Unit IV Assignment 1 Please make sure that is is your own work and not copy and paste off of someone else work or article .Please watch out for spelling er

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Unit IV Assignment 1 Please make sure that is is your own work and not copy and paste off of someone else work or article .Please watch out for spelling errors and grammar errors. Please read the study guide. Please use the APA 7th edition. This is a DBA course and needs to be done on this level.


Scholarly Versus Non-Scholarly Sources

Review pages 170–172 in your textbook. Find a dissertation in the (ProQuest) Dissertations and Theses Global database in the CSU Online Library in your domain that was published within the last 5 years. Copy and paste the references pages from the dissertation into a Word document, and identify sources that you believe are non-scholarly using Word’s comment feature, and explain why (Greene & Lidinsky, 2018).


The following resource(s) may help you with this assignment.

Citation Guide
CSU Online Library Research Guide
Submit Writing Center Request RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV

Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

2. Analyze the text of an academic document using a variety of methods.
2.1 Demonstrate the steps in evaluating sources.

2.2 Explore the availability for academically reliable sources.

4. Analyze arguments made in academic literature.

4.1 Practice the process of synthesizing arguments and claims.

7. Synthesize academic literature to form a researched argument.
7.1 Demonstrate synthesis of arguments in academic literature.

Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

Unit Lesson
Chapter 7

Unit IV Assignment 1


Unit Lesson
Chapter 7

Unit IV Assignment 1

Unit IV Assignment 2

Unit Lesson
Chapter 8

Unit IV Assignment 2

7.1 Unit IV Assignment 2

Required Unit Resources

Chapter 7: From Finding to Evaluating Sources

Chapter 8: From Synthesis to Researched Argument

Unit Lesson

Finding and Evaluating Sources

A researcher will review several types of literature. Determining what credible sources are, either academic or

professional, can be confusing. Developing an assessment plan for credible sources is essential to provide

substance supporting the current research. The use of less-than-credible sources will compromise the
integrity and reputation of the researcher. A researcher may use different types of sources including academic

and professional journals. A researcher may also utilize another researcher’s websites, publications,
conference presentations, or organizational resources (Greene & Lidinsky, 2018). In examining sources, a

good place to start is with Sarah Blakeslee, a librarian at California State University, Chico. While developi ng

training for information literacy, Blakeslee (2004) coined the term CRAAP. CRAAP stands for currency,
relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose (p. 6).


Evaluating Sources and
Synthesizing Arguments

RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 2




The C in CRAAP stands for currency, or the timeliness of the information (Blakeslee, 2004). Of course,

seminal writers (key authors) in an area of interest will often have written articles based on their research
some time ago, and it is necessary to have read the basic research, but this can lead to keywords for

searching and then to later writings by the same authors, perhaps (Dane, 2018). Ask these questions:

• When was the information published?

• Has it been revised or updated?

• Is it current for your field(s) of interest?

• Are any links in the article functional?

Since the majority of a doctoral study’s sources should be within 5 years at the time of the dissertation
defense, it is vital to be as current as possible in this portion of the research while still being conversant in the

foundational research to date.


The R in CRAAP stands for relevance, or the importance of the information for the particular research area(s)

that is anticipated (Blakeslee, 2004). Novice researchers should ask themselves: Does the information in the
article really relate to the topic or question that is being researched in such a way that it is not too elementary

or too advanced for the intended purpose, and who is the intended audience? A study might be very good for

the location with adequate validity (quantitative) or credibility (qu alitative studies) but may not be
generalizable to another population or location, although replicability is important in quantitative studies

(Burkholder et al., 2020, p. 90). Consequently, can the results of this study/research article be applied to the
question or topic being discussed?


The first A in CRAAP stands for authority: the source of the information (Blakeslee, 2004). A novice
researcher should inquire into the author, the publisher, and the source journal. These questions should be


• What are the author’s credentials?

• Is there a sponsor of the research?

• Does the author have any affiliations that could lead to bias or a conflict of interest?

• Is there contact information for the journal or the author should there be questions?

• Does the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) provide clarity about a source (e.g., .edu, .gov, .com,


In skimming the article, Barnet et al. (2020), describe a previewing strategy where a novice researcher
attempts to obtain the necessary information to make a judgment on the authority of the writer(s).


The second A in CRAAP stands for accuracy (Blakeslee, 2004). Novice researchers should ask themselves:

• Is the information stated by the source reliable, true, and correct in its content? Is it questionable?

• What is the source of the information?

• Is the tone or language free of emotion? Does it appear unbiased?

• Are the results supported by evidence?

• Has the research been peer-reviewed?

No study is perfect, but a reader has to evaluate whether any bias is getting in the way of the research
(McGregor, 2018, pp. 7–9). As a reader, one has to appraise the balance between the merits and negatives

of a particular article (p. 4). If a bias is found, a reader must explore the paradigms associated with dominant
ideologies that influence the accuracy of the writing and perhaps the stated results of the res earch (Barnet et

RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 3



al., 2020, p. 90; McGregor, 2020, pp. 13–14). Reflecting on accuracy, but also authority, would be the

presence of spelling, grammar, or typographical errors.


