Download 1 - Miami East Local Schools

Social Studies Skills and Methods – Analyzing the Credibility of Sources In the Social Studies, the analysis of sources is an essential skill a social scientist must master. Not all sources are equal in the quality and accuracy of the information they provide, therefore a social scientist must learn how to use his or her sources correctly in order to insure that the conclusions they draw from them are accurate. It is essential that social scientists learn how to determine whether or not the information contained in a source is reliable, accurate, and credible (the word “credible” means believable). Types of Sources Different branches within the social sciences (history, psychology, political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, and geography) each rely on different types of sources, some of which are more reliable or credible than others. For example, in history historians rely on both primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are first hand accounts of events created by people who lived through them (such as speeches, letters, laws, and diaries), while secondary sources are second hand accounts of events based upon primary sources (such as a textbook or a biography about an historical figure). Other social scientists may also rely on statistics, charts, graphs, and various types of published studies‐ the types of sources a social scientist may use are endless. Basic Characteristics of a Credible Source Despite the fact that social scientists can use an abundant array of resources, not all sources are of the same quality. In determining whether or not to use a source, a social scientist must determine the source’s credibility. Some characteristics of credible sources of information are as follows: ¾ The source contains information that is based on facts. A source that is based on facts rather than opinions if preferable in the field of social studies. A fact is a claim that can be verified, which means it can be proven to be true or untrue. An opinion, however, cannot be proven to be true or untrue. Consider the following examples: Fact: “In 2007, 42 persons in 10 the United States were executed ‐‐ 26 in Texas; 3 each in Alabama and Oklahoma; 2 each in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee; and 1 each in South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona. 1 Opinion: “Capital punishment is wrong, and governments do not have the right to take an individual’s life.” The first statement is a fact because it contains information that can be verified‐ one can prove or disprove is the numbers are true. The second statement, however, is an opinion because it is based on the author’s personal beliefs‐ one cannot ultimately proof if capital punishment is either “right” or “wrong.” ¾ The Source is Free of Bias. Bias refers to an author’s personal opinion or feelings that may lead them to support one side of an issue. For example, an advertisement in support of a political candidate is likely to provide only favorable information about a candidate while failing to mention the candidate’s shortcomings. Ideally in history and the social studies, an author will rely on sources that express opinions on both sides of an issue rather than just analyzing sources that favor one side over another. 1 U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics. ¾ The author of the source provides his or her name and/or credentials. In the day and age of the Internet, anyone with access to the Internet can post information about some issue or topic. Social scientists should only use a source if the author at a minimum provides his or her name. Ideally the author will also provide his or her qualifications to write about a particular topic, but at a minimum if they provide a name the author’s credentials (their training that prove they are an expert) can be verified. For example, if one is studying the national debt it would be preferable if they used information provided by the Congressional Budge Office rather than an individual who does not identify his or her credentials. ¾ The author cites other credible sources within his or her own source. It is essential that an author support the information he or she provides in a source by citing (referring to with a footnote or endnote) the other sources from which he or she obtained his or her information. When an author provides citations, it shows that: 1.) their conclusions are consistent (in agreement with) other credible sources of information; 2.) they have taken the care to credit other scholars who have conducted similar studies. ¾ Sources provide direct, firsthand accounts of information. Especially in the field of history, it is important that the person providing the account of an event witnessed it firsthand. If the author of a source received his or her information from a second hand account, there is a much greater chance the information will be less credible. Identifying Common Problems Affecting the Credibility of Sources No source is perfect. Social scientists will still at times need to use sources that are flawed in some way. It is possible, however, to identify common errors that occur which affect the accuracy of sources. These include the use of propaganda, stereotypes, logical fallacies, and unstated assumptions. ¾ Propaganda. Ideally, all sources used by social scientists would be completely objective: free of any bias and contain nothing but facts. Rather than simply reporting facts, however, sometimes sources contain propaganda or stereotypes. Propaganda is information that is distorted information that is spread to convince someone to support a cause or movement of some kind. Propaganda is deliberately slanted towards a person’s emotions, and therefore cannot be used as credible source (For example, during World War II Adolph Hitler used extensive propaganda against Jews and other enemies of the Nazis). ¾ Stereotypes are generalizations about entire groups of people which are