Category: Unit 2

What a wide range of information sources we have accessible! Having completed years of school prior to this program, I must admit, I never wandered far from the class textbooks and articles I found on JSTOR and Google Scholar labeled as a “scholarly article.” Also, an interesting point I noticed through the learning activities we completed this week was the emphasis on currency. When I studied English literature, I found there was less of an urgency in finding current articles that date no later than 10 years. We read articles from writers throughout time, and were encouraged to engage with these writers’ ideas proposed years, possibly hundreds of years, ago. This week has surely changed my perspective in gauging what a reliable and credible source is, and opened my eyes to the bewildering amount and styles of texts available to everyone at anytime.

While I will continue to use databases such as JSTOR and Google Scholar, I plan to add EBSCO to my resource list. I foresee many hours of reading and searching as I continue to learn how to use the databases effectively with my newly learnt knowledge of how to search using AND, OR, and NOT, limiters, and my search history (I could have saved hours of my time by utilizing these to my advantage in my past schooling). While I plan to use articles as I have in the past, I am excited to explore the world of EBooks and research.

Another interesting source I previously dismissed from my resource list is Google. After learning the need to find reliable sources in school, I was taught to use databases and books instead. After watching the Assessing Online Resources tutorial, I realized there are definitely appropriate occasions to use search engines such as Google. As I plan to look into Canada’s homelessness and addictions situation, there are credible government resources published publicly online. I plan to utilize these resources well.

Fully aware and weary of sources I find online, and also on databases, I know I must evaluate the source as scholarly without relying on the sole assumption it is appropriate by the “scholarly article” tag the text may have. I will use the six-considerations I learnt to evaluate each text, and measure the text’s credibility by its: 1) authority, 2) currency, 3) purpose, 4) content, 5) publication type, and 6) bias and special interests. Examining the writers’ credibility, references, purpose, content, and biases will help me select reliable sources to enhance my writing.

Blog Question Found Here: https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-2-notes/

The E-Book I chose is Strategies for Improving Homeless People’s Access to Mainstream Benefits and Services by Martha Burt, Jenneth Carpenter, Samuel Hall, Kathryn Henderson, Debra Rog, John Hornik, Ann Denton, and Garrett Moran. The E-book link is here: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS124562

1. Authority: The authors of this study come from different research entities:
   1. The Urban Institute is a U.S. think-tank comprising of “social scientists, economists, communicators, mathematicians, demographers, and data scientists” (Who We Are, 2017). Established in 1968, its founding president was a former Assistant Secretary for Wealth, Education, and Welfare – it claims to advance “the well-being of people” in the U.S. through research. Martha Burt and Samuel Hall are the Principal Research Associate, with appearances on C-SPAN dating back to 1988, and an accomplished lawyer – respectively
   2. The Advocates for Human Potential’s aim is to influence “change in health and business systems to support vulnerable populations” (Advocates for Human Potential, n.d.). Their history spans 30 years – 10 of which Jenneth Carpenter was involved, holding PhD and Masters degrees in Social Work. John Hornik holds a PhD in Engineering as Director of Research and Ann Denton holds a Masters in Education as a Director within this organization also.
   3. Westat was founded in 1963 by three statisticians and is behind many U.S. federal government statistics (About Us, n.d.).  Kathryn Henderson is Senior Study Director and both Debra Rog and Garrett Moran serve as Vice Presidents – every author holds a PhD.
2. Currency: This book was prepared in March 2010 for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research.
3. Purpose: Although not blatently stated, one can infer its intended use is to aid national and macro-level policymakers in addressing the difficulty of accessing resources in vulnerable populations. A secondary audience includes the micro-level participants, such as municipalities, communities, hospitals, and non-profits; the research noted in this book provides seven examples of cities and their respective organizational structures that could be integrated and adapted by other communities.
4. Publication type/process: Because this book was written for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, they are naturally also the publishers. The benefit of having three different research entities collaborate is that peer-review is, excluding biases, inherent prior to publishing. According to Google Scholar, it has been cited by sixteen other research bodies related to homelessness and social services.
5. Biases: The authors do not reveal obvious biases in the research; the institutions they represent predominantly claim to be non-partisan. However, due to the nature of research funding, I speculate the examples chosen in the book may lean towards larger “success stories.” In order for these think-tanks to win future contracts, especially with a source of funding as big as the U.S. government, there is likely pressure to find data that can grab headlines and is immediately actionable – lest the government bring their funding to someone else who can help garner more attention.

References:

Who We Are. (2017, November 01). Retrieved January 11, 2018, from https://www.urban.org/aboutus/who-we-are

I chose Donata Christiane Nilsen’s (2012) article, “Building & Enhancing Interorganizational Relationship for Disaster Preparedness and Response Capacity: a Study of Community-based Organizations Serving Vulnerable Populations; a Focus on the Homeless.” The article can be found here: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5tp4f30n

The following is my assessment of Nilsen’s (2012) article:

1. Authority – At the time of its writing, the author, Donata Christiane Nilsen, was a Doctor of Public Health candidate in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley. This study was completed as a dissertation in requirements for her degree and was overseen by a committee of professors from the university. Although her university provides Nilsen a level of authority, a quick Google search reveals little of her credentials, past writing experience, and expertise.
2. Currency – The article was published in 2012, which meets the rule of utilizing current sources that date back no longer than 10 years.
3. Purpose – As stated, the article was written for the completion of Nilsen’s Doctor of Public Health degree. The dissertation’s audience was Nilson’s educators in the university, but Nilsen (2012) also states the purpose of her study was to explore “the relationship between the number and types of interorganizational relationships that [community-based organizations (“CBOs”)] use to serve clients” (p.1). This suggests its intention for a public audience amongst the non-profit sector, and reinforces the research she conducted through surveys and interviews for findings. The tone and language of the article suggests the author’s impartiality as it speaks of its findings and research methods rather than anecdotal stories.
4. Content: This research article communicates a research question, research method, results, and answers the research question. It is backed by 6.5 pages of references, and appendixes that exemplify the research questions and resources used. This suggests a well-structured and research-based study.
5. Publication Type/Process: Though Berkeley University is a reputable university, the article was published by a university press and not a large publisher. Despite that, the source is peer-reviewed.
6. Bias and Special Interests: There are no obvious biases, but as Nilsen is seeking a Doctoral in Public Health, there may be biases towards the selection of organizations selected to participate in the study and the concluding benefits of interorganizationial relationships with CBOs.

References

Nilsen, D. C. (2012). Building & Enhancing Interorganizational Relationships for Disaster Preparedness and Response Capacity: a Study of Community-based Organizations Serving Vulnerable Populations: a Focus on the Homeless.