- I don't have too many overall concerns at this point. The thing I am always wary on is whether or not the source is a true primary source. There were some that I had thought were primary, but I was told they weren't. Another thing that concerns me is if I am narrow enough on my topic. I think I am, and I would just appreciate any advice.
Source Questions:
My sources dealing with vaccinations and Autism are definitely primary sources. One is a court ruling and the other is a message board. I chose these sources because they deal with personal experiences from vaccinations and Autism. The court case took the stance that vaccines didn't cause Autism while the message board displayed both opinions. The message board is my favorite due to its personal feel and the testimonies that are there. The court ruling was the most recent one and its final view was that vaccines didn't cause the autism of little Cedillo or the other 2 families. While that may be the case, the mothers who post on the message board still have their own strong opinions on that matter. What I noticed most about the court ruling was its strictly logical presentation of fact. No emotion entered into the 183 pages until the last little section titled "Conclusion." The message board, however, was very much emotionally driven. It is a very personal and passionate topic for many of the posters and this raw emotion shone through in their writings.
My sources dealing with autism and its genetic causes are primary sources as well. They differ from the ones for vaccines in that they take a more medical and scientific stance. One is a paper from Washington University where a major study was conducted by Dr. Constantino looking into the genetics of Autism. The other one was also a medical site, Medscape, that published their own genetic studies into Autism. I chose these sources because they provided easy access to the information I needed as to the genetic influences of this disorder. The study at Washington University was conducted May of 2007 while the Medscape studies were done in 2005. It was great seeing how things have changed over the years as new technologies have become available. The Medscape site was more in depth and scientific than the article on the study at Washington University. I am very intrigued about how the years have affected the take on the genetics of Autism. Since both of these concern very scientific material, there is a strong sense of logos to them. They are fact based and do a great job of backing up those facts.
My last source is a website that details the statistics of Autism. Since it deals with statistics, it is a primary source. I chose this site over other ones due to its easily accessible information. It was the only stats site I found that listed them in a very simple to follow manner. I didn't have to search around for the statistics. The source lists all the known statistics of Autism in general, it doesn't specifically follow only the vaccines or the genetics. It is impartial to the cause. The statistics of Autism are a very fact-based thing and therefore is very affected by logos. Their information is gathered from such sources as the Center for Disease Control, CDC.
My only concern is that you have not limited the age group enough. I would personally feel more comfortable if you defined it concretely for instance age 3- 10 or whatever, but this all depends on the specifics of your topic. For all I know, this may be impossible so I would do that if you can.
ReplyDeleteYour concern with the distinction between primary and secondary sources, I don't think is an issue because each source you have is primary.
Controlling Idea: The arguments of what is causing autism in young chilren: genetics or vaccination. Other than that,I think you are doing a great job with a great topic.