not based on actual facts. Since stereotypes are preconceived judgments about people not rooted in fact, sources that use stereotypes cannot be considered credible. ¾ The source is free of “logical fallacies.” As opposed to a factual error (in which untrue information is reported), a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. That is, an author draws an incorrect conclusion from the facts he or she reports in the source. There are a number of different common types of logical fallacies: ‐ The Bandwagon: The “bandwagon” technique is a common logical fallacy, especially in advertising. The bandwagon technique relies on emotion rather than reasoning, and its strength lies in making one fear rejection by his or her peers. The bandwagon argument basically can be summarized by saying, “Since everyone is doing “A,” “A” is beneficial. (even in the lack of factual evidence).” For example, an advertisement may claim “4 out of 5 Americans prefer a company’s product over others,” but never offer factual proof of the product’s superiority. ‐ “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:” (After this, therefore because of this): In this type of logical fallacy, an author concludes that one event caused another simply because it happened before it . In the post hoc fallacy, an author establishes a cause and effect relationship between two events without finding factual evidence that there was a causal connection between the two. For example, rates of violent crime might have declined after the passage of gun control laws. An author, however, cannot assume that the passage of the law was the sole cause of the decline. For example, other types of prevention programs against violence or other economic and social factors may be responsible for the decline. ‐ “Slippery Slope:” In this fallacy, an author makes a claim that one event will set in motion a chain of events that will result in extremely negative consequences. Again, these claims are made without the proper support of facts. For example, a school board member may argue that relaxing dress code requirements will lead to a increase in tardiness to school, a rise in discipline problems, and a decline in grades without offering factual information to support his claim. ¾ Unstated Assumption. Sometimes an author will base arguments on premises that they merely assume to be true, without offering any proof to back the premise. On the surface, an author’s argument may seem perfectly valid, but it reality may rest on an unstated assumption: a premise that an author simply takes for granted to be true without any evidence. For example, an author may argue that the rise in the number of illegal immigrants is ruining America’s mainstream culture and taking jobs from Americans. This argument rests on the unstated assumption that immigration will automatically have a negative affect on Americans. Comparing the Credibility of Sources: An Example On the Ohio Graduation Test, you may be asked to compare the credibility of two sources and two identify which of the two is a more credible source of information. It is likely that they will provide opposing views on a controversial issue and ask you to determine if the supporters or opponents of the issue provide more credible information. The following provides an example of such a question, and provides suggestions for how to approach it using the example of Casino Gambling. Sample Question In recent years, citizens have debated whether or not to legalize casino gambling in the state of Ohio. Supporters of the issue argue that money generated from the casino can be used to support the funding of education, while opponents argue that casino gambling brings with it social problems. Consider the following views offered by a supporter and Opponents “Gambling isn’t new money. It’s re‐directed money. It’s trading dollars. Gambling came to New Mexico in 1994, and by 1998 the state’s Secretary of Taxation and Revenue reported roughly $1 to $1.2 billion per year in other taxable sales had fallen off the balance sheet. Entertainment, retail, restaurants, and services took huge hits from the casinos, and as a result, paid far less in taxes.1 The best the economists could say was the economy was playing a “zero‐sum” game. The casinos were winning and the other business were losing.” ‐ Source: Grey, Tom, National Spokesmen and Field Director, The National Coalition Against Legalize d Gambling, Supporters “Why not have a casino in Ohio? I would love to be able to go to a casino that is in Ohio and closer to my own home. I would rather spend my money to benefit the state of Ohio than West Virginia or Indiana. With the price of gas going ever higher, some Ohioans would not travel out of state to spend their monies in other states. I'm sure that other counties in Ohio would love to have extra monies going into the budgets that would benefit their own county residents. Source: Opinion offered by supporter in response to story, “Proposed Clinton County Casino Proponents Seeking Support of Ohio Counties,” The Cleveland Leader, May 13, 2008 Which of the above two sources contains credible sources of information that can be verified? Why does agreement with credible sources make a source believable? Write Your Answer in Your Answer Document (2 pts). Sample Answer The opponents statement contains credible information that can be verified. The author cites statistics to support his claim (noting that in New Mexico 1 to 1.2 billion in taxable sales) and provides a footnote to both credit his source and to allow the reader to verify his claim. The second source, however, simply gives opinions without verifiable facts: the author simply states he would “love to go to a Casino” and would rather “spend my money in the state of Ohio,” but cites no relevant studies or statistics to support his claim. Agreement with credible sources is makes a source more believable because the more credible studies it agrees with, the more likely the source is to be true.