Samuel Shely

Home ▶ My courses ▶ Fall 2015 ▶ F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580 ▶Thursday, October 22 ▶ Sources Discussion Forum (037) ▶ Sources Assignment

Search forums

◄ Sources Assignment Sources Assignment ►

F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-Combined-201580

Sources Discussion Forum (037)Sources Assignment

Display replies in nested form

Sources Assignmentby Delanie Knight - Monday, 26 October 2015, 7:35 PM

Part 1

My topic, having to do with mega churches and mega pastors, is a very opinionated topic in theChristian world. Coming in to my discussion, I figured that the conversations going on betweenpeople would be evenly split between the supporters and the critics. After conducting someresearch, though, I was very wrong. Most of the sources I found about mega pastors werewritten by extreme critics who, may or may not have, exaggerated their information. Lots ofpeople talked about the corruption and greed of ALL the pastors. Not many people had any goodthings to say, really. Bias was most obviously present.

My research never really reflected my opinion. In fact, it did the quite opposite. According to myresearch thus far in my path, mega pastors are just bad. That is, really, the only word to describeall of the hate written about them. My own take, though, is a neutral one. I believe that my

subject is circumstantial. Not all mega church pastors can be generalized in one statement, andalthough my research for the inquiry path does not prove it, I hope that further scholarly researchdoes.

For me, only the conversations going on about the topic were biased, not necessarily my ownidea. I think I have done a pretty good job, thus far, eliminating as much bias as possible.According to most of the research done on the inquiry path, my topic most definitely adheres toconfirmation bias, but I think I did a pretty good job at eliminating that aspect in my writing. Ibelieve that scholarly research on broader topics will level out the bias.

Part 2

Generally, a strong source would be one that includes many areas of research and is reviewed bymany. There are scholarly sources in which researchers and scientists write, and even deeper,there is archives from museums and primary sources. As far as the inquiry product is concerned,though, I only have to go into scholarly research. Peer review is an important aspect for strongsources. The reviewing process will help eliminate bias and, possibly, explain and/or give thetopic more detail. Not only does the information have to be write for one scholar, but it has to becorrect in the eyes of many. A drawback on scholar work is that the information given may beharder to understand by the reader, and the information is a bit harder to find. On the other hand,information from websites and newspaper articles do not have to be reviewed as thoroughly. Thisis one drawback. Also, the content can basically be written by anyone. Newspaper articles andwebsites are easily accessible and can be seen by anyone. Although these types of sources aregenerally frowned upon for writing research papers, some are very good and valid sources. It isjust more difficult to determine the validity of the information presented. Ideally, an individualwould have a mixture of all types of sources in order present all aspect of the conversationswithin the topic. General sources, like blogs, newspaper articles, and websites, give an overviewon what is being talked about within the general public. Scholarly sources, like journals, and peerreviewed articles, will deepen the conversation and give it more academic backing.

Part 3

EAGLE, DAVID E. "Historicizing the Megachurch." Journal of Social History. 48.3 (2015). Print.

This article leaves the reader questioning what went on during the biblical times. The authornever even really presents any biblical information, in which, I think, could even better extend hispoint. There is one specific case that I remember where Jesus preached in front of thousands. Itis the story of the bread crumb and fish. This source, overall, is factual information that delvesinto the history of the megachurch. It goes against what most people think and proves that“mega churches” have been around much longer than the 20-30 we thought it has. It evenproved me wrong. I thought the mega church movement was a newer happening. The authormay very well think that the criticisms against mega churches are absurd because of the natureof his article. He present the history, and these critics do not talk about how mega churchesevolved. Although leaders from the past are criticized, they are not in the way that mega pastorsare today. Oddly enough, this source has a lot to do with church structures and architecture. Insome ways. The size of the literal church does tie in, but I find it interesting how this author spentmuch time researching structures.

von, der R. M, and J.P Daniels. "Examining Megachurch Growth: Free Riding, Fit, andFaith." International Journal of Social Economics. 39.5 (2012): 357-372. Print.

