1. Sourcing CMGT Writing Workshop 3 Fall 2014

2. Sourcing Generating effective key words Evaluating sources Handling sources in the writing process

3. Finding sources: common problems Too many search results Too few search results Off-topic results Low-quality results

4. Too many search results

5. Combine Refine Exclude

6. Too many search results “Combine” Generate new KW Journalistic questions: who, what, where, when, why, how Brainstorm in terms of methodology Search using multiple KW Branding Where? Of what? Targeting whom? Reason(s) for campaign? Platforms? Alt: use a heuristic

7. Too many search results Branding China Coke All ages Expand market Social media KW brainstorm

8. Note: this search used SmartText searching

9. Too few results Search “all text” rather than “subject terms” Eliminate KW Change KW

10. Too few results Change KW Use bubbl.us Use a thesaurus Use the database itself

11. Too few results Use subject terms to discover how the database organizes research on your topic(s)

12. Too few results

13. Database searching Experiment with different KW Experiment with “advanced search” options Harvest KW from an on-topic source Harvest references from an on-topic source Note: source should be reliable

14. A key objective of the process: identifying the standard texts on your topic

15. Evaluating sources Peer review: distinguishes scholarly research from non-scholarly research What is peer review? Anonymous vetting process conducted by academic journals and publishers on work submitted for publication How can I tell if the source has been peer-reviewed? Look for: an editorial board Must I always check the source for this? If the journal has VOLUME and ISSUE #s, you are usually safe If the press is a university press, you are also usually safe Often you can restrict your database search to peer-reviewed sources

16. This suggests we can rely on the source.

17. Volume/issue numbers indicate reliability

18. Title page of a book The publisher (MIT) tells you the source can be relied upon.

19. Reliable non-academic publishers These non-academic publishers issue work by established scholars: Routledge Basic Books Penguin (some titles) Vintage (some titles) Verso Palgrave, Palgrave MacMillan Continuum Sage Basil Blackwell W. W. Norton Taylor & Francis

20. When in doubt, read the author bio. Look for: university affiliation, other signs of expertise, publication record

21. Signs of potential bias or unreliability Conflicts of interest on author’s part (check bio for affiliations) An absence of citations or references A journal lacks volume and issue #s An article is referred to as a “paper” or “conference paper” While often written by scholars, these have usually not been peer-reviewed

22. A look at the summary indicates a clear bias Sounds pretty good (except for the boasting), but...

23. Research workflow (a suggested process) 1.Preliminary library research Develop key words Identify gaps in the field Frame a research question 2.Targeted library research Compose an annotated bibliography Collect articles & citations manually or using RefWorks, Zotero, etc. 3.Draft your paper

24. Handling sources in the drafting stage Things to keep in mind: Paraphrases are preferable to quotations Citations are required for paraphrases and quotations Quotations (when needed) should not be used for data (e.g., statistics)

25. Consult your handout

26. “Tagging” your sources Vary the structure of and diction in your “tags”

27. To tag or not to tag Tag a source when: It is directly relevant to your work You are situating your work in relation to the source You are devoting significant space to the source (more than 1 sentence) Provide only a parenthetical citation when: You are describing broad research trends You are citing a fact or datum The source is tangentially relevant

28. Tagging vocabulary

29. Grouping sources together

30. Playing nice Avoid obvious judgments and harsh language, even if the source is, in fact, wrong. Language to avoid incorrect, wrong, mishandle, ignore, overlook, failed to, puzzling result, strange result, bizarre hypothesis, incomprehensible how Language to use instead Unlike X (1999), Y (2000) Although X (2000) found _____, Y (2000) _____ Whereas X (2000) suggested _____, Y (2000) _____ X (2000) _____; however, Y (2000) _____ By contrast

31. Exercise with draft 1.Check all tags Necessary? Varied? Punctuated correctly? 2.Check all quotations Necessary? Punctuated correctly? 3.Check all parenthetical citations Punctuated correctly?