Assignment 1 : Badke Ch.1

     To begin with, the first chapter of “Research Strategies” by Badke W.B., primarily dealt with the outlines of how the information has been delivered in human history. From oral traditions to WEB 2.0, Badke described characteristics, merits and demerits of each means in terms of information delivery.

     Frankly speaking, most of the contents were pretty much familiar to me, and that is not so much due to my great store of knowledge as to the generality of this information. Nonetheless, there were some points attracted my attentions, which helped me to understand the information delivery system more precisely. First, Badke argued that WWW was not a content-provider, but a vehicle of information (Badke, 6). From time to time, it was true that I was confused with this concept, consequently misunderstood it. However, by redefining the WWW, I was be able to correct the roles and limitations of the WWW. Secondly, according to Badke’s explanation, many public bodies refused to give double fund for journals, so they requested that articles should be available for the public without cost for the certain amount of time (Badke, 10). It was interesting for me to find how the open-access journal movement has started, and at the same time, I think this movement is something that we should achieve eventually. Lastly, the distinctions between primary and secondary information sources were quite new to me, and it would be helpful, especially when I have to choose topics and types of writing.

Question :

In the chapter 1.7, when Badke explained how to determine the importance of information,  he insisted that we should ask ourselves this question, “Who else believes this?”. However, is it possible to say that it is not informative because not many people credit it?


2 responses to “Assignment 1 : Badke Ch.1

  1. Yes! It is possible to say that information found may not be informative because not many people credit it. It could also just not be put together well, explained well or produced with a particular audience in mind to be engaging.

    For instance, when you go to YouTube and find a video, is it relevant to know how many views that video has had? Does a video with 1,000,000 views have something more informative than one with say only 5,000 views? You can make a case that the video with more views has been around longer or that it is more humorous but when it comes down to it this content is becoming our culture more and more.

    I totally agree with you that much of the information issued by Badke was general, common information, too. Perhaps as we progress through the book we will be dealt a more informative slice of information or point of view 🙂

  2. Soo, I’m glad you found Badke’s discussion of the open access movement interesting. We’ll be touching on open access themes throughout the course — it’s a topic that’s extremely relevant to the information landscape right now.

    We’ll also talk more about what makes information credible. Soo and Erin, you both point out ways to consider this issue: if something is generally deemed believable or worthwhile to read/watch/listen to, does that equal quality and accuracy? How does authority intersect with “the wisdom of crowds?”

    Great questions and discussion!

    –Prof Smale

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s