Week 9:

A source that particularly stood out for me is an article by Sharon Marris, a news reporter for Sky News, and the article is titled, “Sir David Attenborough: Sea plastic's impact on albatross is 'heartbreaking.’” To be more precise, it wasn’t the article that stood out for me, but the video clip attached, which is of Sir David Attenborough addressing what he saw single-handedly in regard to Albatross and plastic on the beach, while filming Blue Planet. Sir David Attenborough, a very important broadcaster and natural historian, is my first character and his importance is his recognition of how plastic pollution really does have a direct affect to seabirds. In the video clip, Attenborough states how he saw an Albatross feeding its chick (baby), and what he saw was not food going into the baby’s mouth- but plastic.

Another source that stood out for me is apart of the Environmental Reviews Journal, by Jennifer F. Provencher, Alexander L. Bond, & Mark L. Mallory (2014), titled “Marine birds and plastic debris in Canada: a national synthesis and a way forward.” This research article stood out for me as it directly addresses my main argument which is “Why is plastic pollution such a danger to seabirds located in the Great Lakes?” The authors of the article are all of scholarly background. Provencher has a PhD in Biology and now currently works for Canadian Wildlife Service (Provencher, 2017), Bond is an ecologist and conservation biologist who specializes on marine birds (Bond, n.d.), and Mallory is an associate professor at Acadia University in the Biology department (“Mark L Mallory,” n.d.).

These characters are evident as they are experts in their field. I would consider their work to be a good source as their knowledge and experience in their fields not only allow for research to back up their argument, however, their first-hand experience also assures me that they are not a bias source. These characters tie together as they are both in relation to seabirds- and plastic in marine environments. These characters have the outlook that plastic is indeed impacting marine life, rather than claiming the opposite. They fit well with my episode topic as they provide both evidence and insight to the situation, and explain the impacts and dangers.


Bond, A. (n.d.). Applied Conservation and Biology. Retrieved from

“Mark L Mallory.” (n.d.). Retrieved from

Marris, S. (October 20, 2017). Sir David Attenborough: Sea plastic's impact on albatross is 'heartbreaking.’ Retrieved from

Provencher, J. (2017). Jennifer Provencher. Retrieved from

Provencher, J. F., Bond, A. L., & Mallory, M.L. (July 16, 2014). Marine birds and plastic debris in Canada: a national synthesis and a way forward. Environmental Reviews, 23(1), 1-13.

Phase Three: Coming soon will be over soon

Week 9 (March 15, 2019)

Welcome to the Final Phase!

Hear are my Podcast Characters:

Andrew Loku

Andrew Loku was killed by police in 2015 due a disputed he had with the apartment above his and had a hammer with him in the hallway. The dispute was a result of months worth of complaints about how much noise the apartment above him was making and he was having trouble to sleep because of it. The building had residents including Loku associated with the Canadian Mental Health Association, so there was the expectation to deescalate the situation because of his history with mental illness. However, based Loku friends and residents’ eye-witnessing accounts, the officers shot Loku within seconds of seeing the hammer without attempt to convince him to drop the hammer. Many said that this situation had only lasted seconds and Loku didn’t get a chance to react. Loku friends knew that this situation could’ve been prevented this type of behaviour was unlike Loku, for they knew him as a kind man who never lost his temper or hurt anybody. The police rash reaction to this situation had cause great controversy and protest from Black Lives Matter Toronto.

Mutaz Elmardy

In 2011, Mutaz Elmardy was detained by police from the disbanded Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy team (TAVIS) on suspicion of violating bail and possibly carrying gun. One of officers punched him twice in the face and then they cuffed him, leaving him on the icy ground for twenty to twenty-five minutes. The officers arrested Elmardy base on a hunch and carded him based on stereotypes and the colour of his skin. Elmardy went to courted on grounds that he was unlawfully arrested, searched and assaulted by one of the officers. Fortunately, when Elmardy appealed in 2015, he was awarded $27,000. In 2017, Divisional Court Judges granted his appeal and increase the total damages the police have to pay to $80,000.

Dafonte Miller (optional)

Note: Although this took place in Whitby, the officers involved were Toronto police officers.

In 2016, Dafonte Miller was confronted by and a police officer and his brother, and was interrogated about his whereabouts. The situation went out of control and Dafonte was chased, punched, and beaten with a metal pipe. Although Miller was arrested initially, his charges were dropped in 2017. Miller sustained serious injuries from the assault including a lost eye, broken nose and bruised wrist. Miller’s Lawyer got SIU involved in the case, and the officer and his brother are currently facing charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The trail still continues.

What’s the connection?

All threes cases were of Black persons that ended up beings victims to the police officers’ racial profiling and flawed ideologies. I chose these case to show a variety of results that Black people experience at the hand of police and how it affects the victims afterwards.


Gallant, J. (2017, April 8). Ontario court awards $80,000 to man who was punched, cuffed in case of racial profiling. Toronto Star. Retrieved from

Giroday, G. (2017, September 11). Damages awarded in racial profiling case. Law Times[Toronto]. Retrieved from

Goodfield, K. (2018, February 21). Dafonte Miller testifies at preliminary hearing for cop, brother accused of aggravated assault. CP24 [Toronto]. Retrieved from

Mitchell, J. (n.d.). Trial for Toronto cop, brother accused in Dafonte Miller assault case set for next February. Toronto Star. Retrieved from

Warnica, R. (2015, July 17). The life and bloody death of Andrew Loku: Toronto police officer’s face ‘went white as a ghost’ after shooting. National Post [Toronto]. Retrieved from


One source that I have found useful is this book and an essay that I found by Matthew Rubery. The book Rubery has published is a collection of essays by different authors that deal with audiobooks and their impacts on society. The essay is “Play It Again, Sam Weller: New Digital Audiobooks and Old Ways of Reading” looks at how audiobooks affect how we see literature in today’s society. Rubery’s works are good for my podcast because I believe he will be able to build credibility for what I am trying to convey. He has a PhD from Harvard and he is a professor in literature at the University of London. He also writes a lot about audiobooks as a means of reading; for instance, he even writes a blog about audiobook history.

Another source that I found useful is an eBook by Booknet Canada that shows statistics of the uses of audiobooks in 2018 in Canada. This is useful because it shows how many people are actually using audiobooks as a means of reading. Using Booknet Canada as one of my characters is useful because it gives the audience numbers instead of simply saying “audiobooks are on the rise”. 


Rubery, M. (Ed.). (2011). Audioboooks, Literature, and Sound Studies (Vol 31). New York: Routledge.

Rubery, M. (2008). Play It Again, Sam Weller: New Digital Audiobooks and Old Ways of Reading. Journal of Victorian Culture, 13(1),58-79. Retrieved from

Readers Are Listening: Audiobook Use in Canada 2018. (2018). Booknet Canada.Retrieved from

Phase Three

Week 9:

In another entry I mentioned 2 different pieces that I found were very complementary to each other. The entry I’m referring to is one that I made for week 6. To sum it up; I found one had a more bias directing study for it to lead to a specific outcome being against videogames. The other was much less biased and directing to the other side being all for videogames. The studies looked to me to be structured in a way that would provide a desired outcome that they would want for their study to have. This is just my opinion after all, but to me it does look that way when I looked closely at the two. I could use them as characters by engaging them amongst each other and also possibly these two in a short comparing and contrasting way. It could show how different people’s opinions are on the topic and that there are so many different opinions on this topic.


Work Referenced to:

Schutte, Nicola S., et al. “Effects of Playing Videogames on Children’s Aggressive and Other Behaviors 1.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18.5 (1988): 454-460. Retrieved March. 14, 2019.

Van Schie, Emil GM, and Oene Wiegman. "Children and Videogames: Leisure Activities, Aggression, Social Integration, and School Performance 1." Journal of applied social psychology 27.13 (1997): 1175-1194. Retrieved March. 14, 2019.

Phase Three-Out to Sea

Week 9

I found two sources to be possible characters for my podcast. 

Dr. Pia Orrenius has a PhD in economics from the University of California. Dr. Orrenius the Vice President and Senior Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and manages the regional and microeconomics group in the Research Department. Her research focuses on the Mexico-U.S. migration, unauthorized immigration and U.S. immigration policy (Economists, Pia M. Orrenius).

Daniel Griswold is the Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University. Griswold has a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a Masters in the Politics of the World Economy from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Griswold is a nationally recognized expert on trade and immigration policy (Daniel Griswold). 

Both of these characters are experts in their field and complement each other as one holds a PhD, the other does not. One specializes in unauthorized immigration and the other is an expert on economic trade relations. 

Works Cited

Economists, Pia M. Orrenius. (n.d.) Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Retrieved on March 14, 2019 from

Daniel Griswold. (n.d.) Mercatus Center George Mason University. Retrieved on March 14, 2019 from

Phase Three

Week Nine

As the recording of the final podcast episode comes closer and closer, particular sources have proven themselves very helpful. The first one would be a report by the U.S. Government of Justice, which deals with False Rape Reports and Rape Reports in General. This source is so helpful because it is from a reliable source and gives me the exact data I need to prove my point. Another source that stands out for me is an article by Eli Watkins for CNN, in which the details about the Kavanaugh case are outlined. This source helped me to fully understand the case. Furthermore, other articles about the accusations have helped also (Hauser, 26 September 2018; Abrams, 4 October 2018).

My sources are secondary characters in my podcast episode. They complement each other in a way that they all prove my point and make my episode more interesting. It gives me more credibility using sources as characters in my episode. Only through the usage of sources a valid point can be proven.


