Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Scholarly sources
From our experiences in class, what do you think the major differences are between "scholarly sources" and non-scholarly sources, or sources collected from sources other than our library's research databases? What is the value of a scholarly source and what is the value of a non-scholarly source? What do you think of the requirement in most college classes that you limit your research to scholarly and academic sources?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe the main difference between "scholarly sources" and "non-scholarly sources" is that a scholarly source has been peer-reviewed - that is, it has been confirmed as "scholarly" by other scholars - and non-scholarly sources have not been peer-reviewed. Another difference may be that scholarly sources are more committed to holding fast to facts and giving proof; they are not idle opinions, as some non-scholarly sources may be. The value of a scholarly source is that, as I said before, it has been confirmed as scholarly; there is proof or reasons for the information given. Using scholarly sources makes our work more credible. However, there is also value in non-scholarly sources. These types of sources may not be completely factual, but they show how non-scholars feel about certain topics. This can be useful in a report because it shows public sentiment about a certain topic in addition to giving the facts from a scholarly source.
ReplyDeleteFor these reasons I feel that students should be allowed to use non-scholarly and non-academic sources, as long as the majority of their sources are scholarly. Also, students should only use non-scholarly sources to portray public sentiment about their topic, and not as facts or proof.
I think the two main differences are that scholarly sources have been published by an accredited source and that those sources make sure they are peer reviewed, by peers in the field of the article. Non-scholarly sources may have been published but it is possible an uncredited source may have allowed the article to be published without solid peer review or peer review at all. I think the requirement to limit yourself scholarly articles is not only an acceptable practice but an advisable one. Limiting yourself to scholarly articles not only helps sift through sources, but additionally keeps a mind underdeveloped in a topic from getting taken in by arguments that only appear sound.
ReplyDeleteScholarly sources would tend to be more academically and intellectually sound than a more popular and informal source. To be published, a scholarly source is subjected to a review process that most informal sources lack, therefore the former is more reliable than the latter. Yet the review process does make the sources more "conservative", meaning more reserved in conclusions and arguments, than a less reviewed source. Any review process inherently trims out the most radical of arguments and biases the articles to the opinions of the publishing institution. Thus the more informal sources may have more liberty of thought, but they also tend to have far less intellectual integrity.
ReplyDeleteScholarly and non-scholarly sources of information differ mostly between reliability and accessibility. Scholarly papers or reports may contain good information but aren't as easily accessed or understood as say a Wikipedia article. It is the responsibility of the user to know what type of information is appropriate to use at what time.
ReplyDelete^ Bryce Carson
ReplyDeleteI'm having some trouble getting my name to appear on my posts, but I think I've straitened it out.
The biggest differences between scholarly and non-scholarly sources are in the areas of reliability and availability. The author of a scholarly article must keep in mind that his/her work is going to be read and evaluated by the author’s peers. This means that, generally, the work that is created for such a review process will be of greater quality than other, non-scholarly sources. On the other hand, non-scholarly sources have an advantage as well, small though it may be. The internet today is filled with an incredible amount of information, some of it good, some of it bad. A single Google search for even the most obscure of topics will likely result in thousands of web-pages related to your request. The problem is that anyone could have posted what you’re reading, and you simply don’t know if what they’re saying is correct. Due to this, it is best to avoid basing your arguments off of information gathered from non-scholarly places, such as Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between scholarly sources and non-scholarly sources are in quality and accessibility. A scholarly article will have been reviewed very thoroughly whereas an article found using google may not be. However non-scholarly articles can be useful for straight forward tasks such as definitions and everyone has access to them. Scholarly articles are largely limited to their subscribers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tracy, in that the main difference between "scholarly" and "non-scholarly" sources is peer-review. Peer review carries a number of traits: fact checking, review of argumentative rigger, and even implied respect for the work. Scholarly sources are important from a rhetorical standpoint primarily for the implied respect the audience will have, validating your use of them. They also, however, are extremely important for works such as research papers - the sources you reference must meet the rigger you are staving to provide for your own work.
