• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 10147 0

source is partly valid and that both sources miss things you could point out; in effect, you referee the conversation between them. The writer on Kristeller might play this role by asking herself: “So what that subsequent historians have viewed his objective—a disinterested historical pluralism—as not necessarily desirable and in any case impossible? How might Kristeller respond to this charge, and how has he responded already in ways that his critics have failed to notice?” Using additional research in this way can lead you to situate your source more fully and fairly, acknowledging its limits as well as its strengths.

In other words, this writer, in using Kristeller to critique Tillyard, has arrived less at a conclusion than at her next point of departure. A good rule to follow, especially when you find a source entirely persuasive, is that if you can’t find a perspective on your source, you haven’t done enough research.

Evaluating Sources in the Sciences: A Biology Professor Speaks

In the following Voice from Across the Curriculum, molecular biologist Bruce Wightman suggests the range of tasks he expects students to do when they engage a source—not only to supply ongoing analysis of it and to consider its contributions in light of other research, but also to locate themselves in relation to the questions their analysis of the source has led them to discover.

Voices from Across the Curriculum

One of the problems with trying to read critical analyses of scientific work is that few scientists want to be in print criticizing their colleagues. Th at is, for political reasons, scientists who write reviews are likely to soft en their criticism or even avoid it entirely by reporting the findings of others simply and directly.

What I want from students in molecular biology is a critical analysis of the work they have researched. This can take several forms.

First, analyze what was done. What were the assumptions (hypotheses) going into the experiment? What was the logic of the experimental design? What were the results?

Second, evaluate the results and conclusions. How well do the results support the conclusions? What alternative interpretations are there? What additional experiments could be done to strengthen or refute the argument? This is hard, no doubt, but it is what you should be doing every time you read anything in science or otherwise.

Third, synthesize the results and interpretations of a given experiment in the context of the field. How does this study inform other studies? Even though practicing scientists are hesitant to do this in print, everyone does it informally in journal clubs held usually on a weekly basis in every lab all over the world.

—Bruce Wightman, Professor of Biology

USING SOURCES ANALYTICALLY: AN EXAMPLE

In a recent article on thinking entitled “The Other You” that appeared in the journal New Scientist, the writer introduces sources in sequence, wherein each source offers a different researcher’s angle on the same central question: how is the subconscious related to the conscious activities of the mind? The writer, Kate Douglas, discusses the implications of each source without choosing any one as “the answer”:

“Shadlin sees the subconscious and conscious as two parts of the same system, rather than two separate thought processors working in the same machine” (45).

“Others want to further subdivide conscious and subconscious thought and have come up with alternative descriptions to replace the old two-part model” (45)

“Peter Dayan [and colleagues] see the mind as comprising four systems.”

“Dayan says that our behavior is often driven by more than one of the four controllers.”

At the end of this phase of the article, Douglas then states, “Importantly, the subconscious isn’t the dumb cousin of the conscious, but rather a cousin with different skills” (Kate Douglas, “The Other You,” New Scientist, December 1–7, 2007. vol. 196, no. 2632).

As this example demonstrates, often in conversing with sources, a writer is not staging conflicts or debates, but bringing