial search.
• Follow references from other sites.
• Use domain limits in Google Advanced search (e.g., limit to .edu or .ca for educational or Canadian governmental sites).

Example: Searching "water fluoridation" limited to .edu or .ca domains yields results from scientists and public health professionals rather than commercial sites.

🔗 The Fourth Move: Trace Claims to Original Context

🔗 Why tracing matters

Much online information comes out of context and can misrepresent original stories, reports, or findings—either intentionally or by mistake.

• If a source claims justification through citing research or referring to an earlier source, trace back to the original.
• Key questions: Did the source get it right? Have they distorted findings or only partially considered what was reported?

📄 Tracing example: checking a scientific claim

The excerpt describes tracing a Natural News claim:

• The story referenced an article in the journal Environmental Health but linked only to other Natural News pieces, not the original study.
• This makes it difficult to assess accuracy and casts doubt on trustworthiness.
• Checking the original article through library search revealed the authors concluded the association "warrants further study"—not a definitive causal connection.
• Google searches showed leading scientific journals pointed out methodological flaws and cautioned against making causal connections.

Don't confuse: a citation or reference doesn't automatically validate a claim—you must verify the original source was represented accurately.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

A systematic process of asking critical questions about sources—examining their origin, purpose, evidence, and context—helps determine credibility whether you find materials online or in a library.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Visual framework provided: the chapter presents a graphic that illustrates the complete process for determining source credibility on the internet.
• Universal application: the critical questions apply to all research sources, not just internet materials but also library resources.
• Integration of earlier methods: this chapter synthesizes the evaluation strategies introduced previously (SIFT moves, lateral reading, tracing claims).
• Common confusion: credibility evaluation is not just for "obviously fake" sources—even library and academic sources require critical assessment.
• Practical reminder: the graphic serves as a quick-reference checklist during actual research work.

🎯 Purpose and scope

🎯 What this chapter does

• The chapter provides a synthesis rather than introducing new concepts.
• It presents a visual tool (Figure 4.4 "How to spot fake news" from IFLA) that consolidates the credibility-checking process.
• The graphic is described as both:
  • An illustration of the complete evaluation process
  • A useful reminder tool for ongoing research

🔄 Connecting to earlier material

The chapter explicitly links back to previous strategies:

• The SIFT method (Stop, Investigate, Find better coverage, Trace claims)
• Lateral reading techniques
• Tracing claims, quotes, and media to original context
• All these approaches are unified in the visual framework presented here.

🔍 Key principle: universal application

🔍 Beyond internet-only evaluation

The critical questions you should be asking of all the sources you find in your research, including those you find in the library.

• Don't assume library = automatically credible: even scholarly sources require evaluation.
• The same critical thinking applies across contexts:
  • Who created this?
  • What is their purpose?
  • What evidence do they provide?
  • Can claims be verified?

📚 Research context

• The chapter appears at the end of a module on source evaluation.
• It transitions into a "Summing up" activity where students apply these skills to a specific research question.
• Example context mentioned: "What are the potential harms and benefits..." (the excerpt cuts off, but suggests a practical application exercise follows).

🛠️ Practical tool

🛠️ The credibility graphic

The chapter centers on Figure 4.4, which:

• Comes from the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA)
• Is titled "How to spot fake news"
• Provides a visual process map for credibility evaluation
• Is licensed under CC BY 4.0, making it freely usable with attribution

💡 How to use it

• As a process guide: follow the steps when encountering new sources
• As a quick reminder: refer back when you need to check your evaluation approach
• As a comprehensive checklist: ensure you haven't skipped important verification steps

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

Evaluating online sources requires verifying original research, checking for methodological flaws, and applying systematic credibility checks rather than relying solely on surface-level indicators.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Verify original sources: Articles that cite research should link to the original study, not just to other articles on the same site.
• Check scientific consensus: When a study is cited, look for responses from scientific journals and experts about methodological flaws or limitations.
• Authors' own conclusions matter: Researchers may call for "further study" rather than making definitive claims—secondary sources sometimes overstate findings.
• Common confusion: A correlation study vs. a causal claim—just because two things are associated doesn't mean one causes the other.
• Use systematic methods: The SIFT method and credibility checklists provide structured approaches to evaluate all sources, including library materials.

🔍 Tracing claims to original sources

🔗 Why linking matters

• The excerpt describes a Natural News story that referenced a journal article but linked only to other Natural News pieces instead of the original research.
• This practice makes it difficult for readers to verify accuracy and raises questions about trustworthiness.
• Red flag: When a site cites research but won't let you check the source directly, be skeptical.

📚 Finding the original study

• The excerpt shows how using a library search tool (Summon) can locate the actual scientific article.
• Example: The fluoridation/ADHD study could be found and read directly, revealing what the authors actually concluded.

🧪 Understanding what research actually says

📊 What the authors concluded

• The original Environmental Health article concluded that any association between fluoridation levels and ADHD "warrants further study."
• This is very different from claiming a proven link or definitive harm.
• Don't confuse: "warrants further study" = we found a pattern worth investigating ≠ "we proved X causes Y."

