Written vs. Printed Sources: A Comprehensive Guide to Evaluation

What this handout is about

This guide delves into the essential strategies for evaluating both written and printed secondary sources, encompassing books, journal articles, magazines, and more. We will explore evaluation based on key criteria: objectivity, authority, and applicability to your research needs. While printed sources, both primary and secondary, have traditionally formed the bedrock of academic essays, understanding how to critically assess all forms of written sources is crucial in today’s information landscape. This guide focuses on written sources, with a particular lens on the nuances that arise when considering printed materials. Non-print sources, such as webpages, digital media, works of art, and interviews, although increasingly significant, are outside the scope of this discussion.

Introduction

Throughout your academic journey, you will undoubtedly encounter research assignments. While research papers are often associated with disciplines like history or political science, the systematic collection and interpretation of data to construct and defend an argument is fundamental across most fields of study. This process invariably involves engaging with written texts, ranging from primary documents to secondary analyses.

For students new to college-level research papers, the process can seem overwhelming. The initial step is to define a research topic that addresses a relevant problem within your discipline. Consulting with your instructor or library reference staff is invaluable at this stage. Resources such as handouts on understanding assignments, constructing thesis statements, and formulating arguments in academic writing can provide further guidance.

Once you have a compelling research question, the next step is to navigate the vast landscape of available resources. Libraries, both physical and digital, house millions of books and articles. The critical question then becomes: which of these written sources are pertinent and reliable for your research? How can you discern if the information presented is accurate, current, and unbiased? This guide aims to equip you with the necessary tools to answer these questions effectively, focusing on the evaluation of written sources, especially in their printed form.

Researchers approach any unfamiliar source with a critical mindset, posing questions to determine its trustworthiness and relevance to their research argument. The following detailed steps are designed to guide both novice and experienced researchers in a systematic evaluation process. This structured approach will foster a more careful and critical engagement with your sources.

Understanding Written vs. Printed Sources in Context

Before we delve into evaluating written sources, it’s important to understand the evolving landscape of information dissemination. Historically, “written sources” were often synonymous with “printed sources” due to the dominance of print for mass communication and academic publishing. However, the digital age has broadened the scope of written sources significantly.

Initially, all written communication was manuscript – painstakingly handwritten. The advent of the printing press revolutionized the dissemination of knowledge, making information more accessible and standardized. Printed sources, for centuries, became the primary carriers of scholarly work, news, and literature.

Today, “written sources” encompass both printed and digital formats. Digital written sources include online articles, blog posts, e-books, digital journals, and a vast array of web-based content. While the methods of creating and distributing written content have evolved, the fundamental need to critically evaluate these sources remains constant. In fact, the ease of digital publishing makes source evaluation even more critical in the modern research process.

This guide will primarily focus on the evaluation principles applicable to both printed and digital written sources, highlighting where distinctions are important. The core principles of assessing objectivity, authority, and applicability remain relevant regardless of the medium.

Primary and Secondary Sources: A Foundation for Evaluation

This guide concentrates on evaluating secondary sources, but the critical evaluation skills discussed are equally applicable to primary sources. Understanding the distinction between primary and secondary sources is fundamental.

In essence, a primary source is contemporaneous with the events it describes. Determining whether a source is primary often requires some contextual investigation.

For instance, personal diaries and letters from individuals directly involved in events are readily identified as primary sources. However, memoirs or autobiographies, typically written retrospectively, offer insights into the period of their writing as much as the events they recount.

Newspapers present a more complex case. A news article reporting current events is considered a primary source, capturing immediate perspectives and information. Conversely, an article analyzing past events is a secondary source, offering interpretation and analysis. It’s crucial to recognize that even articles about past events can serve as primary evidence of the author’s contemporary context and viewpoint.

Fiction also presents nuanced classifications. When a novel or poem is the subject of study itself, it is a primary source. However, if used as evidence—for example, a historical novel informing a study of social conditions—it functions as a secondary source. Similarly, a 19th-century history textbook can be analyzed as a primary source to understand the historical perspectives and historiography of that era.

