|The term “credible” is defined in the World English Dictionary as: “(1) capable of being believed,” and “(2) trustworthy or reliable” (“credible”, n.d.). Thusly, although one of our resources notes “excellent studies do appear in relatively unselective journals, and defective studies … do slip through the best screening efforts of selective journals” (Locke, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2010, p. 36), I would not expect to readily find a non-credible resource in the Walden database. To wit, my focus does not belabor the obvious problems discussed in our resources such as primary issues dealing with validity, reliability, generalization, etc., and secondary issues such as ambiguities and/or mistakes in characterizing variables (controlled or otherwise), subjects, context, rationale, methods or analysis within the study. In fact, one of our resources provides an entire table itemizing questions to ask when selecting literature for a review (Locke et al., 2010, p. 51). The focus of my post focuses instead on other relevant issues relating to selecting issues for the course project.
I admit to still cultivating my resources and participating in ongoing research for this course project. However, there are a few articles that have thus far not made the cut, but not for credibility reasons, per se. There are other criteria that must be met to fulfill the requirements for utilization in a literature review. For instance, this is a practical research project requiring development of a narrow focus and problem statement. As such, the literature is providing a solution to the problem and therefore, must provide some evidence supporting a solution to my selected problem statement. Otherwise, the literature may be informative, but irrelevant to the project at hand. One of my articles did not make the cut precisely because it did not provide any evidence or solution to my problem statement. The article discusses the learning principles endowed by video games from the perspective of the author, but does not provide any solid quantifiable evidence to support his perspective (Gee, 2005). Certainly, though I find his reasoning credible and logical, there is no study to replicate, no findings to evaluate and/or methods to analyze for validity and/or reliability. In whole, the article was informative, but inherently useless in the face of “solving” any problem, much less the one posed. That said, although the article may not be useful in and of itself for its methodological value, it may have value in other respects. For instance, the author is well-renowned within the field of gaming research and its interrelation with cognitive science. As such, it stands to reason that within the references I may find some other articles that have some quantifiable data and/or can lead me in my quest. Also, from a theoretical standpoint, as discussed by Patton this week, understanding the constructs of the area I am investigating is invaluable to my effort and any possible conceptual positioning within that realm (Laureate Education, Inc. [Laureate], n.d.).
At this point, I am quite certain I will spend far too much time researching far too many articles that probably should have been criteria-search-reduced as I hone the craft of “researcher,” but it will be a journey full of information and knowledge as I continue to figure out the process.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (n.d.). Conducting a literature review . Available from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com.
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.