🔬 Scientific community response

• A Google search of the article revealed that leading scientific journals pointed out methodological flaws.
• Experts cautioned against making causal connections based on this study.
• This illustrates why checking multiple expert sources matters—one study rarely settles a question.

🛠️ Systematic evaluation approaches

🔄 The SIFT method

• The excerpt references SIFT (The Four Moves) as a structured approach to source evaluation.
• This method provides a repeatable process rather than ad-hoc judgment.

✅ Credibility checklists

• The excerpt mentions a graphic illustrating "the process of determining the credibility of sources you find on the internet."
• These tools help ask critical questions consistently.
• Important: Apply these questions to all sources, including those found in libraries—not just internet sources.

🎯 "How to spot fake news" framework

• The excerpt references an IFLA infographic that provides visual guidance.
• Systematic frameworks help avoid being misled by professional-looking but unreliable sources.

⚠️ Case study: Fluoridation claims

📰 The Natural News example

Aspect	What happened	Why it matters
Citation practice	Linked to own articles, not original research	Prevents verification
Headline claim	"Water Fluoridation Found to Increase Hypothyroidism Risk by 30%"	Sounds definitive
Actual study conclusion	"Warrants further study"	Much more cautious
Expert response	Methodological flaws noted	Scientific consensus differs from headline

🧠 Lessons from the example

• The same evidence can be presented very differently depending on the source's agenda.
• Always trace back to what researchers actually said, not just what someone says they said.
• Example: A secondary source might turn "we found an association that needs more research" into "X causes Y"—a significant distortion.

🧭 Overview

🧠 One-sentence thesis

The excerpt demonstrates how to verify claims by tracing back to original sources and checking for methodological flaws, rather than relying on secondary sites that may misrepresent research findings.

📌 Key points (3–5)

• Tracing sources: A Natural News story referenced a scientific article but linked only to other Natural News pieces instead of the original research, making verification difficult.
• What the original study actually said: The Environmental Health article concluded that any association between fluoridation and ADHD "warrants further study," not that a causal link was proven.
• Common confusion: Secondary sources may present tentative findings as definitive conclusions; always check the original research and expert commentary.
• Critical verification step: Using library databases and Google searches revealed that leading scientific journals pointed out methodological flaws and cautioned against causal claims.
• Why it matters: Linking practices and source transparency directly affect a site's trustworthiness.

🔍 The verification problem

🔗 Missing links to original sources

• The Natural News story mentioned an Environmental Health journal article but did not link directly to it.
• Instead, the author linked only to other Natural News pieces on the same topic.
• Why this matters: Readers cannot easily assess the accuracy of the claim when the original source is hidden.
• Implication: This linking practice "ultimately cast[s] doubt about the trustworthiness of this site."

🧪 Finding the original article

• Using the library's Summon search tool, readers can locate the actual study.
• The original authors (Malin & Till, 2015) studied exposure to fluoridated water and ADHD prevalence in the United States.
• Key finding: The study was an "ecological association," and the authors concluded that any association "warrants further study."
• Don't confuse: "warrants further study" means the research is preliminary, not that a cause-and-effect relationship has been established.

📊 What expert review revealed

🔬 Methodological concerns

• A Google search of the article showed that "several leading scientific journals point out methodological flaws of the study."
• These journals "caution against making causal connections."
• Why this matters: Even peer-reviewed studies can have limitations; expert commentary helps readers understand the strength of evidence.

⚠️ Misrepresentation vs. reality

What Natural News implied	What the original study said	What experts said
Fluoridation increases ADHD risk (presented as fact)	Any association warrants further study (tentative)	Methodological flaws; caution against causal claims

• Example: A secondary site might headline "Water Fluoridation Found to Increase Hypothyroidism Risk by 30%" when the underlying research is observational and calls for more investigation.
• The excerpt illustrates how secondary sources can overstate or distort findings from the original research.

🛠️ Practical verification steps

🔎 How to check claims yourself

1. Use library databases: The excerpt mentions using "the library's Summon search" to find the original article.
2. Read the original conclusion: Check what the authors actually concluded, not what a secondary site says they concluded.
3. Search for expert commentary: A Google search can reveal how other scientists and journals have evaluated the study.

🧭 The SIFT method reminder

• The excerpt is part of a section titled "Beyond Checklists: The SIFT Method."
• SIFT stands for a set of moves to evaluate online information (details not fully provided in this excerpt).
• The example of the fluoridation study serves as a case study for applying these verification techniques.

📚 Supporting resources mentioned

📖 Sources cited

• The text is adapted from SIFT (The Four Moves) by Mike Caulfield (CC BY 4.0).
• Also adapted from Teaching Lateral Reading by Stanford History Education Group (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
• The original article: Malin, A. J., & Till, C. (2015), published in Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source.
• An infographic "How to spot fake news" by IFLA (CC BY 4.0) is referenced as a visual summary.

🖼️ Visual aid

• Figure 4.4 ("How to spot fake news") illustrates the process of determining credibility of internet sources.
• The excerpt notes this graphic "can also serve as a useful reminder of the critical questions you should be asking of all the sources you find in your research, including those you find in the library."