A good approach to evaluating sources is to ask yourself a series of questions that address: Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose (CRAAP).
This process not only helps you determine credibility but also relevance.
Universities have gradually become the major actors undertaking research in almost all European public research systems (Paradeise et al.
), the increase in the diversity of missions and activities undertaken by existing research organisations and their reform and mergers.
Secondly, we aim to incorporate the funding dimension (in an exploratory way) into a more comprehensive framework that focuses primarily on the internal authority balance between researchers and managers, but also takes into account how different types of funding affect that balance.
In the next section we revise the concepts of authority and autonomy, stressing their relational nature, the idea of authority sharing and the concept and types of professional organisations.
We draw on insights from the theory of professional organisations to account for variations in the ability of researchers to set their own agendas.
We assume that there are at least two sources of legitimate authority within research organisations, one derived from formal hierarchy (bureaucratic leadership) and another stemming from the community (professional), and that the balance of authority between researchers and managers is essentially structural but will be empirically mediated by the dominant funding portfolio of organisations and the corresponding endowment of resources at the disposal of leadership or researchers.
It can be tempting to use any source in your paper that seems to agree with your thesis, but remember that not all information is good information, especially in an online environment.
Developed by librarians at California State University-Chico (see below for the link), the CRAAP Test is a handy checklist to use when evaulating a web resource (or ANY resource).