There are many things I love in your essay, but I think the distinction between use and cite is a really, really important one. I think it is more authentic in terms of how it describes how we really do research and learn from research — and I also think it’s always a good idea to reinforce that idea of research as something bigger than a process of finding quotes to support an argument.

Our beginning composition require students to use both “background” and “speaker” sources to get at this idea, and that concept of “speaker” sources really helps get us all thinking about how the sources you might want to cite in an academic argument paper can come from all kinds of places.

thanks!

http://info-fetishist.org/2009/01/03/discovery-and-creation-and-lies

It’s gotten me thinking about research in general and what it really means to do research. Has it changed with the way information is available today. Or is it really the same and we just believe it is different because of the amount of information we have access to?

RMM – You make a good point about being very careful when discussing citations and teaching about plagiarism. I agree that it’s better to over-cite than to under-cite, but I still think the process of gathering information and realizing you might not use every single resource in the final paper is a useful discussion to have. Derik brings up another example – the student finds the information on one site, but would be better served to use that to find the original source, rather than cite the random web page. Better to cite than not cite, but even better yet to use it to get to better information.

RMM & Kim – As to whether or not librarians portray the internet as dangerous, I’m sure there are many approaches and it is shifting with time, but as I look at instruction pieces coming out of educational institutions around the web I still see an emphasis on the perils rather than on the good stuff. The danger of writing about it here is that I’m just preaching to the choir.

I also agree on the topic of questionable assignments and introducing students to peer-reviewed articles when they are likely to be less useful or completely over their head. Maybe we can coax a guest writer to give us some tips on talking with teachers. :)

Kim – I love your discussion questions! Thanks for sharing them.

shinylib – I like that example for the self check. I don’t think raw milk would resonate as much in Texas, but the idea that by virtue of knowing their assignment they have some expertise is definitely something I’ll use.

In addition to the thoughtful feedback that’s here in the comments, I wanted to mention that even when I’m teaching a “check the peer reviewed box” type of class I still begin with and continually refer to what I call the “self-check” (most important part of the research process is what I call it) in which I urge students to ask themselves if what they are looking for (expert commentary of some kind, usually) is likely to be found where they are looking and with the terminology they are employing.

Then I ask something like: If you were writing a paper about the struggles of moms in the Pacific Northwest to supply their children with raw milk would you choose the Moms for Raw Milk blog or the USDA Dairy Facts page? So far that analogy is working (but maybe because legalizing raw milk is an actual issue here?)…

So far that idea that the student with the assignment has some expertise and should depend on their common sense a bit has been encouraging and seems to resonate with students.