Check authorship, evidence, date and relevance when selecting online sources, and keep a short record of why each source belongs in your research.
Search results are a starting point, not a reading list approved for your assignment. A polished page may contain a useful argument, a sales claim or outdated information. Source evaluation asks whether the material is suitable for the particular claim you want to make.
Separate authority from relevance
Identify the author or responsible organisation and inspect the evidence behind the statement. Then ask a separate question: does this source address your population, place and period? A reliable national report may still be the wrong evidence for a claim about one institution or a different country.
Trace numbers and strong claims
When an article quotes a statistic, follow the link to the original report. Check the definition, sample and date rather than copying the headline. For a hypothetical employment figure, determine whether it covers all graduates, survey respondents or a specific programme. Those denominators can lead to very different interpretations.
Keep an evaluation note
Alongside the citation, write one sentence on usefulness and one on limitations. Compare conflicting accounts and explain which evidence supports your conclusion. If you cannot locate the original source, say so or leave the claim out. A shorter argument with traceable support is stronger than a long reference list whose entries you have not examined.
Worked example: inspect an employment headline
Imagine a report saying that most participants found work after training. Its underlying survey records twenty responses out of thirty respondents, but does not identify non-respondents or explain who already had a job. You can describe those responses; you cannot infer the result for every enrollee or establish that training caused it. Record these limits before using the statistic, and seek additional information if the claim is central to your argument.
Do not substitute presentation for evaluation
A professional layout, familiar logo or large number of shares cannot establish the quality of a method. Set the promotional headline aside and ask who published the material, for what purpose, using what evidence and with which omissions. The Open University’s PROMPT questions provide a useful structure. Compare independent evidence when the publisher has an interest in the result, then explain precisely which part of your argument the source can and cannot support.
Further reading
- The Open University Library — Identifying a source
- The Open University Library — Evaluation using PROMPT
Image: original editorial artwork prepared for the Asas library; it illustrates the topic and does not depict an actual event or student.
