sourcing cmgt writing workshop 3 fall 2014. sourcing generating effective key words evaluating...

SourcingCMGT Writing Workshop 3

Fall 2014

Sourcing

• Generating effective key words• Evaluating sources• Handling sources in the writing process

Finding sources: common problems

• Too many search results• Too few search results• Off-topic results• Low-quality results

Too many search results

Too many search results

• Combine• Refine• Exclude

Too many search results

• “Combine”• Generate new KW

• Journalistic questions: who, what, where, when, why, how• Brainstorm in terms of methodology

• Search using multiple KW Branding

Where?Of what?

Targeting whom?Reason(s) for campaign?

Platforms?

Alt: use a heuristic

Too many search results

Branding

ChinaCoke

All agesExpand market

Social media

KW brainstorm

Note: this search used SmartText searching

Too few results

• Search “all text” rather than “subject terms”• Eliminate KW• Change KW

Too few results

• Change KW• Use bubbl.us• Use a thesaurus• Use the database itself

Too few results

Use subject terms to discover how the database organizes

research on your topic(s)

Too few results

Database searching

• Experiment with different KW• Experiment with “advanced search” options• Harvest KW from an on-topic source• Harvest references from an on-topic source• Note: source should be reliable

A key objective of the process: identifying the standard texts on your topic

Evaluating sources

• Peer review: distinguishes scholarly research from non-scholarly research

• What is peer review?• Anonymous vetting process conducted by academic journals and publishers on work

submitted for publication

• How can I tell if the source has been peer-reviewed?• Look for: an editorial board

• Must I always check the source for this?• If the journal has VOLUME and ISSUE #s, you are usually safe• If the press is a university press, you are also usually safe• Often you can restrict your database search to peer-reviewed sources

This suggests we can rely on the source.

Volume/issue numbers indicate reliability

Title page of a book

The publisher (MIT) tells you the source can be relied upon.

Reliable non-academic publishers

• These non-academic publishers issue work by established scholars:• Routledge• Basic Books• Penguin (some titles)• Vintage (some titles)• Verso• Palgrave, Palgrave MacMillan• Continuum• Sage• Basil Blackwell• W. W. Norton• Taylor & Francis

When in doubt, read the author bio.

Look for: university affiliation, other signsof expertise, publication record

Signs of potential bias or unreliability• Conflicts of interest on author’s part (check bio for affiliations)• An absence of citations or references• A journal lacks volume and issue #s• An article is referred to as a “paper” or “conference paper”• While often written by scholars, these have usually not been peer-reviewed

A look at the summary indicates a clear bias

Sounds pretty good(except for the boasting), but . . .

Research workflow (a suggested process)1. Preliminary library research• Develop key words• Identify gaps in the field• Frame a research question

2. Targeted library research• Compose an annotated bibliography• Collect articles & citations manually or using RefWorks, Zotero, etc.

3. Draft your paper

Handling sources in the drafting stage• Things to keep in mind:• Paraphrases are preferable to quotations• Citations are required for paraphrases and quotations• Quotations (when needed) should not be used for data (e.g., statistics)

Consult your handout

“Tagging” your sources

Vary the structure of and diction in your “tags”

To tag or not to tag

• Tag a source when:• It is directly relevant to your work• You are situating your work in relation to the source• You are devoting significant space to the source (more than 1 sentence)

• Provide only a parenthetical citation when:• You are describing broad research trends• You are citing a fact or datum• The source is tangentially relevant

Tagging vocabulary

Grouping sources together

Playing niceAvoid obvious judgments and harsh language, even if the source is, in fact, wrong.

Language to avoidincorrect, wrong, mishandle, ignore, overlook, failed to, puzzling result, strange result, bizarre hypothesis, incomprehensible how

Language to use insteadUnlike X (1999), Y (2000)Although X (2000) found _____, Y (2000) _____Whereas X (2000) suggested _____, Y (2000) _____X (2000) _____; however, Y (2000) _____By contrast

Exercise with draft

1. Check all tags• Necessary?• Varied?• Punctuated correctly?

2. Check all quotations• Necessary?• Punctuated correctly?

3. Check all parenthetical citations• Punctuated correctly?