Consider this table to further clarify the distinction:

Primary Source	Secondary Source
Hamlet by William Shakespeare (first printed edition)	A journal article analyzing themes of revenge in Hamlet.
Anne Frank’s original diary manuscript	A documentary film about Anne Frank’s life based on her diary.
The original handwritten draft of the Declaration of Independence	A scholarly book on the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.
Raw census data from Ethiopia’s national archive (written records)	A published research paper titled “Demographic trends and healthcare access in Ethiopia,” using census data.

Secondary sources are the workhorses of academic writing. While primary sources offer direct evidence, secondary sources guide you to relevant primary materials and provide crucial interpretations. Effective use of secondary sources necessitates critical evaluation.

Every source comprises two key elements for analysis: the text itself and the argument it presents.

Evaluating the Text: Objectivity and Credibility

Text evaluation aims to determine the author’s objectivity and the work’s overall credibility. The objective is not necessarily to eliminate sources but to understand their context to assess their contribution to your argument. This involves evaluating the author, the publisher, and the publication date.

Author Credibility

Critical source analysis begins with examining the author. Consider these questions:

• Are you familiar with the author’s name?
• Is the author cited in other works on the same subject?
• Has your instructor mentioned this author?
• Is the author affiliated with a reputable institution, like a university? (Institutional affiliation can, but doesn’t always, enhance authority.)
• Does the author disclose any organizational affiliations or funding sources that might influence their perspective?

The author’s preface, acknowledgments, and biographical information are valuable resources for answering these questions. Authoritative authors typically have established expertise in their field, often evidenced by advanced degrees, relevant publications, and professional positions. In the digital realm, author profiles on academic platforms or personal websites can offer insights into their credentials and expertise.

Publisher Reputation

Inquiries about the publisher mirror those about the author. Look for publisher information in the book’s preliminary pages or on the website of a digital publication.

• Is it a university press (e.g., Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press)? University presses generally uphold rigorous academic standards through peer review processes.
• Is it a well-known academic or professional publisher (e.g., Elsevier, Springer, Wiley)? These publishers typically focus on scholarly works and often have established reputations for quality.
• Is it a popular press publisher (e.g., Penguin Random House, HarperCollins)? Popular presses vary in their standards. While they may publish credible works, especially in non-fiction, their focus is broader than strictly academic publishing.
• Is it a self-published source or published by a less known entity? Self-published works and publications from less established entities require more scrutiny regarding their editorial oversight and fact-checking processes.

For printed books, university presses often signal rigorous academic vetting. For digital sources, reputable online journals or platforms with clear editorial policies enhance credibility. If the publisher is unfamiliar, further investigation into their mission, editorial board, and review processes is warranted.

Date of Publication and Relevance

The publication date is crucial for assessing a source’s currency and relevance, especially in rapidly evolving fields.

• For contemporary issues, prioritize the most recent sources.
• For topics with historical depth, older sources may still be relevant, but consider if more recent scholarship offers new perspectives or data.
• Check for copyright dates, edition numbers, and translation dates to determine the work’s original publication date and any updates. Multiple dates may indicate revised editions, which can be valuable.

In digital sources, look for publication dates, update dates, or version numbers. Websites like the Wayback Machine can sometimes help determine the history of online content. Be aware of “evergreen content” versus time-sensitive information; the required recency will vary by topic.

Objectivity vs. Bias: Understanding Perspective

Even after evaluating the text’s credentials, you may detect bias. Bias does not automatically disqualify a source. It signifies a particular perspective. Recognize that complete objectivity is an ideal, and all authors operate from a viewpoint.

For example, a book on climate change funded by an environmental organization will likely present a perspective emphasizing the urgency of action. This doesn’t invalidate its data but signals a particular interpretive lens. Similarly, a publication from a fossil fuel industry think tank will likely offer a different perspective.

No secondary source offers purely objective “facts.” They present interpretations of data, shaped by the author’s context, values, and aims. Understanding the author’s standpoint is key to using their work judiciously. A source with a clear bias can be valuable for understanding different viewpoints within a debate. Paired with sources offering contrasting perspectives, biased works can provide a richer, more nuanced understanding of a topic.

