History of Science OnlineCourse Info: HSCI 3013 - section 995 - Fall 2008 |
|
|
|
|
The Need
for Reliable Professional Secondary Sources:
How do I evaluate sources for my web project?
Many people feel that Google searches, encyclopedias, or other online websites are sufficient for researching their web project. After all, the past is past, isn't it? What's past is unchanging, right? Wouldn't such popular sources have reliable information about events that happened long ago?
Unfortunately, this is not the case, as the Flat Earth Myth shows us. Rather, although the events of history are long past, the understanding and writing of history is an open book, a field of ongoing scholarship and publication. Remember how much more we know today about Babylonian astronomy than people did 100 years ago? So how can we find out if the sources we want to use are accurate and up-to-date?
Imagine: suppose you hear of an amazing new discovery and want to find out more about it. Who would you rather ask: (1) someone with direct, first-hand knowledge of the discovery, or (2) someone like your neighbor who has only heard about it second-hand, just like you? This question leads to the first principle for evaluating online sources:
#1. Does the author have direct, first-hand knowledge of the primary sources?
You will feel rather sheepish if someone corrects you, and your only defense is: "I didn't use any sources that knew anything about this. I only used a popular encyclopedia, or a childrens' story, and I believed they would be accurate enough." Moreover, what are your chances of finding out something new or unexpected, unless you rely on those with first-hand knowledge? If one cannot have first-hand experience oneself, the next best thing is to talk with someone who does. To talk with someone who has only remote, second-hand knowledge (as in popular sources) is not a great way to find out something new or unexpected.
#2. Does the publication give the author's name?
One way to know for sure that something was written without first-hand knowledge of the primary sources is if the publication does not indicate an author's name. Articles found in popular sources are often written by anonymous committees, and rarely by people who actually work in the field or area. Even worse, an uninformed editor may make the final decisions (thus no single person's name goes with the article). No one is accountable. For this reason, professionals with first-hand knowledge do not publish in encyclopedias unless their names accompany their articles; publishing in such places usually counts against one in tenure decisions and detracts from one's professional reputation.
#3. Does the publication come from a reputable source?
By principle #2, a personal page of a professional historian of science in your subject area would be more reliable than an unsigned article in an encyclopedia. Even better would be a signed article by a respected historian of science published by a recognized source, such as a university press (eg Oxford University Press) or by a professional website (such as the History of Science Society). If the page is self-published, look for any signs of peer-review, professional endorsement, or collaboration among workers in the field. These can increase your confidence in the content of the source.
#4. There are no guarantees!
Of course, anything one reads in any secondary source might be inaccurate; there are no guarantees! Even the Dictionary of Scientific Biography (DSB; a very handy reference you should turn to often) is now falling behind current scholarship. Although there are plenty of mistakes in the DSB, still it has far fewer than popular sources. At the very least, with the DSB, one can be sure that every article was written by someone with direct, first-hand knowledge of the primary sources.
#5. Explore the professional literature of the history of science!
If
you confine yourself to popular secondary sources, you will not be able to get
off the beaten track and make your way into the wilds of the unknown. Why stick
to what everybody's doing? Don't be afraid to dip into the professional literature
in the history of science, and discover something that most people don't know.
Besides the standard reliable general
sources, the History of Science Collections at OU subscribe to over 100
journals for the history of science, and there are countless books published
each year as well. But don't be intimidated: it's easy to identify what you
want in this mountain of scholarship using the Isis
Bibliography. Once you know what you want, many of the articles
from journals are available online through the Library's
full-text e-journals and databases. You don't have to master the
literature for the topic you've chosen for your web project. But if you find
one or two good sources, they will save you time in the end and make your project
much more interesting as well!
What about Wikipedia?
Does all this mean that Google searches and general encyclopedias are never appropriate in this course? Of course not! They provide background information, and can be very helpful. Many times the assignment pages for this course will direct you to articles in Wikipedia, a great online encyclopedia. But there is a difference between setting context with background knowledge (where a general, non-professional source like Wikipedia is appropriate) and specific research in the history of science (where reliable professional secondary sources are required). OU Assistant Provost Greg Heiser cautions that "the problem with using Wikipedia for research papers is that it stunts a student’s ability to do research. 'Doing good research is hard, but it is an important skill to master.... It’s almost like thinking you know how to cook because you can get to the nearest McDonald’s.” (Gene Perry and Jarrel Wade, OU Daily, August 31, 2006.)
Again, because of principle #2, articles in Wikipedia do not count toward your required secondary sources in the web project. I highly recommend using Wikipedia for general background as a springboard for research. It is easily accessible, and often the most informative ready reference on the web. Yet the articles are not signed; moreover, they may have been written by someone with far less knowledge than the average student in this class. Anyone may contribute to Wikipedia; no special qualifications are required other than a self-confidence that may or may not be warranted. Articles may be written by people with little or no expertise. And even when articles are accurate they may not be balanced: some contributors may write with passion for a particular point of view that may not reflect a general consensus of professional opinion.
I personally love Wikipedia and suggest that you use it as a general point of departure. I recommend consulting it to get your bearings, but then guide your actual research by relying upon professional literature.
You must independently verify anything you use from Wikipedia.
And as always, if you use it, cite it. (You need to cite all sources you use even if they won't count as your required sources.) .
For a review of controversies over academic use of Wikipedia, see: Sage Ross, Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions; the June 20, 2006 OU Daily; and especially Roy Rosenzweig, Can History be Open-Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past, Journal of American History, 2006, 93: 117-146.
Note: Research requirements for Web Projects. Each of the "Episode" pages you will publish as part of your Web Project must cite or link to at least one reliable professional secondary source. Of course, you may include additional sources that do not meet this requirement, but at least one source per episode must meet one of the following three criteria:
Uncertain if your source qualifies? Just drop me an email!
The Library has several online video tutorials available here: http://libraries.ou.edu/help/tutorials/. Look for the tutorials on "Evaluating Information Sources" and "Primary and Secondary Sources."
"Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college, but it was very, very clear looking backwards 10 years later. Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward. You can only connect them looking backwards, so you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something--your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever--because believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart, even when it leads you off the well-worn path, and that will make all the difference." Steve Jobs, Stanford commencement speech, June 2005
|
HSCI 3013. History
of Science to 17th century
Many thanks to Mythology
and Folklore and other online courses developed by Laura Gibbs.
|
Search course websites: |
Disclaimer | Academic Calendar
|
|
