Research the Research
I’m sure there is an overall groan from the students who are reading this, “research the research? But wwwhhhyyyyy” “It’s going to take too long to research it, and who cares anyway.” Well, I care dear sisters and brothers; and your teachers care too. Plus, although it does definitely take more time, you can be quite surprised with what you are learning.
Remember the Wikipedia story I mentioned in the first segment Biased Information? If my student hadn’t taken the time to read up on the resources that were presenting the information about the legalization of marijuana he would have had unreliable sources and biased information. Yet, since he had this ‘amazing’ tutor, he was able to find a strong resource (the California law) that was useful. Another information reason to stay away from Wikipedia is the way in which it gets its articles. The thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can go in and alter the information put in there. Plus, there is no one to check the data that is inputted; which means that a person who ‘thinks’ they know the real dates and places of battles for the Civil War – but actually does not, is still able to incorrectly make the articles. The one good thing about Wikipedia is that you are almost always guaranteed to find something written on the topic you want. So, what you should do instead is to look at the references for that article (thank you Dr. Busse) and research those sources.
So, what do I actually mean by researching the research? When you have a journal entry written about who William Shakespeare really was, it is always smart to find out as much as you can about: A – the person who wrote it and B – what information they used to base their theory/thesis/point on the identity of Shakespeare. Now don’t let me lose you because we are talking about Shakespeare; this is actually a very relevant topic. William Shakespeare, has to be, hands down, the most influential writer of all time (seriously, we can debate this later); and due to the far reach of his writings, even modern day researchers scramble to know all they can about the person known as William Shakespeare. There are theories out there that he was Christopher Marlowe, an English duke, and (my personal favorite) a Jewish peasant woman. Okay, you laugh at the last one, and frankly, well so do I. BUT, my point is, if you were writing a senior thesis on the origination of Shakespeare’s influences and lead with a journal article about his being a Jewish peasant woman – your professors would be extremely interested to know where you got your information and data.
Let’s say you did a google search stating, the ‘real William Shakespeare’ and took to the third source, which came from another college student’s paper. This is no good. Who is this student? Are they an expert? Where did they get their information and data from? If you take the time to read the reference/citation portion of that student’s paper and find out that they used, gulped, Wikipedia as a source – well you can tell right there that the validity of said student’s paper just went down ten-fold. Furthermore, if they cite Rolling Stone Magazine, as another source – you need to question this as well. Yes, Rolling Stone is a more reliable source for music, but not the birth whereabouts of William Shakespeare — more David Bowie, less Shakespeare.
Another essential reason for looking into the sources of your research is to understand the perimeters of which a data/poll/experiment are gathered. Again, as mentioned with biased information – you will be hard pressed to find a political poll for a liberal news source saying that tax cuts are good; or for a conservative program saying that the majority of Americans support the new healthcare reform. Why you ask? Because each news program wants to convince its viewers that the whole of the US feels the same way in which they do. If you plan on using such polls or statistics in your papers, know what the perimeters of that poll are. How many people were asked? What were the demographics of the people asked? — Were there 10,000 people from 15 different cities across the U.S.? Or was it all of the interns at the Daily Show with Jon Stewart? There is a HUGE difference with those numbers. For an experiment, the same is just as important. When an experiment is conducted with results saying that 96% of participants view the music of David Bowie as being the most insightful music; it’s critical to know if those participants were ones at a Bowie concert or from the Ursuline nuns from central Pennsylvania. Furthermore, can that experiment take the same perimeters it used the first time and duplicate the exact same results a second, third, and fourth time? If not, there isn’t as much validity to what the original statistic or experiment said. However, when hundreds of tobacco research-based experiments are conducted and all results show that prolong nicotine use drastically increases your chances of dying of a tobacco related illness – you’ll listen up. I learned that from my own professor, Dr. Randy Busse and it makes so much sense it’s ridiculous to not think about it.
Does that make more sense as to why it is so important to take the time to dig a little deeper into what information and sources you put into your paper before doing so? How embarrassing would it be to find out that your source was a high school student who was making up the story? Or a college T.A. who just wanted to impress their professor? Heck, look at William Shakespeare and his historical plays — not really that historically accurate; thank goodness he wasn’t writing them for Professor Queen Elizabeth (oh wait, he was…).
Biased information and knowing the background to your research are closely related. If you take the time to find out where your information is coming from, you may easily discover that thus said information is biased. This isn’t to say that there are great strong resources out there. In fact, tomorrow, I will be writing up several reliable sources that I have turned to again and again; and ones that I am always directing students, family, and adults to repeatedly.