The P in CRAAP stands for purpose (Blakeslee, 2004). A reader has to ask and answer these questions:

• Does the author intend to inform, teach, sell, persuade, or something else?

• Are the intentions of the author(s) clear?

• Does there appear to be any bias/agenda (e.g., political, ideological, cultural, religious, institution al,


In qualitative research, biases are clarified by the author(s) in their own reflexivity statements (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018, p. 200). Since studies involve humans, there is always some measure of bias or subjectivity.

The CRAAP acronym is beneficial in addressing written materials in an area of interest. Critically assessing
research in reading the research of others is the foundation for future research (Ingham -Broomfield, 2014;

Knott, 2009; Kurland, 2000). Given the changes in library systems and the breadth of the internet, there are
now multiple forms and sources of data that were not easily available until recently, and these must be

evaluated for inclusion in continuing research in topical areas (Branley et al., 2018, pp. 64 –67). Greene and

Lidinsky (2018) discuss multiple sources for previous research reporting and searching for the appropriate
topical area that will impact anticipated research in a topical area (pp. 165 –186).

Sources of Literature

When doing research in an area, the widely used adage should be followed: read, read more, then read more

again. To be a domain expert for just a split second, it is necessary to be familiar with the research to date.

So, evaluating research to determine its validity and applicability becomes even more important. The CRAAP
approach described earlier is a good start. Institutionalizing a process of critically examining research is a vital

step in using scholarship in reading and eventually a literature revie w in a chosen area of research interest
(McGregor, 2018, p. 6).

Understanding the components of the design options assists in evaluating and analyzing research. Familiarity

with research designs assists in building the foundation for future research proj ects (Burkholder et al., 2020;

Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Fetters, 2020). Quantitative and qualitative research methods are quite different
and serve different purposes. Within methods, research designs are also different. A novice researcher must

learn to become aware of both methods and the nuances of each type of design to answer the research
questions. The topic of validation that is so central to research can also be viewed as evolving (Newton,

2016). Examples of sources by type can be found in Table 1.

Table 1

Common Types of Research Sources

Type of Source Example

Academic Journal—A peer-reviewed article allows

for critique and analysis by experts in the field as to
quality and accuracy of the article.

Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Voelpel,

S. C., & van Vugt, M. (2019). It’s not just
what is said, but when it’s said: A temporal

account of verbal behaviors and emergent

leadership in self-managed teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 62(3),


Professional Journal—A professional journal is
generated usually by a professional association. An

article may be peer-reviewed by membership to

maintain the quality.

Appleyard, M. M., Enders, A. H., & Velazquez, H.
(2020). Regaining R&D leadership: The role

of design thinking and creative forbearance.

California Management Review, 62(2), 12–




RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 4



Grey Research—Reports by government, non-
government, or public organizations are considered

grey literature.

U.S. Government Publishing Office website

United Nations


The European Union website


Website—A website can be administered by a

specific individual or an organization. The
researcher may allow discussion or comment. The

site is not necessarily peer-reviewed. If the

researcher is not well-published in peer-reviewed
publications, caution is recommended. Cross

validate the information with the peer-reviewed
literature before including in a current study.

Andrew Gelman at Columbia University website


Carey Priebe at John Hopkins website


Mindgarden website

Regarding faculty-sponsored websites, many provide a service to others by posting both published and

unpublished manuscripts. Many times, researchers move from academia and commercialize their products

(as Bass and Avilo did with Mindgarden). Use of credible sources are elements that establish integrity and
reputation for the researcher.


Barnet, S., Bedau, H., & O’Hara, J. (2020). From critical thinking to argument: A portable guide (6th ed.).

Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Blakeslee, S. (2004). The CRAAP test. LOEX Quarterly, 31(3), Article 4.

Branley, D., Seale, C., & Zacharias, T. (2018). Doing a literature review. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching
society and culture (4th ed., pp. 64–78). SAGE.

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2020). Research design and

methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. SAGE.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.

Dane, F. C. (2018). Evaluating research: Methodology for people who need to read research (2nd ed.).

Fetters, M. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and
publishing projects. SAGE.

Greene, S., & Lidinsky, A. (2018). From inquiry to academic writing: A practical guide (4th ed.). Bedford/St.

Martin’s. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781319071677

Ingham-Broomfield, R. (2014). A nurses’ guide to the critical reading of research. Australian Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 32(1), 37–44.

Knott, D. (2009). Critical reading toward critical writing. University of Toronto, New College Writing Centre.






RCH 7302, Doctoral Writing and Inquiry Into Research 5



Kurland, D. J. (2000). What is critical reading? Critical Reading. http://criticalreading.com/critical_reading.htm

McGregor, S. L. T. (2018). Understanding and evaluating research: A critical guide. SAGE.

Newton, P. E. (2016). Macro- and micro-validation: Beyond the ‘five sources’ framework for classifying

validation evidence and analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 21, Article 12.

Suggested Unit Resources

In order to access the following resource, click the link below.

Recordings for Doctoral Students provides links to multiple recordings provided by Dr. Babb, CEO of the

Babb Group, on study habits, literature reviews, locating and evaluating resources, exploring literature to
being a research topic, and academic writing and tone. Transcripts for each recording are also provided.


Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality