When you're doing research, you want to make sure the information you find is accurate, relevant, and appropriate for your topic. You shouldn't just conduct one search, pick the first few articles you find, and consider yourself done. Research is a process, and knowing how to analyze and evaluate your sources will make you a stronger researcher and help you learn more as you go through your process.
This page goes over one method for evaluating sources by asking yourself the 6 Questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. At first, you might find it takes some extra time to do this process of evaluating your sources, but the more you practice it the more it'll become a natural part of your research process.
When you're looking at a source and deciding if it's right for your research, ask yourself the six questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.
| WHO |
Who is the author? |
Look for more information about the author. Find out their qualifications and experience to determine if they are a credible expert on the topic. Be cautious of sources where you cannot identify an author or creator. |
|---|---|---|
| WHAT |
What type of source is it? |
Think about what type of source you're looking at - is it a research paper? An entertainment piece? An opinion essay? Consider if it is scholarly or popular and what the format tells you about the source. |
| WHEN |
When was it published? |
Consider how recent and/or timely the information is and how recent you need information to be for your topic. In some subjects, new information develops very quickly and sources that are more than a few years old may already be outdated. In other subjects, information may move more slowly. |
| WHERE |
Where did you find the source? |
Look at where the source was published or shared. See what you can find out about the publisher and their editorial process (Is it peer reviewed? Edited by one general editor? Not edited at all?). Be on the lookout for conflicts of interest and potential bias in publishing. Consider if it is a scholarly publisher, a government source, an educational institution, or an informal source like a blog. |
| WHY |
Why was this written and published? |
Think about the purpose of the source and what it is trying to accomplish. Is the source trying to inform you of new information? Is it trying to persuade you to do something or to have a certain point of view? Is it an ad trying to sell you something? Is it entertainment? |
| HOW |
How did the author/creator find their information? |
If the source is an original research study, look at the methods and conclusions to learn about how the study was conducted and what they learned from it. If the author cites their sources, see if you can find the original source to verify the information. Be cautious using sources that do not contain citations or do not show how they got their information. |
Let's see how the 6 Question method is applied to a source. For this example, we will use this source: The epidemiology of attacks on statues: New Zealand as a case study.
You may need to log in with Holy Cross credentials to access it. If you are not able to log in or access the article at that link, view the open access link here.
Research Topic: What are the arguments for and against removing controversial statues?
Source Citation: Wilson, N., Jones, A. C., Teng, A., & Thomson, G. (2021). The epidemiology of attacks on statues: New Zealand as a case study. PLoS ONE, 16(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252567
| WHO |
Who is the author? |
The authors are all professors in the Department of Public Health at a University in New Zealand. They have all previously published in different topics related to public health with a focus on New Zealand. They do not appear to have studied statues and memorials in the past, but have published other studies using the epidemiology method. |
|---|---|---|
| WHAT |
What type of source is it? |
This is a scholarly source. It was published in the journal PLOS ONE, which is peer reviewed. It is reporting on an original study conducted by the authors and includes formal citations, data represented in charts and graphs, and is written in a formal, academic tone. Key terms and statistical concepts are not defined, showing the authors assume readers will already be familiar with them. |
| WHEN |
When was it published? |
The article was published in 2021 and reports on research conducted from September 2018 - August 2019. |
| WHERE |
Where did you find the source? |
The article was published in the journal PLOS ONE, which publishes scientific research and is peer reviewed. There does not appear to be a conflict of interest between the journal's aims and funding and the authors of the article. |
| WHY |
Why was this written and published? |
This was published to share the results of an original study conducted by the authors. They applied a public health concept to the analysis of vandalism against statues in New Zealand to assess patterns in what kinds of statutes were vandalized. |
| HOW |
How did the author/creator find their information? |
The authors cite outside research with formal citations in text and a complete reference list at the end of the article. For their original study, they clearly describe their methods, results, and conclusions. The authors provide charts depicting their data and the "Supporting information" section includes a more detailed description of the methods they used to identify statues and conduct their study. |
The verdict: Would you use this source?
This source is an original study looking at actions taken against particular statues in New Zealand. The researchers looked at common characteristics in the attacks on statues and the statues themselves to develop a theory about why people vandalize the statues in connection to the country's history of colonialism. It is a scholarly source and the authors clearly explain their research methods, making the information seem reliable. However, the article doesn't really cover the arguments for and against removing statues. It is more focused on vandalism and considering why statues are vandalized. While it is a strong study and somewhat relevant to the topic, I might look for other sources that are more focused on my topic of arguments for and against removing statues. I could use this source to show examples of how controversial statues are treated, but will look for more sources that focus on removal of statues more specifically.