Abrams, A. (2018, 4 October). Here Are All the People We Know the FBI Talked to for the Kavanaugh Report. TIME Magazine Retrieved from                                                                     

Hauser, C. (2018, 26 September). The Women Who Have Accused Brett Kavanaugh. The              New York Times. Retrieved from                                                                                                      women.html

Rennison, C.M. (2002). Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention,      1992-2002. US Department of Justice. Retrieved from                                                        

Watkins, E. (2018, 17 September). Timeline: How the Kavanaugh accusations have unfolded.    CNN, Retrieved from    timeline/index.html

Phase Two

Week 8: The Map

Podcast Episode Outline

Tentative podcast episode title: Getting on the Good Side of Gaming

Research Questions: Why do people play video games? What are the positive aspects of video games?

Opinion Piece: The Real Problem with Video Games by Seth Schiesel

Significance: Video games are perceived a “problem” by many. Donald Trump blames them for making young people violent. Seth Schiesel in his opinion piece criticizes Trump but is unable to step out of the problem-solving rhetoric and details all the evils within the gaming community that are “real problems”. While I agree that video games are problematic, I am critical of the approach that is taken by experts and analysts that begin with negativity. It is very rare to see a discussion about the merits of video games. I believe my podcast can highlight the benefits of playing video games, while taking a critical look at its problems.

 Intro (5 minutes)

I will begin my podcast with a 20 seconds long audio clip of Trump’s interview, retrieved from the Time magazine website, in which he comments about violence in video games shaping young people’s minds. Then I will talk about the narrative around video games being overly critical of its problems and without a discussion of the benefits of video games. I will provide some examples of common stereotypes. Then I will introduce my research questions: Why do people play video games if they are so problematic? What are the positive aspects of video games?

Analysis (10 minutes)

  • In my analysis, I will first present statistics and studies that refute Trump’s claim that video games make young people violent in real life.

  • Then I will talk about my chosen opinion piece by Seth Schiesel called, The Real Problem with Video Games. I will provide a brief summary of the main idea of the article and present my criticism of it.

  • I will present research into the benefits of gaming. My two main scholarly source for this part includes the research study about Mind Light, the video game that helps children with anxiety.

  • Finally I will present my testimonials from gaming communities where interviewees will talk about their favourite video games and the impact these games had in their lives. I will also share my experience dealing with mental illness and using video games to cope.

 Ending (5 Minutes)

  • I will reiterate my criticism of the rhetoric that video games are problems and are not capable of offering anything other than pure entertainment.

  • I will emphasize that gaming has been beneficial for many and for gamers the benefits outweigh the negative. Every community has its flaws and the gaming community is no different.

  • I will mention the roadblocks I hit in my research, such as finding very little data that focused on experiences of female gamers or gamers of various gender and sexual orientations. That could be a topic of investigation in the future for me



Opinion Piece:

Schiesel, S. (2018, March 13). The Real Problem With Video Games. Retrieved from


Tsui, T. Y. L. (2016). The efficacy of a novel video game intervention (mindlight) in reducing children's anxiety (Order No. 10663644). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1951294086). Retrieved from

 University of York. (2018, January 16). No evidence to support link between violent video games and behavior. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 27, 2019 from


Ducharme, J. (2018, March 08). Donald Trump Blames Video Games for School Shootings. Retrieved from




Week 7: A Sidequest

 I think policies and institutional sources can be useful in research and valuable for finding primary data.

My topic is focused on the benefits of video games and so far, I have not really considered government policies or institutional sources for my podcast. I have come across several articles that discuss municipal or federal regulations around various problematic corporate practices, such as the “loot box” system in video games. The loot box system in video games is a form of micro transaction system in which players pay real money to purchase an in-game pack or box that has randomized rewards in it. The problem with this system is the randomization, which works like slot machines in casinos, and players are known to dole out hundreds of dollars trying to get the item they want. In Belgium for example, the government banned loot boxes in video games as it is considered gambling and dangerous for young gamers.

I am considering a look into the policies of gaming companies around regulation in their community spaces where players interact with each other. Seth Schiesel’s opinion piece, the inspiration behind my podcast, mentions Blizzard Entertainment’s policies around tackling toxicity in their gaming community and it could be a point of interest for my research.


Week 6: Time to Grind

Scholarly sources are often primary sources with data, experimentation, and peer-reviewed for credibility.

 I did a keyword search on ProQuest, a research database accessible to York University Students, with “Video Games” and “Psychology”. After scrolling through several papers, I found one that really intrigued me. It was a thesis published by Tiffany Tsui at Queen’s University which talked about an intervention study involving the video game “Mindlight” and its ability to reduce anxiety among children. In this study, 144 children suffering with stress and anxiety related symptoms were randomly assigned to two groups- one that received psycho-education (information on stress, anxiety, coping etc.), the other were asked to play the video game for five hours over three weeks. The results showed that playing the video game was just as efficient at reducing symptoms of stress and anxiety among children as other common methods of therapy. The paper is titled: “The efficacy of a novel video game intervention (Mindlight) in reducing children's anxiety”, published in 2016.

My second scholarly source is a qualitative study conducted by Lawrence Kutner and his colleagues at the Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital in 2008. This research involved interviewing parents and their sons (11- 14 years old) about their perspective on video games. The goal of this was to uncover the different view points and identify the concerns related to video games that affected both parents and the children.

I do have criticism of this study for not including any girls or transgender children as the information it provided was only relevant to parents with sons. This led me to trail off a bit as I started searching for studies that involved a mix of male and female gamers, or LGBT-gamers etc. What I discovered is that there is a serious lack of studies that include female, transgender or other LGBT-gamers. I have made a note to dig into this more in the future.

 The grind continues.




Scholarly Sources:

Kutner, L. A., Olson, C. K., Warner, D. E., & Hertzog, S. M. (2008). Parents' and sons' perspectives on video game play. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(1), 76-96. doi:


Tsui, T. Y. L. (2016). The efficacy of a novel video game intervention (mindlight) in reducing children's anxiety (Order No. 10663644). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1951294086). Retrieved from

Week 5: Point Me to the Loot!

Popular sources are usually our first point of contact with a breaking news or social issue. In this social media age, we spend hours of our lives scrolling through Facebook, Instagram and Twitter where articles pop up on our feed long before we turn on the tv or open an actual newspaper (do people even do that anymore?) for current events. For gaming related news, analysis and industry information, the best places to turn to are all popular sources – IGN, Kotaku, Reddit, GameInformer etc.

According to McMaster University Library’s research guide: “Popular sources are usually written to inform, entertain or persuade the general public, so they tend to use everyday language accessible to all types of readers and don’t usually include a list of references, even if they might refer to the resources they used indirectly.”

Some popular sources are more credible than others. There is a shortcut to discerning that when we do research called PARCA. It stands for Purpose, Authority, Relevance, Currency and Accuracy. This measure works as a guide for finding credible sources of information. When we come across a popular source as researchers, the questions we need to ask are these- why does this article exist, who wrote it, why is it important, when was it written and is it reliable?

Keywords are like those red claw prints that lead to a werewolf’s den or helps you track down a glowing yellow treasure chest deep under the sea when you turn on your Witcher senses. They point to the loot. They’re clues. Your job as researcher is to identify them so you can uncover the most information. For my podcast, I have been searching for Video Games and adding the following- Mental Health, Psychology, Violence, Parenting, LGBTQ, Aggression, Trump etc.

Next up is the grind! I will be hunting and gathering articles and building up a knowledge base for my podcast. Stay tuned!





Phase #

Week 9

Franziska Schreiber: a German author and former board member of AfD who preaches against the cause she was once a part of.

Alice Weidel:  the leader and repersentative of AfD in the Bundestag since October 2017. She has been prominent in the Bundestag since 2017 in which during the federal elections she ran as AfD’s lead representative along with Alexander Gauland.

Arthur Wagner:  a politician in the AfD who shocked both colleagues and observer upon converting to Islam despite previously leading movements decrying Islam in Europe. He has not left AfD, instead he remains in the party in hopes of bridging understanding between muslims and members of the alt-right.

These Characters are all related in the sense they all have some form of ties to the AfD. Schreiber is an ex member, Weidel is the leader of the party, and Wagner is an attempting reformist of it. Each of these characters have a unique insight into the rise of AfD and the reasoning behind it. Through their writing, speeches, and interviews, I can have analyze their statements in my podcast, break them down, and use them to make sense of the topic I am talking about.  To explain my topic, I need to see things from different viewpoints, as it is stated, know your enemy.

Phase 2: Electric Booglaoo

Week 5: Entertainment Versus Education

                When trying to gather research for this assignment, the first thing I did was Google “what is a popular source”, and managed to take myself right to a link describing it. This link is run by a University Library, well-written, and the website is clean and professional. Obviously this is a scholarly website, the direct opposite of a popular source. So what is exactly is a popular source?

                According to the University of Victoria, ‘popular’ sources are like the fun eccentric cousin to the well-refined ‘scholarly’ source. They tend to be general interest stories, usually written by the public instead of a scholar or academic. They’re rarely cited, or at least done loosely, and because these aren’t someone’s academic work, they aren’t peer reviewed. It doesn’t mean they aren’t edited, more that they’re looked at for form and content more than the logistical basis.

                My first thought for a ‘popular’ source was Buzzfeed. To compare sources, I’ll zero in on my favourite Youtube series: Buzzfeed Unsolved True Crime. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a series where the two hosts discuss interesting cold cases, half information and half banter. The information is always well-researched and correct, but it’s more entertainment than education. I could just as easily get the same info from a report on the crime-of-the-week, but this one is ‘popular’ whereas a report would be ‘scholarly’. To me, it seems to come down to the reason for the piece: is it more to educate, or more to entertain?

