Saturday, September 5, 2015

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

This post is in continuance with my previous post on the "Evaluation of General Sources." I will now be analyzing two scholarly sources involving the same controversy.

Fruity Monkey. "A Baby's Hand" 1/8/2011 via flickr Attribution 2.0 Generic License.


Source 1

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'End of life decision-making in neonatal care' Article." 9/5/2015 via JSTOR.
What is its purpose?
This source explores the controversy more fully. It is explicitly intended to review the facts of ethics in neonatal care. It's source and citations add credence to its credibility. The authors do not represent a side of the argument. They are simply scholarly informers.

How and where is it published?
This article was published in the academic Journal of Medical Ethics by BMJ (British Medical Journal), a publishing company that reviews and edits the article for publication.

What kinds of sources does it cite?
One reference is contained within the article, to the website Nuffield Council on Bioethics. This website is designed to specifically explore ethical issues in biology and medicine.

Who is the author?
Carolyn April and Michael Parker are the two credited authors.

Carolyn April is a Senior Director and Industry Analysis at CompTIA. Michael Parker is the Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Ethox Center at the University of Oxford. He is a very prestigious figure in the bioethics field.

Who is its intended audience?
This article is intended for those already knowledgeable in the field. It mentions key aspects of the ethics controversy, assuming readers are well-versed with the debate as a whole. It alludes to a few other scholarly journals, which are similarly heavily centered around medicine.

How did I find it?
I located this article through the academic database JSTOR with the search description "Neonatal nurse ethics controversy," narrowing the dates from 2014 through 2015.


Source 2

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'Ethics in Neonatal Neurology: When is Enough, Enough?' Article" 9/5/2015 via ScienceDirect.
What is its purpose?
This source is meant to work to distinguish the line that defines right and wrong in neonatal medicine. All opinions are refrained. Facts are stated in simple, medical diction: intelligently and to the point. 

How and where is it published?
This article comes from a journal known as Pediatric Neurology by the company Elsevier, a "world-leading provider of information and solutions that help you make better decisions, deliver better care, and... make groundbreaking discoveries in science, health and technology." They have offices internationally, including twenty-six in the United States alone. 

What kinds of sources does it cite?
Multiple sources are cited, all of which connect to additional medical informants. There are seventy different references, all leading back to similarly dependable academic professors and doctors.

Who is the author?
Eric Racine and Michael I. Shevell are the two authors credited. Both authors are associated with the Montreal Children's Hospital

Eric Racine guest lectures in medical and bioethics curriculum. He is also the head of the Canadian Neuroethics Interest Group and the Montreal Neuroethics Network. He has assisted in writing many articles centering around his field, and regularly performs clinical trials to improve bioethics internationally.

Michael I. Shevell is a part of the Division of Pediatric Neurology at the McGill University Health Centre. He was most recently the recipient of the 2014 Hower Award, an award for prestigious scholars and teachers recognized nationally and internationally. 

Who is its intended audience?
Neurologists are heavily in focus in this article. Many of the references and diction are medical terms, in particular, the mental structure of newborns. 

How did I find it?
I found this article through the Science Direct database.

No comments:

Post a Comment