On 08/08/2012 04:00, Ken Friedman wrote:
> Your colleague should be a bit careful about citing information posted
> on Billy Bob's Design Research Clam Shack or the G'Day Mate Happy
> Vegemite Research Methods Lexicon.
There's another issue about this question that worries me. While
agreeing with what has been said so far I am reminded that I spend quite
a lot of time explaining to students that you must take responsibility
for the relevance of your sources. I deeply dislike the widespread habit
of 'declaiming' sources with no contextualisation, presumably in the
hope that tagging your assertion with a reference to a reputable
authority will put an examiner or critic off the scent. It may work for
unambiguous findings from quantitative research but everything else
should be justified, however briefly.
So Billy Bob's website might be a reasonably reliable source for what
Billy Bob wanted to say at a given time. The most rigorously reviewed
and reputable expert source will be completely pointless if it does not
actually support your particular argument.
However, let's take a simpler case. Imagine you find two sources that
contradict each other, one in a highly respected journal, the other an
online conference proceedings with unclear reviewing standards. Should
you simply take the journal article as definitive? There could be a host
of factors that influence the relevance and reliability of each source
for your case and unless you take responsibility for working that out
you cannot claim any authority in your own work. Prior peer review is
only part of the picture. Authority is slippery stuff.
Best wishes from Sheffield, home of Olympic Heptathlon champion Jessica
Ennis.
Chris
.............................
Prof Chris Rust
Director, Sheffield Institute of Arts
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
|