Evolution of the Notecard

I admit that I grew up before the boom of internet research -- or maybe I just attended a high school that was stuck in the Stone Age. The spring semester of my 12th grade year was devoted to writing the "thesis paper," a requirement to graduate. The standard for credible research material back then was anything that could be found in a college library. So, with trepidation as a lowly high school senior, I made my way to the University of Minnesota. My mom came along for backup. The intimidating English teacher had told us that the best way to organize data for our paper was to bring along some notecards and record important findings in a highly prescribed way. (Actually, now that I think about it, it was similar to the "tagging" system discussed in our readings, where each notecard was labeled with key words and phrases.) These notecards then became the evidence that supported our thesis statement in the paper. I remember sitting in front of the family Macintosh computer, lost in notecards with poorly written or half-recorded quotations and citations.

And in college I don't remember using databases either for research projects. (Is that possible? Did I just block it out, or did I just take too many literature courses that only required citation from the texts read in class?)

So I guess I'm not much of a resource for credible online research material. (Thank you to members of the class who have written about many options that have worked for you.)

I am still grappling with the credibility topic. This morning I listened to Digital Campus Episode 31 while walking my dog. Unfortunately, it was a high-car-traffic time of day and the audio for their guest was poor, but one topic that caught my attention was how new media and new methods of doing research on the internet will be integrated into the current structure of academics, where producing and publishing manuscripts still seems to be valued above all else.

After the walk and while I grabbed a bite to eat, I also caught just the beginning of Kerri Miller's interview with Brian Schieffer on Minnesota Public Radio. Shieffer offered the perspective (not surprising since he works for CBS) that traditional sources of news (newspapers, television newscasts) are expected to verify a story before they broadcast it as an actuality, and they get in trouble if they do not. Bloggers, on the other hand, are free to write about events and topics even if they are only speculation. I think the implied message is that traditional sources of news are more credible. The other side of that, though, is that getting news from traditional sources of news requires less critical thinking and investigation.

One thing that strikes me in reading other people's posts is that many of us subscribe to the same sources of news. Does this mean that they are credible and valuable sources of news? Or does it mean that all of us share the same biases that are reflected in our choices of where we get information?