                The problem with this is credibility. I’d definitely be entertained by someone telling me they fought a bear on the way to school, but did it really happen? Evaluating popular sources certainly isn’t as easy as scholarly ones, where the facts are cited and peer-reviewed. Plus a University is usually slapping it’s name on it, and you know they don’t want misinformation tacked onto them, so it’s usually a safe bet. In the end for popular sources, it comes down to backing up the research elsewhere. Are they the only ones talking about it? What do they gain from what they’re saying? Who’s paying for this? It’s important to be critical of sources, popular ones more than ever, and ask yourself what exactly the author has to gain if they aren’t being truthful…

                Keywords are literature’s Cheat Sheet, a single word that sums up exactly what you’re talking about and lays it out plain. This is extremely important for podcasts, where listeners want to get right to ‘the good part’ and know what’s up. An elevator pitch is almost always key words (or buzz words), to get the audiences attention, so you want to pack as much emotion and information into just one word.

Here’s a list of my keywords that I hope will draw in a curious audience:

  • Misogyny

  • Oppression

  • Fandom

  • Conformity

  • Reformation

  • Freedom

  • Censorship

  • Authenticity

  • Inclusion


Bergara, R., & Madej, S. (n.d.). BuzzFeed Unsolved Network. Retrieved from

Scholarly or popular sources. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2019, from


Week 6: Researching Research

                The first ‘scholarly’ article I came upon was called “Homophobia, heteronormativity, and slash fan fiction” by April S. Callis, and I found it by means of a simple Google search of ‘fanfiction homophobia’. When I got to this journal, I had stocked up on popular sources and was itching to find something with more academic backing. Of course, I hadn’t yet delved into any academic drives or libraries (my own fault, of course), but it was encouraging to find a journal written for a University—Norther Kentucky University, to be exact—with plenty of works cited from just your run-of-the-mill Googling.

                This journal talks about Star Trek ‘slash fic’, a slang term for fanfiction with a homosexual love-line, which is often considered to be one of the milestones of Queer Fanfiction. This article is really helpful for establishing a timeline of fanfiction (and the backlash against it) and provides me with a lot of facts about discrimination and censorship that’s directed at fanfiction.

                My second article is one called “J.R.R. Tolkien, Fanfiction, and "The Freedom of The Reader"” by Megan B. Abrahamson. I found it by using an Academic database, and was a little wary at first. Single author with no obvious Academic ties, published by something called ‘Mythlore’? It sounded to me like someone’s fantasy blog. But the writing was well-done, the works were cited, the research was clearly there. It was border-line scholarly, with just the author and publisher landing in the popular-source-warning-zone. I almost tossed it into my ever-growing pile of popular sources. But, on a whim, I decided to dig a bit deeper; the end-all-be-all was of course whatever this ‘Mythlore’ was, and upon research, I was surprised and relieved to find out it was in fact an academic journal dedicated to the study of Myth and Fantasy. A little odd, but academic nonetheless, with peer-reviews and funding from (insert triumphant trumpet fan-fare) the Southwestern Oklahoma State University Libraries. Scholarly, right there in the title.

                This was a perfect example of researching your research to check its credibility, and finding out where exactly the opinion is coming from. It would have been fine as a popular source, but if I include this article in my podcast, I’ll be sure to bring up Mythlore’s interesting background.

                But moving away from the article’s credentials, the content itself is extremely helpful. It dates fanfiction all the way back to Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”, even before it, and helps make my timeline of authors-versus-fans. A big part of my podcast is how authors feel about their works being developed, and this article highlights Tolkien’s complex opinion. It also contradicts some of his negativity with other academics highlighting the importance of fanfiction in creating modern literature with ‘published fanfiction’ (works that are slightly altered from their original source to become their own works) which I’m planning on speaking about. Overall, this article touches on most of the things I will, so it’s going to be my ride-along partner for this project.

                In searching ‘fanfiction’ anywhere, it’s often met with a wave of popular sources. Not that this is bad, as fanfiction really is ‘the people’s work’, and popular sources will play a key role. But I’ve found that if I want academic sources, I really have to dig, or otherwise limit my search to databases or Google Scholar. My first scholarly article was pure luck, but finding my one on Tolkien was far more calculated. I’ve learned that research isn’t as easy as plugging it all into Google; there’s strategy involved here, and sometimes you really do have to research your research.

References (and a reference for a reference)

Abrahamson, M. B. (2013). J.R.R. Tolkien, Fanfiction, and "The Freedom of The Reader". Mythlore, 32(1), 55+. Retrieved from

Callis, A. S. (2016). Homophobia, heteronormativity, and slash fan fiction. Transformative Works and Cultures, no. 22. Retrieved from

Mythlore. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2019, from

Week 7: The Man, The People, And How To Make a Clock

                When I think of fanfiction, the last thing I think about is government, industry, or institution. Fanfiction is the people’s art, it’s fast-paced and rebellious, sprung from the Zine comic books which were taped under bar tables so like-minded people could find them and ‘the man’ wouldn’t. But moving forward, as fanfiction steps out from crowded cafes and into the spotlight of publication houses, the industry has started to get more involved.

                Industry is where a lot of the censorship happens, and I know this first hand from personal talks with publishers, authors, and agents. These industry professionals give me good insight into the mind of the published literary world, one of the key players in my podcast. And it’s not all bad, a local editor named Brian Henry runs a literary blog that puts out calls from publishers, and sometimes they ask specifically for ‘diverse stories’ with characters of colour and queer characters. Perhaps tokenism, perhaps not, impossible to tell from one glance. The industry plays a huge role in my podcast, because it’s the big filter of what stays on the internet and what ends up in books.

                As for government, I’ll probably use that for some of the harder facts. Stats Canada can get me numbers for homophobic, transphobic, or racist hate crimes to help substantiate my argument that these are still modern issues. While the government doesn’t talk about fanfiction, it certainly unknowingly delves into some of the issues that create it. I think it’s about looking at the big picture, all the little gears that turn the hands of the Fanfiction-clock. Industry professionals and their websites to show censorship or desire, government statistics to lay a foundation. It all comes together in the end, and proves that there are sources everywhere you look if you think about factors alongside the idea.


Henry, B. (n.d.). Book publishers. Retrieved from publishers

Macdonald, A. (2017). Personal interview.

Simpson, L. (2018, May 31). Violent victimization of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in Canada, 2014. Retrieved from

Week 8: (Hopefully)Constructive Rambling


-Matteo L. Cerilli



Topic: Women’s reproductive rights.

Opinion Piece: Melinda Gates, National Geographic: Opinion: Want to Empower Women Worldwide? Give them access to Contraceptives.

Focus Questions: What role does the Catholic Church play in restricting women’s reproductive rights in Poland?

Significance: When the church interferes with political law making it becomes detrimental to human rights.

[INTRO: 5 minutes]

 Personal Experience

In a brief personal story, I will share with the audience my experience accessing contraceptives in Canada.

 Some Statistics:

How many women currently have access to contraceptives around the world?

How many women currently have access to safe abortions around the world?

 Thesis and Focus Question:

Reproductive rights are human rights and here’s why.

What role does the Catholic Church play in restricting women’s reproductive rights in Poland?

[BODY: 13 minutes]

Anecdotal Evidence:

I will have a woman who is around the same age as me share their experience accessing contraceptives in Poland (I have a couple of friends in Poland who I can interview over the phone or a couple friends here in Toronto who were raised in Poland who can speak to this experience)

 Evidence: Why and how can the lack of access to contraceptives and safe abortions be attributed to Catholic Church?

 Introduce expert: Who are they and why is their viewpoint significant to the argument. What is their credibility?

 Expert Clip: Catholic Priest- What is the Catholic Church’s view on contraceptives and abortion?

 Introduce Expert: Professor of Gender Studies

 Expert Clip: What are the consequence of restricting access to women’s rights. 

 [CONCLUSION: 2 minutes]

 What is the significance of my findings and why does it matter? : When the church interferes with political law making it becomes detrimental to human rights.


Different Sources Present Different Challenges

In this podcast, a key question that I am exploring is “What is preventing women from having access to contraceptives?”  

While most of my current research has been focused on journalistic articles, scholarly sources and anecdotal evidence, I do fee that government; industry and institutional sources will be a huge asset to offering a balanced perspective.

I would like to be able to research and understand the information women are being given about contraceptives in different countries around the world. Is information being withheld? Are they being given false information?  It is also important to understand the government’s policy and laws surrounding contraceptives. The reality is that all of this information is not very easy to find. 

In western countries where contraceptives are more easily accessible than for example, developing countries, the data and information is much easier to access.

Of course it makes sense that in countries where access to contraceptive is limited, the information would be limited as well. None the less, It presents a unique challenge to a researcher when the information is not easily available online. In trying to compile data for countries where the government is not keeping track, it is beneficial to find reputable NGO’s. Reliable sources include Human Right’s Watch, WHO and the UN these organizations all track data on issues relating to Women’s Rights including contraceptive and reproductive rights.

Scholarly Sources Examined

A scholarly source is a resource that is written by an expert in a particular field and is reviewed by his or her peers.  When reading scholarly sources, it is sometimes easier to verify the author’s information due to the necessity of citations and bibliographies. Scholarly articles tend to rely more on verified facts and empirical data as opposed to anecdotal evidence. One thing I’ve noticed is that scholarly articles very rarely come to a definitive conclusion due to the complexity of the questions they are addressing.