As of now, this source does not leave me, the reader, with any unanswered questions. The authorwas very thorough, sometimes even repetitive is presenting his research. The title clearly entailswhat the article is about: the growth pf megachurches. The information from this source can beused in two main ways. On one hand, the growth of the Christian faith and the attendance of achurch heavily increasing is a good thing for Christians. On the other hand, many mega churchesare taking away the members of much smaller churches, and the critics are not having it. I amnot really sure if the author was intending for people to use his information a certain way. Thisinformation can weave into how mega pastors add to the growth and what extents they may goto in order to add to the congregation. Money, most obviously, plays a key role in expansion, andthis can continue my research into exactly how mega churches receive money. Mega churchesare growing at a crazy fast rate, and that fact cannot be challenged. What can be challenged,though, are the motives for growth.

982 words

Rate: Rate... Reply

Re: Sources Assignmentby Lukas Duemmler - Monday, 26 October 2015, 9:58 PM

Delanie, in part one you stated that your “topic most definitely adheres to confirmation bias”and prior to that you said that your “subject is circumstantial”. I think that if a topic iscircumstantial, it leaves more room for people to implement bias because there is no way toprove either side of the topic. I can see why you believe there is bias. Also, since “not allmega church pastors can be generalized in one statement”, what are you doing in yourresearch to help make that more specific? Are you looking at the mega pastors as a whole, orare you looking at individual pastors? I hope you can continue to keep the bias to a minimumfrom your perspective, it seems like a tough task. Lastly, I liked how you ended where to findstrong sources. It sums up the two infographics and just about anything a teacher has eversaid about sources. “General sources…give an overview on what is being talked about withinthe general public. Scholarly sources…deepen the conversation”. It especially ties into theinfographic with the boat, scuba diver, and submarine in that the deeper you dig for thesources, the deeper the conversation gets and the better the academic credibility is.

210 words

Rate: Rate... Show parent | Reply

Re: Sources Assignmentby Samuel Shely - Monday, 26 October 2015, 10:05 PM

◄ Sources Assignment Sources Assignment ►

NAVIGATION

HomeMy homeMy profileCurrent course

F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580

Hey Delanie, I understand the struggles of having an extremely polarizing topic. Although I was ableto form connections at the end, the beginning of my inquiry path was very similar to yours. Onepossible way to dial in on more sources supporting mega church pastors is to alter your route ofresearch. Instead of searching for sources solely supporting the pastors, it might be beneficial to lookfor sources that identify the good things that mega churches are doing on a communal and globalscale.

I enjoyed reading your commentary in part two. I made similar connections when contemplating thedifferences between scholarly articles and sources such as websites and newspapers. You wereclear and concise in identifying the advantages and disadvantages of these sources. To further yourcommentary, I believe that sources such as websites and newspapers are beneficial for identifyingthe conversation behind an argument. Like you said, these sources are easy to read, therefore are agood introduction into a topic. As one obtains a deeper knowledge of a subject, it is optimal to delveinto scholarly sources that have less bias in them. These sources hone in on specific aspects of atopic or argument.

200 words

Sum of ratings: - Show parent | Reply | Export to portfolio

Re: Sources Assignmentby Katherine Morton - Monday, 26 October 2015, 10:20 PM

I was pleased to read in part 1 that you are experiencing some of the same difficulties as I am,euthanasia seems to also be predominately one sided but surprisingly enough, the bulk of theinformation I am finding is pro-euthanasia. I think that it is great that you have not taken anystance so far as to which side you support, looking at it with an open mind will make it easierfor you to eliminate bias as much as you can. I also liked how you mentioned that valuableinformation can be found in non-scholarly sources as well but the validity is very hard toprove, I myself did not mention it in my own post but I believe that you are correct andexplained it well in saying that it is best used in addition to a more reliable source such asscholarly articles.

147 words

Rate: Rate... Show parent | Reply

ParticipantsBadgesThursday, October 22

My courses

ACTIVITIES

AssignmentsForumsResources

ADMINISTRATION

Forum administration

My profile settings

You are logged in as Samuel Shely (Log out)F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580

Sources Discussion Forum (037)Sources Assignment

Kaltura Media Gallery

Subscription disabled