Evaluating the Argument: Applicability, Logic, and Evidence

Evaluating the argument moves beyond the text’s surface to analyze its substance. This involves assessing applicability, logical coherence, and evidentiary support.

Applicability to Your Research

Is the source relevant to your specific research question?

• Start with the table of contents for books or section headings in articles to grasp the scope and focus. A compelling title may be misleading if the content is tangential.
• Utilize the index in books to quickly locate specific topics or concepts relevant to your research.
• Skim the preface and introduction to understand the author’s purpose, scope, and main arguments. These sections often provide a concise overview of the book’s content and approach.

For digital articles, scan headings, introductory and concluding paragraphs, and use keyword searches (Ctrl+F or Cmd+F) to assess relevance. Abstracts and summaries, when available, offer quick insights into an article’s focus.

Strength and Logic of Argument

Critical analysis requires assessing the argument itself:

• Evidence and Support: Is the information substantiated by evidence? Examine footnotes, endnotes, or bibliographies. What types of sources does the author cite? Are they reputable? Does the bibliography include key works in the field? For online sources, are there hyperlinks to credible sources?
• Thesis Clarity: Is the central argument or thesis clearly stated? Is it evident what the author aims to demonstrate or prove? A strong argument is focused and clearly articulated.
• Assumptions: What underlying assumptions underpin the author’s claims? Do you find these assumptions reasonable? Does the author acknowledge or justify their assumptions? Unacknowledged or questionable assumptions can weaken an argument.
• Counterarguments and Nuance: Does the author address counterarguments or alternative perspectives? Does the analysis demonstrate nuance and complexity, or is it overly simplistic or one-sided? A robust argument often acknowledges and engages with opposing viewpoints.

Peer Review and Scholarly Reception

In academic contexts, peer review is a hallmark of quality.

• Peer-Reviewed Journals: Articles in peer-reviewed journals have undergone scrutiny by experts in the field, enhancing their credibility. Check journal websites or databases to confirm if a journal is peer-reviewed.
• Book Reviews: Consult book review indices (e.g., Book Review Index, Academic Search Premier, JSTOR) to find reviews of books by other scholars. These reviews offer expert assessments of a book’s strengths, weaknesses, and significance within its field. Positive reviews generally indicate scholarly merit and acceptance.
• Citation Analysis: Explore citation databases (e.g., Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus) to see how often a source has been cited by other authors. Highly cited works often indicate influential and respected scholarship.

Engaging with scholarly reception and peer review helps you understand how a source is viewed within its academic community, aiding your evaluation of its authority and impact.

Audience and Tone: Contextual Clues

Analyzing the intended audience and tone provides further insights into a source’s nature and potential biases.

Intended Audience

Identifying the target audience reveals much about a source’s purpose and level of rigor.

• Academic Audience: Scholarly books and journals, characterized by technical terminology, complex analysis, extensive citations, and often graphs or data tables, are typically aimed at academic audiences.
• General Audience: Popular magazines, newspapers, trade books, and many websites are geared toward a broader, non-specialist audience. Language is usually less technical, and the focus is often on accessibility and broader appeal.
• Specialized Audience: Some sources target specific professional groups, industries, or communities of interest. The language and content will be tailored to the knowledge and interests of this specific group.

Consider the venue of publication. Articles in Nature or The American Historical Review target academic specialists. Articles in Newsweek or The New York Times aim for educated general readers. Websites of professional associations or advocacy groups target specific interest groups. Advertisements within printed magazines or website banners can also offer clues about the intended readership.

Author’s Tone

Tone reveals the author’s stance and attitude toward the subject matter.

• Impartial and Objective Tone: Academic writing typically strives for an impartial tone, using third-person perspective, avoiding loaded language, and presenting arguments in a measured way.
• Passionate or Persuasive Tone: Advocacy writing, opinion pieces, and some popular works may employ a more impassioned or persuasive tone, using stronger emotional language.
• Informal or Conversational Tone: Blog posts, popular articles, and some online content may adopt an informal or conversational tone to engage a wider audience.