There are a couple of scholarly resources I have come across that have proven to be beneficial to my podcast research. The first is an article written by Jacqueline Heinen and Stephane Portet. I found it through the YorkU Library Online search engine. The article was published in Third World Quarterly, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal. The title of the article is Reproductive Rights in Poland: when politicians fear the wrath of the Church.

This article caught my attention right away, as it is a key focus of my research during this process; the role of the government and religion in restricting women’s access to contraceptives. 

Poland is a great example of a country in which this issue is very prominent. The article discusses the role of the Catholic Church and Polish nationalism in restricting women’s rights and prosecuting those who try to resist.

Having recently spent 4 months in Poland and being of polish decent myself, I find that many of the ideas and evidence presented in this article echo the stories I heard from women who are currently living in Poland and even my own relatives, who despite being raised in Canada were still surrounded by traditional polish values and religious doctrines in their homes and communities. Thus I feel I am able to support this article with my own anecdotal evidence.

The second resource that I have found to be useful is a piece about the ethics and law surrounding reproductive health as a human right. It has helped me to understand the correlation between law, ethics and medicine and how they relate to women’s reproductive rights. It also explores the role of societal views on the implementation of reproductive law.

The results of your search can very, depending on the database you’re using. For example when I searched a law database, most of the results contained keywords of Justice and Law whereas when I searched the science database only a few results came up and included keywords like Darwin, Cloning,  and Science.

 Therefore, I would conclude that you can cater your search results by choosing different databases.

Scholarly resources are a great tool to further explore a topic and can be used to back up evidence, information and ideas presented in popular sources.


Heinen, Jacqueline, et Stéphane Portet. « Droits reproductifs en Pologne : la peur des politiciens face à la morgue de l'Église », Cahiers du Genre, vol. hs no 3, no. 3, 2012, pp. 139-160.

Cook, Rebecca J., et al. Reproductive Health and Human Rights. Oxford University Press, 2003.

A Source of Discussion

When searching the web to learn about a specific topic I often come across popular sources. Wikipedia, The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, personal blogs, YouTube and even social media posts are all popular sources that support the sharing of information. With the development of the Internet, using popular sources as a way of educating ourselves has become more and more acceptable. But it’s important to assess the credibility of a popular source before taking it at its word. 

The PARCA test is a useful way to evaluate the validity of a popular source.

We must start by asking ourselves what is the PURPOSE of the resource? Is it to sell, teach, promote or entertain? Are the author’s intentions clear and is the information based off fact or opinion? Does the others viewpoint include personal biases and does it support a verity of perspectives?

The next question is the question of AUTHORITY. Where is the piece published? Who is the author and what are their credentials?

REVELANCE. Is the piece relevant to your topic and how does it support or contrast your viewpoint?

And finally, the last two questions relate to CURRENCY and ACCURACY. When was the resource published and is it the most current information available on the topic? Are the author’s claims supported y evidence and have they been reviewed by other experts.

When we approach popular sources with a critical mind and ask ourselves the above questions, then popular sources can be an amazing tool in the research process.

 Keywords will help to keep you on track during your search and aid in narrowing down results. Some key words that are relevant to my podcast include;

 Contraceptives, birth control, abortion, women’s rights, reproductive rights, human rights, feminism, religion, government.

-Simone Kitchen 

Phase 2

Week 5

A popular source is text that was written, with its main audience and purpose not pertaining to that of academic or scholarly texts. Popular sources can be very useful for various forms of research, I believe this because it offers a different point of view on the topic at hand, one which typically will not be offered within academic or scholarly sources. A popular source does not automatically equal an uncredible source, but of course there are some uncredible popular sources. One way to evaluate the credibility of a popular source is by using the PARCA test. While completing PARCA, you should be answering the following questions, ‘What is the purpose of this text?’ ‘Who is the author of this text, and on what authority are they writing it?’ ‘What is this text’s relevance to your needs?’ ‘How current and up to date is the text’ and ‘Is the information presented in the text reliable?’.

Keywords are words used to to make your researching more efficient. Keywords are essentially words, or short phrases that you can use to search for information about your topic. Keywords are essential in researching, this is because it makes the entire process of researching much simpler. In searching keywords you widen your horizons from subtopic to subtopic that are related to your overall theme, that you may have not originally even knew existed or considered.

Some keywords I have collected are as follows:

-Police Carding

-Racial Police Targeting

-Racial Profiling

-Policy Policy


Week 6:

In my research for this podcast I have looked into a large number of scholarly sources related to my topic, some helpful, and some not so helpful. Though, in searching through Google Scholar, I typed in the keywords, ‘police carding Toronto’ and I came across a very insightful and helpful scholarly paper, titled “Is here Racial Discrimination in Police Stop-and-Searches of Black Youth? A Toronto Case Study”, written by Meng, Y., Giwa, S. & Anucha, U, from the University of Alberta. This article does a deep dive into the discrimination of young black youths by the police. They discuss the likelihood of police stopping a young black person, much higher than them stopping a white person, and they also discuss the police’s targeting of specific neighbourhoods and regions, based on race and the people that live there. The goal of the paper appears to be to uncover the link that seems to exist between race and location, with how often you are stopped by Toronto Police Services.

Another scholarly source I have found during my research was written for the University of Toronto by Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, titled “Black Males' Perceptions of and Experiences with the Police in Toronto”. What is different about this scholarly source though is that it is a 350 page paper with a ton of research! This means it is of course impossible to use the entire paper in my podcast, so I will be going through it and combing it for things that would be useful and relevant to my podcast. Bempah includes a ton of his own personal research about black people being and feeling targeted by Toronto police which I intend to try and include in my podcast as much as I can. Again to find this article I used the keywords ‘police carding Toronto’ in Google Scholar, I have found this to be quite effective.

Searching for sources in different databases has found to be a little difficult. I believe this is because the issue of police carding black youths through racial profiling is a pretty niche topic, and therefore in specific databases, like ones for science, it is a a little difficult to find anything I can use in my podcast.

Week 7

Government and municipal reports completely aid me in the creation of my podcast. Since my topic has to do with the policies and working of a municipally ran organization, the Toronto Police Services, there have been relevant documents I have found that could be of use to me whilst creating my podcast episode. Although I may not choose to discuss these documents directly in the span of my podcast episode, but do know that they influence my work and the direction it goes in.

Week 8:

Podcast Outline Audiofile:

Episode Outline:

Topic: The police practice of collecting contact cards in Toronto.

Opinion Piece: “Police carding ought to be an anathema in a free society. How is it still up for debate?” written by Chris Selley for National Post

Focus question: Is the Toronto police racially profiling male black youths, and excessively targeting them with carding?

Significance: My topic is very significant because it addressing the issue of racial profiling in the Toronto police force, in terms of a policy that could possibly be allowing for it to happen.

Introduction (4 minutes)

  • Anecdote

    • I will begin with including an anecdote from documentarian Desmond Cole, who has been carded by police in or around the GTA a total of over 50 times

  • Introduction of topic and the focus question

  • Brief explanation of what police carding is, for those who do not know

Body (12 minutes)

  • Brief discussion and explanation of the central opinion piece

  • Discussion of the Star’s expose, and uncovered secret documents about the TPS and the culture of the organization

  • Presentation of statistics

  • Studies done about carding and their views and facts they present

  • Discussion of legality

    • Prior policies around carding

    • Current policies about carding

      • The division regarding whether or not previously collected data should be allowed to be used presently

  • Provide anecdotal evidence

  • Provide opposing opinion

    • Why carding is good for our society

    • Who supports it

    • Can it be a useful tool?

  • Injection of my opinion

Conclusion (4 minutes)

  • Reiteration of focus question

  • Recap of presented information, and proof to support the answer to the focus question

  • Provide a universal comment to connect everything together and close it off; possibly regarding; the practice of carding, or discrimination of black youths by the police force


Opinion Piece:

Selley, Chris. “Chris Selley: Police Carding Ought to Be an Anathema in a Free Society.

How Is It Still up for Debate?” National Post, 5 Jan. 2019,

Other Sources:

Johnstone, Marjorie, and Eunjung Lee. "State Violence and the Criminalization of Race:

Epistemic Injustice and Epistemic Resistance as Social Work Practice Implications." Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work 27.3 (2018): 234-52. Web.

“Carding.” Law Union of Ontario, 25 May 2014,

“Carding a Useful Police Tool.”, Toronto Star, 13 May 2015,

Meng, Y., Giwa, S., & Anucha, U. (2015). Is There Racial Discrimination in Police

Stop-and-Searches of Black Youth? A Toronto Case Study. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien De Famille Et De La Jeunesse,7(1).

Landsberg, M. (2017, May 15). Former Toronto Star columnist Michele Landsberg calls out paper's bosses for Desmond Cole "blunder". Retrieved from

Lytle, D. (2010). Neighborhood racial context and perceptions of police-based discrimination among black youth. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,33(1).

The Skin We're In. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Here's What You Need to Know About Carding. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Phase II:

Week V: The Source Awakens

In lecture, Professor Bell touched on four different types of sources from which we could accrue information. As she mentioned, a popular source is generally written for the consumption of the public, be it to inform, persuade, motivate or otherwise. Popular sources come in various forms including but not limited to Blogs, Organization websites, Social media, Popular books, etc. Popular sources are not originally intended for use by academics for scholarly purposes. This, however, doesn’t mean they are always unreliable or unfit for use as a resource for academic researchers, like us.

The PARCA method -which stands for Purpose, Authority, Relevance, Currency, and Accuracy- helps evaluate a popular source’s credibility. Acknowledging the biases of the author, the platform and the company they represent is a good way to establish the credibility of a popular source. A good way to ensure that you are getting a complete and thorough look at an issue you are researching is to use multiple sources of different types.

