Currency: This article/source is recent, but the information is based on 2001-2009 stats which is still recent enough to be relevant to my topic.
Relevance: The information included in the article gave a good comparison of criminal activity between people who have a concealed carry permit and those who don't.
Authority: I couldn't find any information about the author so it might not be as credible as I think, but at the end of the article it gives a long list of sources that were used.
Accuracy: The information in the article seems accurate and not unrealistic.
Purpose: The main purpose of this article seems to be to give the audience an idea of the criminal activity between concealed carry permit holders and non holders. The article does seem to have a slight bias saying that concealed carry permits are not a bad thing.
Response:
I found it really surprising that the numbers were so dramatically different between those who have a permit to conceal a handgun and those who don't. One thing that is important to note is that the data was collected from Texas and not the entire US. Because it is focused on a specific area it doesn't cover different states that have different laws and crime rates.
One question that I thought of while I was reading the article was whether or not some of the info was as accurate as it was stating and is their argument a popular one or is it original. I kind of answered the second one for myself. I would have to say that the argument presented is one that is popular among people who are for having concealed handguns.
In order for me to use this information I would want to do some more basic research to make sure the numbers used are accurate and not completely unrealistic.
Szu-hsuan1 Lin, et al. "When Concealed Handgun Licensees Break Bad: Criminal Convictions Of Concealed Handgun Licensees In Texas, 2001-2009." American Journal Of Public Health 103.1 (2013): 86-91. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Feb. 2013.
Richelle,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see you tackled an article from an academic journal for this phase of your blog. You rightly picked up on the limitations of this study: it's only one state during a specific time period and may not be applicable across the nation.
However, I think you should revisit this article, particularly paying attention to the conclusions and implications for policy-making they draw. I did not walk away from the article thinking these researchers were pro-CHL.
In terms of your CRAAP analysis, you left a few gaps. When determining relevance, you should include another sentence or two explaining why the comparison of criminal activity between these two populations is relevant to your research. You want to do this because you should be thinking about how you're going to narrow your broad research topic (gun control), into a more focused research question to address in your editorial proposal. In terms of Authority, you overlooked the simple fact that these authors are published in an academic journal, which increases their credibility because of the review process required to even be published in the journal. In addition to the authors, you could also have commented on the journal itself and it's credibility. Remember that each category asks several questions that you can address to fully evaluate credibility. Your Accuracy section contains a statement with no further explanation to validate your opinion. Why did the information seem accurate? What specific information seemed accurate? It's important to make these clarifications so your audience understands your point of view.
As you continue to research and respond to articles, think about finding the most interesting or controversial idea in the source and responding to that idea. Do you agree? Disagree? Why? Did the idea change or challenge the way you have always thought about the issue? These are the kinds of responses that will help you form an opinion to write about in your editorial proposal.