Information Literacy
Is this a quality resource?
When choosing a resource, it is important to determine the credibility and reliability of that resource. To do that, we recommend the C.R.A.P. test:
Currency
- What is the publication date?
- and how does this date impact your topic of research?
- Remember, newer doesn't always mean better. The need for currency depends heavily on the topic of your paper.
- If you are evaluating a website, the publication or copyright date will help you determine if the site is current. If you can't find a date on a website, beware; the information on the site might very well be out-of-date. Broken links are another sign that the site has not been updated recently.
Relevancy/Reliability
- Does this resource actually deal with your topic?
- Be careful that you aren't choosing a resource just because it has your keyword somewhere in the title or contents. Make sure the work has a substantial portion that directly addresses your research topic.
- Ask yourself, "Does the abstract primarily deal with the topic you are researching?"
- Does the resource provide references for the included information?
- When you are evaluating a website, web addresses that end in .gov and .edu are typically more reliable than .com sites.
Authority/Accuracy
- Who is the author of the resource?
- Do they have substantial academic or professional experience and credentials that give them the authority to speak on this topic?
- For websites, consider the organization associated with the site or publishing the site.
Purpose/Point-of-view
- Why was this resource written? To inform or persuade?
- Be aware of any bias that the author may have toward your subject that could taint the authority and reliability of the information provided in their work.
Sources are divided into two main groups; primary and secondary.
Primary sources provide a firsthand account or insider's look at a specific person, a specific time period, or a specific event. If a primary source could speak to us it would say, “I was there; this is my experience or my experiment.” Examples of primary sources include diaries, personal journals, autobiographies, memoirs, personal correspondence, interviews, speeches, newspaper articles or news footage from a specific time in history, official records, original photographs, creative works such as plays, poetry, music, or art, and also original research data. Primary sources can be documents, photographs, film or video footage, and objects/artifacts. Please note that primary source does not necessarily equal factual source. Primary sources provide firsthand accounts of an event, experience, or experiment. It is up to you, the researcher, to evaluate each of those accounts individually to build an informed, knowledgeable, and well-rounded assertion about your topic.
A secondary source is an interpretation or analysis of one or more primary sources. If a secondary source could speak to us it would say, “I wasn’t there but I have researched, studied, and analyzed this topic and these are my thoughts on the matter.” Examples of secondary resources include such publications as biographies, commentaries, criticisms, textbooks, articles, and critical essays.
Example:
The first book on the left, I am Not Spock, was written by Leonard Nimoy and is his personal account of his experiences of portraying the character of Spock in the television series Star Trek. The next book, Star Trek: Movie Memories, was written by William Shatner who portrayed the character of Captain James T. Kirk and discusses his experiences during the creation of the Star Trek films. Each of these sources says to us, "I was there; this is my experience." These are primary sources.
The last book, Star Trek as Myth, is a collection of essays about Star Trek. This book is comprised of the different authors' interpretations and analysis of the mythology of the television series and films. This book says to us, “I wasn’t there but I have researched, studied, and analyzed this topic and these are my thoughts on the matter.” This book is a secondary resource.
SIFT is a helpful acronym for initially evaluating source credibility. SIFT (from Mike Caulfield) stands for:
- STOP. Pause and ask yourself if you recognize the information source and if you know anything about the website or the claim's reputation.
If not, use the moves (below) to learn more. If you start getting too overwhelmed during the other moves, pause and remember your original purpose. - INVESTIGATE the source.
Take a minute to identify where this information comes from and to consider the creator's expertise and agenda. Is this source worth your time? Look at what others have said about the source to help with you these questions.
(For example, a company that sells health food products is not the best source for information about health benefits/risks of consuming coconut oil. A research study funded by a pharmaceutical company is also suspect.) - FIND trusted coverage.
Sometimes it's less important to know about the source and more important to assess their claim. Look for credible sources; compare information across sources and determine whether there appears to be a consensus. - TRACE claims, quotes, and media back to the original context.
Sometimes online information has been removed from its original context (for example, a news story is reported on in another online publication or an image is shared on Twitter). If needed trace the information back to the original source in order to recontextualize it.
Modified from Mike Caulfield's SIFT (Four Moves), which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Later, when you determine that the site is worth your time, you can analyze the source's content more carefully.
5 Clues that the article is peer-reviewed:
- References – always look for a list of works cited, a bibliography, or a reference list
- Author – educational and professional credentials provided
- Abstract – a short summary highlighting the content of the article
- Audience – content written using specialized terminology
- Graphs and Charts – visually communicated empirical data