ReplyDeleteBrice had a good point about the tradeoff of scholarly and non-scholarly sources: reliability versus accessibility. Non-Scholarly sources are very important for the availability we have to them. Mass quantities of information can be discovered, as well as "editorial" like opinions – they may not hold the rigger of scholarly sources, but there is still information and opinions to be found.
The reality is that students should use both levels of sources. The focus should not be on "what is a good source." Instead, it should be "how can I use these sources effectively."
Scholarly Sources merely means that the article or source has had some sort of checking that is not necessarily true for non-scholarly sources. Scholarly sources are more useful for formal writing because it is important that all facts are correct whereas with more informal conversation it's more important to simply have any source at all than to have a trusted source. But generally speaking scholarly sources are always better than non scholarly sources since they have just as much information but usually have that information backed up by either their own sources or original research.
ReplyDeleteThe Scholar sources are peer reviewed before they are published. The information is known to be correct in this case. In non-scholarly sources, the information is not verified and could be completely false. The main reason as to why sources are restricted to the scholarly is that those sources are considered more legitimate and make the student sound more professional.
ReplyDeleteScholarly sources are peer reviewed where as non-scholarly sources any one can write. The important part of peer reviewed is that others have read and checked there work. This is an important part of writing and research throughout professional circles including all science as well. Personally I find it dissapointing to not hear those whose writing has not been peer reviewed, but it makes sense as its the only way to know what has been thoughtfully written and researched.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between scholarly and non -scholarly sources is that scholarly sources have been peer reviewed by other scholars. Scholarly sources can almost always be considered to be both accurate and true. In general, scholarly resources are required for our essays because they provide reliable, proven supporting data. Non-scholarly sources are not peer reviewed and so may not be as reliable as scholarly sources. That's not to say that non-scholarly sources are all wrong. Many of them possess a wealth of factual, reliable. But whereas scholarly sources are proven to be accurate, non-scholarly sources run the risk of potentially being wrong. This can be difficult, because scholarly sources are harder to come by than non-scholarly ones (you usually have to look in some sort of database). But nevertheless, scholarly sources can be a great way to augment and support any ideas in an essay.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference in scholarly and non scholarly obviously is one is accredited/peer reviewed and the other is not. It is possible that both can contain essentially the same information but peer reviewed information carries more credibility. This credibility is especially important when researching a topic that is unfamiliar because it is certain that the information is completely accurate due to the intense scrutiny it has undergone to become an accredited source. Scholarly sources are usually created by experts in their field that are reviewed by other experts in that field as opposed to a non scholarly source such as Wikipedia where anyone is able to post about anything regardless of their qualifications.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone else has said, the main difference between scholarly and non-scholarly is that scholarly sources get peer reviewed by other scholars. Because of this, the sources are more trustworthy with their information. Non-scholarly sources definatly have their time and place. In casual discussion and general learning, non-scholarly sources are a great way to gather information. When it comes to classes like this one, scholarly sources are what is needed. When writing formal papers, you want to use sources that have been checked out as good by other people. This makes our papers more credible, and we get to learn how to use scholarly sources which we might end up using later in life.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between scholarly and non-scholarly sources is whether or not the work has been through peer review. If a text goes through peer review mistakes and inaccuracies are fixed and one can be sure that the source is reliable. However, this does not mean that non-scholarly sources are inaccurate. Non-scholarly sources can be as accurate as a scholarly source, the difference is that a scholarly source has been proven and is supported.
ReplyDeleteI like that most college classes require students to use scholarly sources because then the information used is known to be accurate instead of if a non-scholarly source is used where the information could still be incorrect.
The difference between a scholary source and a non-scholary source is that, for one, a scholary source goes through many processes of being peer reviewed, accreted and in the end becomes a more reliable source. Non-scholary sources are generated through the public, taking on more inaccurate facts and are often lacking peer revision.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a good idea that colleges require the use of scholary sources. This helps prevent the use of inaccurate information. In the end, an essay supported by scholary sources is stronger than an essay supported by non-scholary sources.