When used efficiently, keywords -terms with certain relevance to a topic- optimize the results that search engines can provide us. Sources that have an abundance of keywords relevant to your topic are helpful as a starting point to research as you build upon your piece and to verify credibility. Some keywords I have used whilst working on this podcast topic are: genome editing, Bio-hacking, bioethics, CRISPR CAS/9, and eugenics. This particular piece benefits from investigation into particular people who are heavily involved in the field, I have used their names as keywords in my research as well: Emmanuelle Charpentier, Jennifer Doudna, He Jiankui, Josiah Zayner and Aaron Traywick.


Ash SK

Phase Two


After a thorough research, I found out that there were plenty of government, industry and institutional sources in support of women which is understandable. However, my topic is about the possibility of women being aggressor and as a result only a little was found. On the Ontario Government website, a separate page is set up for anyone who has been a victim of sexual harassment. As for institutional, I could use York as an example as I’ve seen several posters being put up around campus in support of the victims. There are also workshops, support groups and a “Male Identified Group” where they talk about toxic masculinity and help survivors seek support.


Scholarly sources are written mainly for academic purposes. And so, I have looked into two articles for my podcast. The first scholarly source i referred with is “An Exploratory Study of Women as Dominant Aggressors of Physical Violence in Their Intimate Relationships” written by Lisa Conradi, Robert Geffner, L.Kevin Hamberger and Gary Lawson. I accessed this source through York University’s online library. The article reports a qualitative study focusing on dominant women aggressors. A total of ten individuals participated in a clinical interview. The results led to factors that were already embedded in the women’s lives since childhood. The factors included history of trauma, intergenerational transmission of violence, gender role identification and sociocultural factors.

The second source I found is “What it really takes to stop sexual harassment” written by Brendan L. Smith. This article is a feature in Good Company which is a newsletter from APA's Center for Organizational Excellence. The article examines the documentation on sexual harassment and finds that complaints by males have increased in the recent years. This article in particular was very helpful since, it was extremely detailed and made me view from a different perspective.


Lisa Conradi, Robert Geffner, L.Kevin Hamberger and Gary Lawson. (2009, October 13). An Exploratory Study of Women as Dominant Aggressors of Physical Violence in Their Intimate Relationships. Retrieved March 15, 2019 from

Brendan L. Smith. (2018, February). What it really takes to stop sexual harassment. Retrieved March 15, 2019 from


The term “popular source” is used to describe the content of a source when the tone is more anecdotal. Many of our research projects require us to dig up information from scholarly sources, however, there is a valuable amount of information found in publications that are popular like newspapers and magazines. These sources are aimed at readers who are more comfortable with an informal and casual tone. Some examples of “popular sources” are: Vanity Fair, National Geographic, Time Magazine etc.

A keyword is like a hint given in escape rooms. The word is so significant that one can get the idea of an entire content. The key words used for my topic are: aggressor, sexual harassment, discrimination, intolerance, equality.


WEEK 5 - May the SOURCE be with you

Popular sources are sources where you can find information on general interests. they are not necessarily unreliable just because they are popular, these sources just explain what are in the scholarly articles in a short and more understandable way to the greater public. These sources are not exactly the scholarly sources we are used to having to use in an academic setting, but they are still quite informational as long as they meet the standards of the PARCA test, which evaluates the Purpose, Authority, Relevance, Currency and Accuracy of the source. Evaluating the sources, is a very important step, in order to make sure that you are given the right information to use in an academic setting without having to limit yourself to using only scholarly sources. 

Before researching for the necessary sources we need for our final project, it is important to single out the keywords from the one opinion piece we are basing this whole assignment on, because those keywords are what we are going to need to be searching for within the sources that we are going to use, to make sure that they are all within the same topic or at least somewhat related and not going too far away from the topic. These keywords will also help identify the relevance it has to the main topic. For example, some keywords that I came up with when going through the opinion piece I chose “love your body”, were self-love, self-validation, Self-confidence, body acceptance, beauty standards effects, social degrading effects, and these are just some of many keywords that can be helpful when getting deeper into research. 


PARCA Test_Final.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Title, Abstract and Keywords. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2019, from

Using Popular Sources | Library. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2019, from

WEEK 6 - Helpful Sources

            While doing my research for the podcast, that will essentially be about how lack of medical validation, or validation in general can affect our validation for ourselves and the pain we feel and in turn affect the love we have for ourselves and our body, I found some scholarly resources that will be particularly helpful. The sources are “The social and psychological impact of endometriosis on women’s lives: a critical narrative review” by Lorraine Culley, Caroline Law, Nicky Hudson, Elaine Denny, Helene Mitchell, Miriam Baumgarten, and Nick Raine-Fenning; and the other source is “Women's experience of endometriosis” by Elaine Denny. I found these sources on Google Scholar while doing a general search with no specified database subject, with keywords such as, psychological effects of endometriosis diagnosis and endometriosis. When Trying to do research with a specified research with a particular database area, I would get little to no results, and even the results I would get were not related to the topic. This might have been because I was looking in the wrong subject area or using wrong keywords, which might explain why others had a different experience. The two articles I found both have information on how doctors tend to normalize the pain women are feeling which brings feelings of fear, self-doubt, hopelessness, isolation, worthlessness and depression. 


Culley, L., Law, C., Hudson, N., Denny, E., Mitchell, H., Baumgarten, M., & Raine-Fenning, N. (2013). The social and psychological impact of endometriosis on women’s lives: a critical narrative review. Human Reproduction Update19(6), 625–639.

Denny, E. (2004). Women’s experience of endometriosis. Journal of Advanced Nursing46(6), 641–648.

WEEK 7 - Source Digging

While doing research for my podcast about doctors normalizing women’s pain and how that leads to a long process to being diagnosed for endometriosis, it is important to be thorough in order to get as many information as possible, but also information that is detailed, credible and as close to reality as possible. And government, industry, or institutional sources might be helpful for many topics such as immigration, contraception, even about the new marijuana legalization, but with my topic, there are not much institutional information about it, because I feel like it’s not a topic that has been spoken about a lot. With my topic, there are more journal articles on case studies, or news articles than any other sources. And although I tried to find some government, industry, or institutional sources, the search was not very fruitful, although it would be useful to have some statistics directly from Ontario institutions about how many women go undiagnosed because of the normalization that is done by doctors.

WEEK 8 - Let’s Talk…

Lisa Raposo

Phase Two

Week 8

Thesis Question: What has lead to the rise of  far right politics in Germany?

  • Topic: The Rise of the Far Right in Canada

  • Opinion Piece: Monia Mazigh, “The rise of a politics of hate in Canada”  is a piece that talks about the rise of xenophobia politics in Canada. This is similar to the rise of AfD in Germany, except for the fact that in Germany there has long been a history associated with far the far right, and history seems to be repeating itself.   

  • Significance: Germany is one of the most prominent members of the EU, many seeing it as the leading figure. A far right political government seizing power would mean a radical change in the direction the EU progresses.  

    Context: of the rise of Germany’s AfD

    Analyze the claims made by AfD and explain their platform of xenophobia

    • Excerpts of Interviews by AfD members (Deutsche)

    • Information from their website and programs (Migrationspakt Stoppen)

    • Speeches made to push for Far Right ideals (German Anger)

    Talk about the opposition in Germany and the official German government's statements against them

    • Interviews by German officials (German election: How Right-Wing)

    • Interviews by former members who have disavowed the AfD (Ex-AfD Member Franziska Schreiber)

    Context: of the Migrant crisis in europe, specifically Germany

    • Statistics on the migrant crisis (EU Migrant Crisis: Facts and Figures)

    • Response by the EU and the German government (Measures Taken in Germany)

    Address the counterfactual to their claims

    • Statistics contrary to their claims (Europe and Nationalism)

    • Movements against the Afd, Interviews by german activists who oppose AfD (Connolly)

    Go on to conclude with a summary of what has been discussed  

Works Cited

Connolly, K. (2019, January 15). Extreme-right wing of Germany's AfD placed under surveillance. Retrieved from

Deutsche Welle. (n.d.). Ex-AfD member Franziska Schreiber: 'I was met with hate' | DW | 12.08.2018. Retrieved from

Deutsche Welle. (n.d.). Interview with Alexander Gauland, AfD | DW | 23.03.2016. Retrieved from

EU migrant crisis: Facts and figures . (2017, June 30). Retrieved from

Europe and nationalism: A country-by-country guide. (2018, September 10). Retrieved from

German anger over AfD chief's 'Nazi era just bird poo' remark. (2018, June 04). Retrieved from

German election: How right-wing is nationalist AfD? (2017, October 13). Retrieved from

Measures taken in Germany in response to the refugee crisis. (2018, March 06). Retrieved from

Migrationspakt stoppen. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Week 7

My topic, the rise of far right identity politics will require a great deal of using sources from many points of view and organizations to back up the point I will put forwards. Of three three sources of research available, government, institution and industry, only one of these sources will be of relevant use for my podcast. Government sources are ultimately the most relevant for the podcast I am working on. As my podcast is in itself an analysis of hardline right wing governments, far right political parties and their opposition, it only makes sense that the government’s research will be invaluable. These sources will include case studies, speeches, sub-analysis of the topics I need to research and the statistics taken that I need to explain my topic.

Week 6: Scholarly Sources

My podcast, on the topic of the rise of right wing identity politics across the Western world, i found a number of scholarly articles that I believe will be vital in making an effective podcast. Two of the sources I found that were especially helpful were “The Reactionary Right” by Lawrence Grossberg and “The Refugee and Migrant Crisis: Europe's Challenge” by Eugene Quinn. I discovered both of them using JSTOR, signing in with my York credentials and accessing their databases. I used keywords, such as migrant crisis, alt-right, and reactionaries to narrow down my results to find the most suitable articles for my podcast. The first article addresses the stances of the far right reactionary parties that have taken root across the world, from their early foundation to their current stance on geo-political happenings. The second article addresses the pressing issue which much of the controversy and platform for the “alt right” and reactionary parties use on their platform, the Migrant Crisis stemming from the Syrian Civil War. Peer reviewing is an important aspect of what can make a source scholarly,  “The Refugee and Migrant Crisis: Europe's Challenge” is a journal, while “The Reactionary Right” is a chapter from a book. The book however, has a credible author with a degree in cultural studies and popular culture adding to the scholarly qualification. The use of both of these sources will greatly impact the final outcome of my podcast, not only helping me better understand the situation I will discuss but also make my points more credible.

Works Cited

Grossberg, L. (2018). The Reactionary Right. In Trump and the Battle for the American Right: Lawrence Grossberg (pp. 68-90). London: Pluto Press. Retrieved from

Quinn, E. (2016). The Refugee and Migrant Crisis: Europe's Challenge. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 105(419), 275-285. Retrieved from

Week 5: A Look at Popular Sources

The term popular source is generally coined for the first results that show up on searching up a topic on the internet. It is not inherently unreliable, but does not have the same merit as scholarly sources. Popular sources tend to be generated based on the key words in a search. It’s legitimacy can be figured out based on who publisher, author and whether or not has scholarly citations. They are rarely peer reviewed, and are commonly passed on from other forms of knowledge.

Generally, an example of an effective way of confirming the legitimacy of a popular source is cross checking the facts given by multiple popular sources under the keyword that was searched. Wikipedia, while not entirely reliable can be used as one of the cross checking sources and findinding scholarly sources to help confirm the legitimacy of what the popular source is stating. Another example of seeing how legitimate a popular source is making sure to prioritize researching the author of the popular source to make sure their credentials are valid and likely to affirm an understanding of the topic they are writing about.

Since I have brought up the term keyword, it is vital that I explain what it means. A keyword is simply the words in a search that help a search engine determine what items to bring up as the primary search results. Using keywords and the correct form of searching is an excellent means of getting more effective and specialized knowledge and information on a search.

Examples of using keywords effectively would be as follows:

Say you are looking up information on the information between the migrant crisis and right wing populist platforms:

  • Migrant Crisis Statistics

  • Right wing populism worldwide

  • Xenophobia in Europe

  • Xenophobia in America


Week 5: A popular source is one that is written for anyone and everyone. It doesn’t necessarily have to be an academic source, just one with a strong opinion towards a certain topic. Popular sources can come in any form, and include newspapers, blog posts, online articles, and even social media posts. Popular sources are useful in the sense that they can provide access to many other sources. Even if the popular source is considered unreliable- the links or information provided can be a great stepping stone in discovering reliable sources.

An effective method in evaluating the credibility of a popular source, or any source for the matter, is using something called a “PARCA” test. The PARCA test is used to evaluate sources in terms of Purpose (Why the resource exists), Authority (Who wrote/published the resource), Relevance (If the resource meets your needs or contains information that is relevant to the topic), Currency (how current the source is), as well as, Accuracy (if the information is reliable and supported by evidence). The PARCA test is a great way to challenge a source that may seem misleading. For example, if a source is written by a Professor of Economics, and focuses heavily on one side of an argument without bringing up the opposing argument, with little external evidence- the part of the PARCA test that challenges this is both Authority and Accuracy. The authority is challenged due to the fact that the professor may seem to show bias towards a certain area, and without external evidence such as other sources to confirm/deny a particular point, it’s difficult to rule out opinion vs fact.

A “keyword” is a term used to narrow the search of a particular topic. For example, if researching the topic of “plastic pollution in oceans,” you may not want to narrow down the search to things relating to the topic in order to understand the bigger picture. Some keywords i’ve come up with regarding my topic of “plastic pollution in oceans” are:

  • Mictroplastics in ocean

  • Recycling benefits

  • Marine environment vs plastic

  • Plastic vs people

  • recyclable products

Week 6: There are two scholarly articles that I have found, that are helpful for my podcast episode. The two sources allow me to solidify my argument, as well as, reinforce Susmita Baral’s argument from her article (the original article on which i am basing my podcast on).

The first source is a research article by nine individuals (which is sourced below) titled, “Plastic Pollution in the World's Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea (Eriksen et al., 2014).” What makes this article particularly interesting for me is how scientifically based it is, rather than another opinion piece on how to save the world. Scientific facts allow for the audience to grasp the concept of my episode in a way that puts things to numbers and facts. Rather than just saying “we need to recycle,” this article allows for statistics which helps the audience see how big the issue truly is.

The second source is a technical report by Golam Kibria for RMIT University, titled, “Plastic Waste, Plastic Pollution- A Threat to All Nations (Kibria, 2017).” The information in the report is very similar to the information of other sources, however, what particularly stood out for me in this source is that the author made mention of the threats to biodiversity and economy. When talking to people, especially about greater issues like plastic pollution, there must be a spot that is hit in order for them to actually understand the extent of the problem. That spot in my topic- our planet and our money. Nobody wants the beautiful planet we live on to be anything but beautiful, and nobody wants no money either. This article touches base on potential economic loses and the harm that plastic has on the marine environment.

Though this wouldn’t be considered a scholarly article, an article by four individuals at National Geographic titled “A running list of action on plastic pollution (Howard et al, 2019),” is also very helpful for my podcast episode. As mentioned in the title, this article provides a list on the action being taken in different locations around the world in regard to plastic pollution. What is comforting about the article is that it was published in January of 2019- only a month ago- meaning that the things listed in the article are things being implemented around the world today. This article will help me at the middle-end stage of my podcast episode, where I will go over things that are being done currently to tackle the problem, as well as, the things people can be doing at home.

But, what is a scholarly source? A scholarly source is a source that is written by either one scholar or professional, or group of scholars, that are experts in the specific field. These sources are often published in journals or to universities and are peer reviewed. I’ve discovered the above sources through google scholar, which allowed me to find exactly the type of source that I required. The first source is a scholarly source as the authors of the article are extremely credible, the article itself is a peer reviewed research article by a professional at the University of Connecticut, and is published electronically on PLOS one- a peer reviewed science journal. The second source is a a scholarly source as the technical report is published by an author with a PhD in Pollution/ Env. Management, and was published originally to RMIT University. Even though the National Geographic article is by authors with credible backgrounds, it isn’t technically considered a scholarly source, but is considered as a “popular source” as reviewed in Week 5 of the Phase Two blog posts.

Searching for sources using keywords is really significant as different words/combinations of words produce different results. Before searching for sources, I predicted that searching on a science database would get me better results. The reason being that the topic of plastic pollution in oceans is extremely relied upon numbers and research in order to back up the argument that it is an issue. When searching for sources on a humanities database such as EBSCO, I started with a broad search of “plastic pollution.” The results that popped up were what I expected, meaning no direct sources to oceans and/or the exact issue being discussed in my episode. However, when I used the same keywords in a science database such as JSTOR, there was no need to identify that ocean pollution was what I meant by the search because most of the results were those of plastic pollution in oceans. On JSTOR, by adding the word “ocean” in front of the “plastic pollution” keywords, the results reduced from over 16,000 to 4,000. So, keywords are definitely very important as they allow for a direct search. Especially with a topic like mine where it is so broad, keywords allow for an exact thing to be determined rather than the whole picture.


Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., Thiel, M., Moore, C.J., Borerro, J.C., et al. (December 10, 2014). Plastic Pollution in the World's Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea. Retrieved from

Howard, B.C. & Gibbens, S. & Zachos, E. & Parker, L. (January 17, 2019). A running list of action on plastic pollution. Retrieved from

Kibria, G. (August, 2017). Plastic Waste, Plastic Pollution- A Threat to All Nations. Retrieved from

Week 7: Government, industry, and institutional resources are of much value to my episode as they provide certain statistics and research that is needed in presenting how paramount the issue of plastic pollution in oceans is. From start to finish, statistics solidify my argument that cleaning oceans of current plastic is an extremely difficult task. Government sources such as directly off of the Government of Canada website, provide an incredible amount of statistics and information that help build my podcast in terms of scientific proof. For industry sources, I can look at what is being done on a larger scale through corporations and companies that are well known. For example, I can look into how these companies are dealing with the large amounts of plastic they are producing, and how they impact the plastic pollution issue, as well. For the purpose and outline of MY episode, institutional sources that are research-based will be of value, where I can use the information listed. Some universities offer a lot of insight on the plastic pollution issue, as well as the departments of environmental science. So, government, industry, and institutional sources are all relevant and useful for the purposes of my episode.

Week 8: Episode outline:

Topic: Plastic Pollution in Waterways

Opinion Piece: “You Can’t Just ‘Clean Up’ the Plastic in the Ocean. Here’s Why.”

—>Written by Susmita Baral for Teen Vogue

 Focus Question: Why is plastic pollution such a danger to seabirds located in the Great Lakes?

Significance: Since “plastic pollution” is a very broad topic, my topic is significant as it discusses an issue that is daunting worldwide. I decided to narrow it down to plastic pollution in North America, more specifically the Great Lakes- as well as, focusing on the impact of plastic on animals, particularly seabirds. The Great Lakes fall between Canada and USA, so that’s why it isn’t fair to regard to just Canada when the USA is affected, too.


-       Introduction to myself, what podcast is being listened to, and what the podcast media company is (“Hi my name is Katrin Ivanov and you’re listening to A Matter of Opinion from Scratch Media”)

-       Introduction of topic and the focus question (“On this episode, plastic pollution in Canada…”).

-       A collaboration of different clips in relation to plastic pollution (news/media clips, before cutting into the “body” of the episode).


-       Main Concepts:

o   What are the Great Lakes?

o   What is the issue with plastic, and plastic polluting waterways?

o   Importance of seabirds, and how plastic affects seabirds.

o   What is currently being done about the plastic pollution problem, and what can be done to prevent further damage.

1)    The Great Lakes: The name of the five lakes; their importance in terms of fresh water; and location

2)    Plastic Pollution Issue: Disposal of plastic- how not everything is recycled; statistics of how much is really recycled vs what is sent off somewhere else; statistics of plastic ending up in the Great Lakes.

( 1 & 2 can be combined into one larger concept, of “Plastic Pollution in the Great Lakes” )

3)    Seabirds: how seabirds are one of the many animals to mistaken plastic for food; seabirds and their relationship to The Great Lakes; some example of seabirds (seagulls); seabirds’ importance to environment (food chain); how plastic affects the birds (consumption- chemicals and feeding chicks, and entanglement- clear plastic= easy for bird to get tangled up or tied up).

4)    What is Being Done: mention of different groups and their goals (not into much detail to emphasize the fact that it isn’t as simple to clean up, its more about preventing further damage); what can be done at home (not using single use plastics, recycling); interview at this point.


-       Restating focus question, and a quick recap of the presented information and how it answers the focus question effectively.

-       An ad at the end, in relation to something of a reusable product to tie everything together and conclude.



Animals Affected by Plastic. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Baral, S. (2018, December 18). You Can’t Just “Clean Up” the Plastic in the Ocean. Here’s Why. Retrieved from

Cameron, S. (June 22, 2017). Plastic Pollution: The Silent Killer. Retrieved from

Campbell, D. (June 18, 2018). Plastic not just a problem in our oceans, also affecting the Great Lakes: U of T research. Retrieved from

Dharssi, A. (April 2, 2018). Plastic pollution pileup on Canada’s beaches exposes environmental policy gaps. Retrieved from

Gabbatiss, J. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Hoffman, M.J & Hittinger, E. (2017). Inventory and transport of plastic debris in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Retrieved from

Jambeck, J. (April 2018). Marine Plastics. Retrieved from

Kaiser, S. (July 17, 2017). Seabirds: The Ecological Connectors in Need of Conservation. Retrieved from

Nettleship, D. N. (March 4, 2015). Seabird. Retrieved from

Oceans Plastic Pollution: A Global Tragedy for Our Oceans and Sea Life. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Plastics Pollution. (September 4, 2018). Retrieved from

Reduce Plastic in Your Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from

The Great Lakes. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Zimmermann, K.A. (June 29, 2017). Great Facts About the Five Great Lakes. Retrieved from 

Phase Two

Week 7: Sources, Sources

I picked a topic that pretty much requires me to use all three kinds of sources. I’m tackling a claim put forward by a university professor and is set mostly within the academic community. Most of the research to support my points and counterpoints will come from the education industry and government studies on cognitive impairment and how educational institutions can broaden their scope a little more when it comes to accommodating alternate learning methods (e.g. replacing books with audiobooks for students who truly find learning easier that way).

Week 6: Looking it all up…

So far, I’ve been using JSTOR and Google Scholar in my research for the podcast episode. I like JSTOR especially because it is efficient. I can review the document in window, download it as a PDF easily, and it provides pre-formatted citations in MLA, APA and Chicago style for each article. This is really helpful when you’re working with several articles at once and need to compile a reference or Bibliography page quickly. I discovered JSTOR once while looking for an article for a poetry research assignment, but I really figured out how to use it while working on an essay response to a screenplay review. Google Scholar and JSTOR both required the use of PARCA to ensure that each article has integrity, however I find that JSTOR makes this process much easier. It is very easy to discover the author and currency each piece, as the names and dates are listed clearly and prominently on each result page. Each article comes with a full preview window so you can quickly skim through the document for clues about its purpose and relevance. Figuring out the accuracy takes a little time regardless of what source is being used, but the user-friendly interface makes this fairly simple too.

While searching for the keywords “reading comprehension” and “listen comprehension,” I found it interesting how different the results were between two different disciplinary databases I searched in. I found them both through the York University subject research guides. First, I used the AND operator to search for both terms on EBSCOhost. I found several articles that were almost perfect for my needs. Because I was looking for articles that related to education, searching in the educational abstract database returned high quality results. I then searched for the same terms in a sociological database (ProQuest) and found that the relevance of the articles returned was very low. There were also fewer results overall (15 versus the over 200 results on EBSCOhost). This tells me that it’s very important to make sure I’m searching in the most appropriate database for the best results.

Kim-Lee Patterson

Week 5: What’s your source?

Popular sources are written for the public and come in all forms. You can usually tell whether a source is popular or not by checking to see if it’s been peer-reviewed or coming from a scholarly source. Your local newspapers, favorite blogs, and even social media posts are considered popular sources. They can be very useful for research purposes if you know how to properly vet them for reliability and relevance. The PARCA test is a great for sifting through popular sources to decide whether they are admissible as evidence to support or refute a claim. Each letter tells you what to look for when sorting through your collection of sources: purpose, authority, relevance, currency and accuracy.  

The first thing to do is to figure out why the resource exists and what the creator’s aim was in creating it. You’d probably want to use a source meant for educational purposes over one that was just meant to be funny and not taken very seriously. Once you know the why, then you need to find out who produced the resource—establish the authority. Find as much information as you can about their background, education and what qualifies them to say what they say. If a piece of material has no author information or any way of figuring out who put it together, you might want to stay clear of using it as a source. 

So, once you know that your resource has the right purpose and a credible author or producer, you’ll need to ask yourself how relevant the source is to your research. Make sure you’ve defined your needs and then see how well the resource actually helps you, whether it supports your point or other counterpoints. Also, make sure it’s current enough to matter—the available knowledge on some topics can change rapidly and you don’t want end up using outdated research to support a claim. Speaking of things being outdated, make sure that you check the resource for accuracy. Are the terms, language, tone and content all appropriate and are any claims it makes backed by evidence? 

Wikipedia is an interesting popular source because it (1) contains information from many different people and perspectives and (2) can be a good place to start off one’s research. It should be combined with research from a trusted source, only because there are few restrictions on the number of edits and who can edit and add to a Wikipedia article, meaning that some of the information may not be verified or factual. By comparing the information read on Wikipedia to a trusted scholarly or verifiable source (e.g. a government or otherwise), one can take away the useful information and use it safely to form an opinion or supply evidence to support a claim. 

About Keywords

A keyword is a search term used to narrow down the scope of a list of resources related to a certain topic or combination of topics. It’s important to select good keywords so you don’t fall down a black hole of research. It is far too easy to end up sifting through hundreds of sources that might not even be relevant to your project.  

A few of the keywords I’ve come up with include: 

  • Reading alternatives 

  • Learning styles and reading 

  • Audiobooks in schools 

  • Reading and listening comprehension 

  • reading by listening 

  • listening reading difference 

  • reading vs listening books 

  • reading vs listening learning 

  • reading or listening to a book 

  • listening not reading 

 Kim-Lee Patterson

Phase 2

 Week 6

The scholarly sources I am researching for the development of my podcast range from scientific articles, to studies more understandable to those without a firm grounding in neuroscience. The works I am researching regarding my topic, which happens to be about the cumulative effects of marketing and media, include, but are not limited to, the development of the minds of children, and the long-term effects that accompany them into adulthood. One scholarly source which is significant in my research is a PhD thesis titled Augmenting Animality: Neuromarketing as a Pedagogy of Communicative Surveillance, authored by a Selena Nemorin. Dr. Nemorin has taken up a post at the University of London, lecturing in the Department of Culture, Communication, and Media, although her thesis was conducted the University of Toronto. This article is very well balanced in its dissection of the effects of neuromarketing on the greater public, in that it does not focus strictly on the hard science of the matter, but rather, disseminates the scientific information in the manner one would be expected to when relaying such knowledge to a humanities-liberal arts audience. I was very fortunate to come across this scholarly source, as I had enough sources explaining the biological nuances of the brain, but I was searching for something pertaining to “neuromarketing” whilst being more sociologically oriented in its content, and the thesis met that criteria quite nicely. It engages the topic from a sociological standpoint, as well as scientific, with even a touch of social-justice in the mix. The thesis also engages the topic from the perspective of the marketer, as well as the consumer, and applies different philosophies and ethical perpspectives in its evaluation of the subject matter. Substantial endnotes, as well as citations, are listed at the end of the piece, thus reiterating that this piece is indeed, a scholarly source.

 The second scholarly source I feel is significant to my research is titled Consumer Neuroscience for Marketing Researchers, a scholarly source which details the more recently developed intricacies of neuromarketing, as of the publication date of the work in question. This research is quite sophisticated in the way it delves into the art of neuromarketing and is composed of summaries of various neuromarketing techniques and their historical developments, as well as various charts and tables which explain the significance of these various techniques, and their impact on the many combinations of the various faculties of the human being. This piece really put into perspective the the extent of which research in this field of study has been conducted, as well as the significant amount of time that has elapsed since its inception. The summarization of the scientific tools utilised in the manipulation of the human psyche, presented in such a meticulously detailed and systematic manner, very much puts into perspective that seasoned neuro-scientists are, evidently, ignoring the ethics and principles that even the most ignorant of citizens would typically abide by (i.e. respect of boundaries, the sacredness of free will,etc.), just to further their careers. Indeed, it was researchers from the University of Technology, Australia, as well as the University of Melbourne, that contributed to this work. The authors of the piece, as well the references to solid, verifiable, sources, and the publication of this work by the academically reputable website,, make the fact that this is indeed a scholarly source incontestable.


 During my search for scholarly sources, I was inputting combinations of key words like “neurology”, “neuromarketing”, “brain”, etc. through the search engines of, the Google Scholar search engine, and the York University e-resources search engine, among a few others. Though I came across a plethora of scientific research on the matter, I had a harder time of finding sources pertaining to the more sociological, or human, aspect of my topic, whilst not neglecting the scientific aspect. When searching through sources strictly in the humanities category of search engines however, the results were not to my satisfaction, as they were to vague, and did not delve into my topic enough, but rather, “beat around the bush” of my topic, so to speak. I have learned through this experience that sometimes, it is better to not make your search too narrow, but rather, keep it broad and skim through many sources, if need be, depending on the topic researched and the knowledge of the searcher. It could be, after all, that the one searching does not know all the proper terminology of the topic they are inquiring about, and that their idea of what they are looking for is, in fact, hindering their results. I have also learned it is best to diversify the methods with which one searches, as different search engines can have drastically different results, in quantity, as well as quality.

Week 5

 Popular sources are sources which may not be strictly academic and factual in their nature, but rather, are strongly opinion oriented, with a obvious bias. Given that scholarly sources are typically cross examined and cited by peers of the academic responsible for the piece, I think it would be fair to assume that popular sources would contrast with that aspect, and typically be more easily approved for publication, depending on the publisher in question. I feel that scholarly sources would almost exclusively be published by university presses, and scientific journals of sorts, whereas a “popular” source would more liked be published in the realm of magazine, newspapers, online columns or blogs, and the like. I feel the typical “popular” source would contain less citations than the average Wikipedia page, although a Wikipedia page is, in fact, a popular source itself. Some other examples of popular sources may include, but are not limited to, newspaper columns like The Guardian, or The Washington Post, as well as social media sites like Twitter, or Facebook. To confirm the accuracy of the information presented in such articles, I wold do further research, specifically targeting works authored by academics and referenced in the fields referenced or look for collaborating information in scholarly journals or articles, and cross reference the facts in the academic works, with the much less acclaimed Facebook post, or newspaper column. I would also seek out critique of the popular source by academics, as to conduct a more quick, efficient, rendering of the falsehood in the popular source.

The combination of key words inputted in a search engine of any sort, is critical to maneuvering through the vast amounts of information available online and dictating the broadness of the topic inquired about. Some keyword, or keyword combinations, that could be used pertaining to the search of information regarding my topic may include, but is not limited to: academic advertising, academics assist corporations, psychological marketing, media psychology, neurological marketing, brain effect marketing, brain damage media, etc.




As my topic relates to how audiobooks are perceived in society, I don’t think any government sources would help me. However, I think industry sources may be more relevant to my purposes. For industry I can look at how audiobook companies are marketing their products and who they are marketing them to. I could look at how these companies are catering to educational institutions and how many schools actually purchase them as a resource for students. Also, since so many influencers are being sponsored by audiobooks, I could look at how they are marketing them to people as well. For institutional sources, I could look at how many schools use audiobooks as a resource for students. Perhaps I could look at York specifically and how inclusive they are to those who may need to use audiobooks. 


Two sources that I have been looking at are “Audiobooks: Legitimate “Reading” Material for Adolescents?” by Jennifer Moore and Maria Cahil and “Stop propagating the learning styles myth” by Paul A. Kirschner. The first article looks at exactly what I want to cover in my podcast, which is to highlight the benefits of audiobooks. The second article is interesting because I would like to look at how people with different learning styles can benefit with audiobooks, but this article almost goes against my argument as it tries to illustrate how different learning styles do not exist. These sources are both written by professors who have knowledge on the topics they discussed so it would make these sources scholarly because it is written by experts. These sources differ from popular sources because they are written more towards an academic audience rather than the general public. They also focus on a more specific part of the topic; for example, a popular source would just talk about the general benefits audiobooks have, but a scholarly source looks into the study and picks a specific issue to address, like how my first source addresses how reading among teens is decreasing and audiobooks can help it. 

When searching for my sources I first went to the library databases. I found it a little difficult to use because I think at first, I wasn’t sure what subject I should look under. As I want to look at the stigma audiobooks have, I first went to a sociology database and looked under key words like “audiobooks”, “ableism”, “education” to see what I could find. I also searched up these same words in an education database and did find some articles, though I don’t think they were exactly what I wanted. I then moved to Google Scholar which I found a lot more helpful because it doesn’t search in just one specific database, it looks at them all. I also ended up looking at the online sources York had and found a couple of eBooks too. However, I do want to try to look at the databases York offers because I do feel I am a little limited to what Google Scholar provides as York doesn’t cover a lot of the databases I find on Google Scholar. I think looking at different databases can give me different perspectives on the topic so it’s just a matter of going through them.


A popular source is one that is meant for the general public. It isn’t written in the same academic form and style as scholarly sources are and is easy enough for anyone to read and meant for entertainment. You can tell something is a popular source when you do a simple google search as these results include things like the wiki page or news articles or generally anything that the average person who needs information quick can find. Popular sources are useful to get background knowledge on a subject or to see what the current news on the topic is. For most academic papers I do I generally don’t use popular sources in my research because I am limited to scholarly papers that are written by experts in the field. When I do get to use popular sources my way of finding out if they are credible would be to see what the source and the author is. For example, if the source is a blog, I tend to not trust these sites as blogs can be written by anyone and you don’t know what the right information is. If the source is a newspaper (like the New York Times) or even an online encyclopedia (like Encyclopedia Britannica), I tend to trust it more because the authors are people who are hired to do specific research and are most likely going to give accurate information. Sources like Wikipedia for being credible is hit or miss for me because like blogs these things can be written by anyone. However, for me I like to check out the bibliography on these wiki pages to see where the information is coming from. If there is no bibliography for a specific page, then I would not trust that page because I don’t know where the information is coming from.


A keyword is a word that you put into a search engine to find information on a certain topic. It is important to have a list of keywords as you are doing research so that your search results can change, and you can find new information without having to go into every single page of the search results. The more specific you are with your keywords the easier it is to find information directed towards your specific topic. For instance, my topic is about audiobooks; if I just put ‘audiobooks’ into a search engine I will get pages upon pages on a variety of different things about audiobooks. However, if I type in something like ‘audiobooks and learning disabilities’, ‘listening as a form of reading’, ‘audiobooks vs physical books’, ‘auditory learners’ or ‘audiobooks and ableism’ I can narrow down my results. 

Phase Two

Week 5:

A popular source is typically the first results that you get when you search for something online. It generates itself to you by using the key words that you had entered in when you were initially searching. They’re always near the top of your search and honestly cluttering your search results. You can tell if they might be useful by looking at who the author is, their credentials, their works cited / consulted, if it’s been check by professionals, etc. You can find most of this out with ironically a few google searches and checking several other sources that have been peer reviewed that relate to the popular source’s topic. For instance, Wikipedia is considered to be a popular source since others can change the information because everything on Wikipedia can’t be 100% checked. But, you can see the sources they used and some could be of scholarly level and could prove that at least some information is accurate. 

A keyword is very important since when you search for something, the search engine that you’re using takes particular words that standout and generate a list of search results based on the keyword(s) in your search. 

Some examples of keywords on my topic:

Video games, violence and video games, crimes and video games, video game statements, video game views, technology violence, parents and video games, violent games to real life.

Week 6:

When doing the research for my podcast, I was searching for some sources using google scholar. I actually managed to find them using the key words “videogames and violence.” Both are studies and research done on my topic that were both coincidently published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. The first one listed below is more on the negative side on the opinion spectrum on my topic. Not biased, although the research that the study outlined was designed in a way to show the violence that the games can have the children emulate. Although the second did seem to show that the study was heavily highlighting the positive effects. It even concluded that there are several positive relationships found between the children and videogames. It stated that they see that there’s a positive influence on their intelligence. These are both peer reviewed sources that I found very useful since they highlight both sides of the argument. A scholarly source is a piece of writing that’s been reviewed by many other professionals in the field of which it was written on. The piece of writing is scrutinized and made sure that it’s as accurate as possible by the people reviewing it. I’ve mainly used the google scholar search database, although will branch out to other databases further into my research. 


Schutte, Nicola S., et al. “Effects of Playing Videogames on Children’s Aggressive and Other Behaviors 1.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 18.5 (1988): 454-460. Retrieved Feb. 14, 2019.


Van Schie, Emil GM, and Oene Wiegman. "Children and Videogames: Leisure Activities, Aggression, Social Integration, and School Performance 1." Journal of applied social psychology 27.13 (1997): 1175-1194. Retrieved Feb. 14, 2019.

Week 7:

From the digging that I have compiled for my Genre Analysis Paper, I stumbled upon sources from institutions, the government, and the industry. These sources are relevant and useful because they can provide more depth for you to explore. I found a couple from the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, and they were particularly useful because it was a study that was worthy enough to be put into a scholarly level journal. It applied to my podcast research because it tested out two different methods of getting the research and showed two different outcomes. It provided me more insight into the topic with a good study and results that I can apply into my podcast. 

Week 8: