So thebigquestion when it comes to source material is always credibility. As we start on the Annotated Bibliography for your MPs this week, let's think about what makes sources credible. Are there any "universal truths" to credibility? Or is there constantly a gray area that we, the authors, have to defend and rationalize for our audiences...?
Do you think scholarly (peer-reviewed) sources are more viable to making an argument than non-scholarly sources? Why?
Btw: It's okay to say "It depends"--but regardless of your answer, try to defend your position. Why does it depend? Can you give some examples? If you think it's an absolute yes or no...explain!
Already registered? Login
Not Account? Sign up
Enter your email address to reset your password
Back to Login? Click here