Look for emotionally charged language, hyperbole, or overly assertive claims, which may indicate a less objective stance. While a passionate tone isn’t inherently negative, it signals the author’s strong viewpoint, which should be considered in your evaluation. Be alert for propaganda or sources that seem to promote a specific agenda through selective data or manipulated evidence. Recognizing bias doesn’t necessitate rejection, but it mandates careful, contextual use.

Authority and Trustworthiness: Synthesizing Your Evaluation

Determining authority and trustworthiness is the culmination of your evaluation process. Can you rely on this source? What aspects are most credible? There’s no simple formula, but careful consideration of the text and argument enables a confident judgment.

Authority is multifaceted. It’s derived from:

• Author Expertise: Credentials, experience, and reputation in the field.
• Publisher Reputation: Editorial rigor and standards of the publishing venue.
• Argument Strength: Logical coherence, evidentiary support, and engagement with counterarguments.
• Scholarly Reception: Peer review, citations, and expert opinions.
• Objectivity (or Acknowledged Perspective): Awareness and management of potential biases.
• Currency: Publication date relative to the topic’s needs.

Trustworthiness emerges from this composite assessment of authority. A trustworthy source is one you can reasonably rely on for accurate, well-supported, and relevant information, understanding its perspective and context.

Following the Scholarly Trail

Starting research can be daunting. You might begin with a keyword search and find numerous sources, but critical evaluation may narrow your initial set considerably. What if, after rigorous evaluation, only one or two sources seem truly suitable?

Don’t despair. Instead, “follow the scholarly trail.” Examine the footnotes, endnotes, and bibliographies of your strongest sources. Identify works that these authors frequently cite or consider foundational in the field. Then, search for these cited works in library catalogs or databases and begin the critical evaluation process anew.

This iterative process leverages the expertise of established authors. By tracing their sources, you tap into a network of scholarly conversation. Each source you evaluate in this way builds upon prior assessments, leading to a deeper understanding of the literature landscape in your research area. Following the trail from one authoritative source to others can efficiently guide you to a robust and relevant body of research material.

Applying Evaluation Skills to This Guide

To solidify your understanding, apply these evaluation techniques to this very guide.

• Author Authority: Investigate the UNC Writing Center. Who are they? What are their credentials? What is their mission? (Visit the UNC Writing Center website.)
• Author Bias: Does the Writing Center have a perspective or agenda? (Likely, yes—to promote effective writing. Is this problematic?)
• Applicability: Is this guide useful to you? Consider the table of contents (section headings) and scan for sections relevant to your needs.

Your assessment of this guide, based on the criteria discussed, will reinforce your source evaluation skills. Everyone approaches information differently, and usefulness is always context-dependent and individual.

Continue to refine your critical evaluation skills. Explore the “Works Consulted” list below for further resources on source evaluation and research methods.

Works Consulted

We consulted these works while creating this guide. This is not an exhaustive list, and further research is encouraged. Please note that this list is not intended as a formatting model for your reference lists. Consult citation style guides for proper formatting. We periodically update this guide and welcome feedback. Special thanks to Emily Jackson-Sanborn at Duke University’s Perkins Library for contributions to web references.

• Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research, 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Bowling Green State University. 2020. “Library Basics: Evaluating Print Sources.” University Libraries. Last updated July 8, 2020. https://libguides.bgsu.edu/c.php?g=227153&p=1505673.
• California Polytechnic State University Robert E. Kennedy Library. n.d. “Evaluating the Credibility of Information Sources.” http://lib.calpoly.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Evaluating-Credibility-Fall-2017.pdf.
• Ede, Lisa. 2004. Work in Progress: A Guide to Academic Writing and Revising, 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.
• Ormondroyd, Joan. 2011. “Critically Analyzing Information Sources.” Olin & Uris Libraries. Cornell University. Last updated April 5, 2011. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/critically_analyzing.

This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire guide and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift