Week 5 – Assignment: Understanding Peer-Reviewed, Primary, and Secondary Sources
Instructions
Assignment: Part 1
In this assignment, you are the professor and you will be creating a PPT presentation for students that outlines the differences between the following:
Peer-reviewed journals
A primary source
A secondary source
Include in the notes section of the PowerPoint at least 200 words covering how you would explain the use and purpose of each item. For example, use who, what, when, where, and how to approach and explain each item as it applies to the peer-reviewed journals, the primary sources, and a secondary source.
Assignment: Part 2
Include a problem statement with a maximum of 250 words, including the points below that are from the dissertation template, for a topic that interests you.
Begin with “The problem to be addressed by this study is…” This statement should logically flow from the introduction and clearly identify the problem to be addressed by the study.
Succinctly discuss the problem and provide evidence of its existence.
Identify who is impacted by the problem (e.g., individuals, organizations, industries, or society),
Explain what is not known that should be known about it
Explain what the potential negative consequences could be if the problem is not addressed in this study
Remember to source the information and source assertions with citations of current, scholarly works from the literature
Length: 5-7 slides with a minimum of 200 words in the notes of the PPT
References: Include a minimum of five (5) scholarly resources.
Your presentation should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.
NCU Libraries, (2018). How do I determine if a particular journal is peer reviewed?
NCU Libraries, (2018). How do I find scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles?
NCU Libraries, (2018). Primary Sources
NCU Libraries, (2018). Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
NCU Libraries, (2018). What is the difference between scholarly and peer-reviewed journals?
Yettick, H. (2015). One Small Droplet: News Media Coverage of Peer-Reviewed and University-Based Education Research and Academic Expertise
Week 5 – Assignment: Understanding Peer-Reviewed, Primary, and Secondary Sources
Instructions
Assignment: Part 1
In this assignment, you are the professor and you will be creating a PPT presentation for students that outlines the differences between the following:
Peer-reviewed journals
A primary source
A secondary source
Include in the notes section of the PowerPoint at least 200 words covering how you would explain the use and purpose of each item. For example, use who, what, when, where, and how to approach and explain each item as it applies to the peer-reviewed journals, the primary sources, and a secondary source.
Assignment: Part 2
Include a problem statement with a maximum of 250 words, including the points below that are from the dissertation template, for a topic that interests you.
Begin with “The problem to be addressed by this study is…” This statement should logically flow from the introduction and clearly identify the problem to be addressed by the study.
Succinctly discuss the problem and provide evidence of its existence.
Identify who is impacted by the problem (e.g., individuals, organizations, industries, or society),
Explain what is not known that should be known about it
Explain what the potential negative consequences could be if the problem is not addressed in this study
Remember to source the information and source assertions with citations of current, scholarly works from the literature
Length: 5-7 slides with a minimum of 200 words in the notes of the PPT
References: Include a minimum of five (5) scholarly resources.
Your presentation should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.
NCU Libraries, (2018). How do I determine if a particular journal is peer reviewed?
NCU Libraries, (2018). How do I find scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles?
NCU Libraries, (2018). Primary Sources
NCU Libraries, (2018). Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
NCU Libraries, (2018). What is the difference between scholarly and peer-reviewed journals?
Yettick, H. (2015). One Small Droplet: News Media Coverage of Peer-Reviewed and University-Based Education Research and Academic Expertise
6/2/22, 8:21 AM BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724) – BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 1/4
Week 5
BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)
Exploring the Literature Search and Practice Writing a Problem Statement
This week, you will discover the differences between peer-reviewed articles, peer-
reviewed journal, and primary sources versus secondary sources. You will discover how to
find peer-reviewed journals also. The reason to understand this is because your literature
review must be based on reliable sources so your dissertation is scholarly and
academically reliable.
As most scholars would agree, a primary source is a first discover account or evidence of a
topic. For example, if you were researching philosophy you would want to go all the way
back to Socrates and get his view as a ‘primary source’. Another example would be the
creator of a theory would be the primary source. This is the author or inventor’s original
research. It can include research on any number of things. When looking at a topic in an
article, go to the references listed and follow the listings to determine that you have
found the original author. Otherwise, you may be using secondary sources.
A secondary source is one or more steps from the primary source. This writing can be a
number of things such as an article being written that cites the primary source; however,
the new author has added another view. Secondary sources can be many things, such as
books, models, articles, and much more in the world of literature and writing. The main
difference is the secondary source is not the first to discover or write the idea.
Peer-reviewed sources are required at NCU in your dissertation. You will also be required
to stay within 85 percent of your literature to be current. This means within five years of
your dissertation completion. Remember to keep watch for this as you progress through
your dissertation and update any old sources. In the NCU Library, you will find and
practice the process of narrowing down to ‘peer-reviewed’ articles. This information
typically comes from a journal that has subject matter experts in the field of study and has
agreed to the authenticity of the article before being published in the journal.
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/home/159454
6/2/22, 8:21 AM BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724) – BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 2/4
Books and Resources for this Week
NCU Libraries, (2018). How do I
determine if a particular journal is peer
reviewed?
Link
SignifcancePurposeProblem
Click each card to know more about these parts o the dissertation research
Brief Discussion of Problem, Purpose, and
Significance in Dissertation Research
Launch in a separate window
Be sure to review this week’s resources carefully. You are expected to apply the
information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.
85.71 % 6 of 7 topics complete
javascript:void(0);
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/viewContent/1532074/View
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/shared/Course%20Interactives/SB/BUS-7100/week_05_Prob_Purp_Sig_Dsrtn_Res/story.html
6/2/22, 8:21 AM BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724) – BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 3/4
NCU Libraries, (2018). How do I find
scholarly, peer-reviewed journal
articles?
Link
NCU Libraries, (2018). Primary Sources
Link
NCU Libraries, (2018). Scholarly and
Peer-Reviewed Journals
Link
NCU Libraries, (2018). What is the
difference between scholarly and peer-
reviewed journals?
Link
Yettick, H. (2015). One Small Droplet:
News Media Coverage of Peer-
Reviewed and University-Based
Education Research and Academic
Expertise…
Link
Week 5 – Assignment: Understanding Peer-Reviewed,
Primary, and Secondary Sources
Assignment
Due June 5 at 11:59 PM
Assignment: Part 1
In this assignment, you are the professor and you will be creating a PPT presentation for
students that outlines the differences between the following:
Peer-reviewed journals
A primary source
A secondary source
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/viewContent/1532075/View
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/viewContent/1532076/View
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/viewContent/1532077/View
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/viewContent/1532078/View
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/viewContent/1532079/View
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/viewContent/1532048/View
6/2/22, 8:21 AM BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724) – BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)
https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 4/4
Include in the notes section of the PowerPoint at least 200 words covering how you
would explain the use and purpose of each item. For example, use who, what, when,
where, and how to approach and explain each item as it applies to the peer-reviewed
journals, the primary sources, and a secondary source.
Assignment: Part 2
Include a problem statement with a maximum of 250 words, including the points below
that are from the dissertation template, for a topic that interests you.
Begin with “The problem to be addressed by this study is…” This statement should
logically flow from the introduction and clearly identify the problem to be addressed by
the study.
Succinctly discuss the problem and provide evidence of its existence.
Identify who is impacted by the problem (e.g., individuals, organizations, industries,
or society),
Explain what is not known that should be known about it
Explain what the potential negative consequences could be if the problem is not
addressed in this study
Remember to source the information and source assertions with citations of
current, scholarly works from the literature
Length: 5-7 slides with a minimum of 200 words in the notes of the PPT
References: Include a minimum of five (5) scholarly resources.
Your presentation should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts
presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this
topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure
to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.
Upload your document and click the Submit to Dropbox button.
Educational Researcher, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 173 –184
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X15574903
© 2015 AERA. http://er.aera.net
ApRIl 2015 173
M
ost members of the American public will never read
this article. Even if they are interested in education
and charged with making important decisions about
schooling, it is unlikely that they will seek information from a
peer-reviewed education journal. Instead, they will probably
turn to other sources. Despite their well-publicized demise, the
news media are some of these sources. Daily newspapers are a
top source of education information in America, second only to
family and friends (West, Whitehurst, & Dionne, 2011). Online
news ties with newspapers as a source of information about local
education (Rosenstiel, Mitchell, Purcell, & Rainie, 2011).
Additionally, after years of decline, news use may be rebounding
as a result of the increasing popularity and functionality of tab-
lets and mobile devices (Pew Research Center, 2013).
Although researchers disagree about issues of mechanism and
degree, a large body of literature suggests that the news media
can and do influence decision making, perception, and even
behavior (Croteau, Hoynes, & Milan, 2012; Gamson, 1992;
Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1982; Graber, 2009). In
the education sphere, this means that news media coverage can
guide, to varying degrees, policymaking, practice, voting, and
selection of schools. For instance, Howell (2008) found that aca-
demic research results that contradicted the popular perception
that private schools are superior to public schools changed the
opinions of large percentages of study participants. In a day and
age in which personal choice plays an expanding role in educa-
tion, parents, students, and other nonexperts need evidence and
information more than ever in order to select the most suitable
school or register for the most appropriate level of coursework.
As such, one might hope that the news media would lean toward
presenting the best available evidence (Henig, 2008). At the very
least, this means that the education research mentioned in the
news media would have undergone the quality control measure
of peer review. Further, one might expect (or at least hope) that
academics, who are generally required to possess advanced
graduate degrees in their areas of study, would be a major source
of expertise. Yet little if any academic research has examined
574903EDRXXX10.3102/0013189X15574903Educational Researcher
research-article2015
1Education Week Research Center, Editorial Projects in Education, Bethesda, MD
One Small Droplet: News Media Coverage of
peer-Reviewed and University-Based Education
Research and Academic Expertise
Holly Yettick1
Most members of the American public will never read this article. Instead, they will obtain much of their information about
education from the news media. Yet little academic research has examined the type or quality of education research and
expertise they will find there. Through the lens of gatekeeping theory, this mixed-methods study aims to address that
gap by examining the prevalence of news media citations of evidence that has undergone the quality-control measure of
peer review and expertise associated with academics generally required to have expertise in their fields. Results suggest
that, unlike science or medical journalists, education writers virtually never cite peer-reviewed research. Nor do they use
the American Educational Research Association as a resource. Academic experts are also underrepresented in news
media coverage, especially when compared to government officials. Barriers between the news media and academia
include structural differences between research on education and the medical or life sciences as well as journalists’ lack of
knowledge of the definition and value of peer review and tendency to apply and misapply news values to social science
research and expertise.
Keywords: communication; content analysis; in-depth interviewing; media; regression analyses; research utilization
FEATURE ARTIClES
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.3102%2F0013189X15574903&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-04-01
174 EDUCATIONAl RESEARCHER
what kind of education-related studies, data, and experts are
actually mentioned by the news media. In a sense, the issue has
fallen through the cracks of the mass communication and educa-
tion fields. Further, potentially relevant studies are difficult to
assemble in that they span a wide variety of fields such as mass
communications, education, and political science.
The purpose of this study is to address the gaps in the litera-
ture by examining the prevalence of news media mentions of
“higher quality education-related evidence.” From here on, this
term is operationalized to mean research that has undergone the
quality control measure of peer review in that it has appeared in
peer-reviewed journals. The term also includes research and
expertise associated with academic experts. Such researchers are
most likely to publish in peer-reviewed journals and work for
employers that require advanced graduate degrees in their areas
of research.1 While this definition is far from perfect and open to
debate, this focus on university and peer-reviewed research and
expertise is also important because most academic research is
either in whole or in part supported by public funds in that its
authors work at public universities or receive government con-
tracts or grants. This adds a layer of urgency to the need to
understand the degree to which such research and expertise is
disseminated to the public that has helped pay for it and is, indi-
rectly at least, responsible for ensuring its continuing support. In
order to provide a better understanding of the prevalence of such
research and expertise, this study also examines the journalistic
decision-making processes that might help explain why educa-
tion writers often hesitate to mention research and expertise
from peer-reviewed and/or academic sources.
Literature Review
Relatively little academic research addresses news media coverage
of education research and expertise, much less academic research
and expertise. One of the few exceptions is Jeffrey Henig’s 2008
book, Spin Cycle. Henig’s study includes an analysis of the affili-
ations of the experts whom two large newspapers consulted for
articles on school choice. Nearly half of the experts mentioned
(46.3%) were university affiliated. Of the 12 experts mentioned
more than three times, two thirds (8) were affiliated with a uni-
versity for at least some point during the sample period (1980–
2004). The study also included interviews with journalists from
elite organizations. Henig concluded that these journalists lacked
the knowledge to sort the research wheat from the chaff. Further,
they were skeptical about education research in general and char-
ter school research in particular in part as a result of method-
ological disagreements between high-profile researchers. They
were also overwhelmed as a result of deep staffing cuts in their
newsrooms.
Henig (2008) did not analyze research affiliations or news
coverage unrelated to school choice. In a broader study of the
education coverage of three elite publications (The New York
Times, The Washington Post, and Education Week), Yettick (2009)
found that Education Week articles most frequently cited univer-
sity research, whereas the two newspapers most frequently cited
government research, followed by university research. This study
did not include an analysis of expert citations or interviews with
journalists. Further, neither study examined online-only outlets
or local publications, which may be predisposed to cover more
education news since, in the United States, K–12 schooling is
largely funded and controlled at state and local levels.
In their landmark overview of media coverage of social sci-
ence research (including education research), Weiss and Singer
(1988) found that elite, national news outlets were most likely to
mention government studies but that university research was a
close second. They also found that social science was the subject
of 4 of the top 10 stories generated by meetings of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, meaning that social
science attracted a disproportionate amount of media attention.
However, the outlets studied completely ignored the research
presented in five top peer-reviewed social science journals.
By contrast, a research synthesis of qualitative studies of
health and science reporters found that both types of journalists
relied heavily on scientific journals, which were their main
source for story ideas, in part because they were skeptical of pub-
lic relations efforts and trusting of scientists (Amend & Secko,
2011). In line with these results were the findings of a quantita-
tive study that found that more than half of front page newspa-
per articles about medical research (57%) were based on studies
published in peer-reviewed journals (Lai & Lane, 2009).
Overall, research suggests journalists cover social science at
major academic conferences (Weiss & Singer, 1988). They favor
peer-reviewed studies of science and health (Amend & Secko,
2011; Lai & Lane, 2009). In some instances, they favor university-
based education research (Yettick, 2009). However, an overarch-
ing issue is that the news media, in general, mention very little
peer-reviewed research or expertise of any kind (Henig, 2008).
One reason may be that peer-reviewed education research has
long been criticized as low status, irrelevant, and trivial, to the
point that even practitioners in the field (i.e., teachers) often felt
justified in ignoring it (Lagemann, 2000). Yet even in the health
field, where the news media have arguably helped transform cer-
tain peer-reviewed journals into household names, 0.34% of
peer-reviewed studies attracted attention from the news media
(Suleski & Ibaraki, 2010). As Suleski and Ibaraki write,
If the output of science articles were the volume of a swimming
pool, the total papers that made it to a mainstream audience
through news media would fill only a quart, and the non-health/
medicine papers would be just two tablespoons. (p. 120)
The results of this study suggest that in the education field, the
medicine dropper might be a more appropriate instrument of
measurement.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is gatekeeping theory.
Gatekeeping theory provides a model for how and why decisions
are made. In essence, everyone is not equally important when it
comes to mass social decisions, such as the foods a family con-
sumes or the articles that appear in a newspaper (Lewin, 1997;
White, 1950). Instead, decision making flows through one or
more channels interspersed with gates. “Gatekeepers” determine
whether the gates swing open or remain shut (Lewin, 1997, p.
300). In the case of communication, channels might, for instance,
ApRIl 2015 175
represent the path from a university news release to a newspaper
article. Examples of gatekeepers would include the editors who
sort through news releases and the reporters who decide whether
to write about the sorted releases. An extensive body of mass
communication research has examined gatekeeping influences,
which include newsroom social control (Breed, 1955), cognitive
processes (Stocking & Gross, 1989), and ideology (Gans, 2004).
More recent theoretical explanations have suggested that even
in the Internet era, gatekeeping has not so much disappeared as
evolved to varying degrees to incorporate more audience input
(Bowman, 2008; Bruns, 2009; Cassidy, 2006; T. Haas, 2005;
Livingston & Bennett, 2003; Singer, 2006; Storm, 2007). In a
nod to the loosening of the editorial reigns by newer and more
experimental online media outlets, Bruns (2009) proposed renam-
ing gatekeeping as “gatewatching” because online journalists are
not so much locking and unlocking the gates as they are watching
what flows through a perpetually permeable opening that admits
content from a seemingly endless supply of contributors.
Shoemaker and Vos’s Multilevel Model
A hallmark of contemporary notions of gatekeeping theory is the
idea that multiple levels of analysis should be taken into account.
Drawing upon more than half a century’s worth of gatekeeping
research and theory, Shoemaker and Vos (2009) envision five
levels that progress from narrow and individual to broad and
societal: individual, communication routines, organizational,
social institution, and social system/ideological.2 These levels
interact and should not be considered in isolation. For instance,
individuals (Level 1) put their own stamps on communication
routines (Level 2).
The Shoemaker and Vos (2009) model is the conceptual
framework for this research study. As such, the research questions
examine the extent to which forces at various levels influence the
prevalence of academic and/or peer-reviewed education research
in the news media. The research questions are as follows:
1. What is the prevalence of peer-reviewed research and
academic research and expertise in U.S. print news
media coverage of education?
2. How do the journalistic decision-making processes help
us understand the prevalence of academic and peer-
reviewed research and expertise in news media coverage
of education?
Past research suggests that potential influences on news cover-
age of education and/or research and expertise might include per-
sonal preferences, risk avoidance, and educational backgrounds at
Level 1; skepticism as a news value at Level 2; reporters from com-
peting outlets at Level 3; economic forces, think tanks, and audi-
ences at Level 4; and neoliberalism at Level 5 (Dunwoody, 1980;
Henig, 2008; Stack, 2007; Tunstall, 1971; Ungderleider, 2006).
Methodology
This mixed-methods research study sampled two populations:
news media coverage and the journalists and bloggers who cre-
ated that coverage. The first population consisted of U.S. print
news media coverage that mentioned education research or
experts. It was unclear, based on past research, how journalists
actually defined education research or expertise. So education
research was broadly defined as evidence relevant to decisions
about education. This definition excluded purely anecdotal
statements. “Experts” were defined as researchers. Also included
in the definition were non-research-conducting observers com-
menting from the sidelines, in much the same way that sports
commentators describe and analyze what is happening on the
field in an effort to provide broader context and meaning to a
game. Although these expansive definitions almost certainly
included people, studies, and data that some people would not
consider to be research or experts, the writers interviewed for this
study generally agreed with these classifications.
This study operationalized media coverage as print news
media articles, commentaries, blog entries, columns, and edito-
rials about K–12 education, described from here on out as
“items.” All items appeared during the first 6 months of 2010 in
daily newspapers, online-only outlets, or the trade publication
Education Week. The study excluded other outlet types because
the print media have historically produced more education cov-
erage, employed more journalists, and set the agenda for radio
and broadcast news (Pew Research Center, 2013; Reese &
Danielian, 1989; Weaver, Beam, Brownlee, Voakes, & Wilhoit,
2007).
Past research has largely neglected local news coverage of edu-
cation even though one might expect local news coverage to be
more comprehensive since K–12 education in this country is
funded and controlled at the state and local level. So this study
sampled content from the 650 daily newspapers, big and small,
that are catalogued in the America’s News database.
In addition to newspapers, the study sampled online-only
sites that either focused on education or wrote frequently about
the topic. As a result of rapid and decentralized growth in the
sector, it was difficult to find a comprehensive list of education
blogs and other online-only outlets from which to work. For this
reason, the sampled outlets were gleaned from a list of 86 education-
related online-only outlets monitored regularly by Alexander
Russo, who runs the news aggregation and commentary site This
Week in Education. Russo chooses sites to follow “that include a
variety of content, views that aren’t all predictable, and update
regularly” (A. Russo, personal communication, March 20,
2010).
The final sampled text was Education Week. This periodical
was included because it is an influential source of information
for policymakers, academics, journalists, and others with an
interest in education-related policy (Swanson & Barlage, 2006).
I used “constructed week sampling” to select daily newspaper
articles and online-only texts. In a constructed week sample,
each day of the sampled week is randomly selected from the
entire list of those days (e.g., all the Wednesdays) that occurred
during a given period. In this case, the time period was the first
6 months of 2010. This means that the Monday of the con-
structed week may have occurred in January while the Tuesday
occurred in June. The advantage of this method is that it
accounts for the fact that news is heavier on certain days by
including every single day of the week while also representing
the entire range of months that occurred during the sample
176 EDUCATIONAl RESEARCHER
period. One constructed week represented 6 months of newspa-
per coverage while 2 constructed weeks represented the same
time period for online-only reportage, which is more variable
(Hester & Dougall, 2007; Riffe, Aust, & Lacy, 1993).
On the 7 days sampled, a total of 223,400 newspaper items
ran. Based on the research of E. Haas (2007), search terms such
as “study,” “expert,” and “school” narrowed down these results to
40,000 items, each of which this author skimmed, selecting
1,332 newspaper items for coding because they addressed K–12
education and mentioned research and/or experts. These 1,332
items represented 0.6% of the 223,400 news items that appeared
in newspapers on the 7 sampled days. They were drawn from
395 newspapers.
I did not use search terms for online-only outlets because
many lacked search functions and because search engines gener-
ated too many irrelevant results. Instead, this author skimmed
3,390 items that appeared on the 14 sample dates, selecting 361
items (11%) for coding. Finally, 7 randomly selected weeks rep-
resented 6 months of coverage in Education Week (Lacy,
Robinson, & Riffe, 1995). Because only 305 items ran in those
editions, this author skimmed them all, selecting 159 items
(52%) for coding.
The codes assigned to selected items are summarized in Table
1. Pursuant to methodological research on content analysis, an
assistant recoded a random sample of 100 items, with Cohen’s
Kappa used to gauge interrater reliability (Lacy & Riffe, 1996),
discarding codes if κ < .90.
The second population sampled for the study consisted of the
writers who produced the news media coverage. The selection of
these 33 writers was purposive, with an eye toward gaining a
deeper understanding of the results of the initial analysis of the
sampled texts. Writers participated in open-ended, protocol-
guided interviews that lasted 20 minutes to 2 hours apiece.
Analysis
This study employed logistic regression to analyze the 1,852
coded items. The item was the unit of analysis. The models spec-
ified controlled for the fact that item length varied significantly
(see Table 1) while also exploring interactions between different
codes (e.g., item topic and research type). Pursuant to research
suggesting differences between news coverage that mentions
research and news coverage that mentions expertise, the study
analyzed items that mentioned research separately from items
that mentioned experts (Weiss & Singer, 1988). Items that men-
tioned both research and expertise were included in both sets of
analyses. Since the goal was to examine the individual parameter
estimates for each variable, parsimony and model fit took a back
seat to parameter estimates. Table 1 summarizes the variables
employed in the models.
The analysis specified four pairs of models, with each pair
consisting of items that mentioned research and items and men-
tioned experts. The first pair used binomial dependent variables
that indicated whether or not an item had mentioned university
research or experts. The second set of models compared differ-
ences between outlet types by employing a multinomial depen-
dent variable that indicated whether an item had run in a
newspaper, an online-only outlet, or Education Week. A third set
of models explored differences among online-only outlets
because they varied widely, from one-woman blogs run by hob-
byists (e.g., It’s Not All Flowers and Sausages) to professional news
organizations with paid staffs (e.g., Voice of San Diego). For these
models, which only examined the subset of items that ran in
online-only outlets, the outcome variables indicated whether an
item had come from outlets affiliated with one of five types of
sponsors: associations, educators, “media model,” think tank, or
“other.” Finally, a fourth set of models used a binomial depen-
dent variable to examine differences between items that were
commentaries (generated by readers or thought leaders) and
items that were articles.
Analysis of interview transcripts entailed what LeCompte and
Schensul described as “coding from the top down” by “choosing a
set of concepts first and then sorting out the data in terms of
which of the concepts they fit best” (1999, pp. 66, 46). The analy-
sis of interviews was deductive in that transcripts were coded to
one or more levels and sublevels of Shoemaker and Vos’s (2009)
conceptual framework of gatekeeping influences. Once the tran-
scripts were coded, each category was examined as an entity, with
an eye toward identifying the influence’s scope, its various forms
and manifestations, its benefits, and its drawbacks.
Results
Peer-Reviewed Research
Peer-reviewed academic journals are barely a footnote to news
media coverage of education: Of the 227,095 items that ran in
the sampled outlets during the sampled days, 1,558 (0.69%)
mentioned education research. Of these 1,558, 45 (3%) men-
tioned peer-reviewed journal research (see Figure 1). By contrast,
695 (45%) mentioned government research.
Of the three most frequently mentioned journals, two were
not even from the education field, but from medicine. Further,
“health” was the most common topic of news items that men-
tion peer-reviewed journals: More than a third of news items
that cited peer-reviewed journals addressed the “health” topic.
The most frequently mentioned education journal was
Education Next. Although the publication describes itself as peer-
reviewed, it is not assigned an impact factor by Thomson-
Reuters. More generally, there was virtually no overlap between
the education journals mentioned by the news media and the
education journals with the highest impact factors. With one
exception (Child Development), none of the educational journals
mentioned were assigned impact factors in the top five of their
2010 Thomson-Reuters education-related categories. By con-
trast, the medical journals mentioned did have high impact fac-
tors (see Table 2).
No American Educational Research Association (AERA)
journals were mentioned by the print news media during the
sample period. Further, only 3 of the 33 interviewees said they
used AERA or its annual conference as a resource. “Why I didn’t
use them before—I just didn’t know about them,” said 1 of the
3. A veteran education reporter for a major metro daily newspa-
per, she had only just learned of the organization’s existence.
ApRIl 2015 177
Table 1
Number of News Items Assigned to Each Code
Code Frequency Example
Institutional affiliation: Item mentions at least one:
Examples from coded items
Government study 695 A Tangipahoa Parish School Board report
Study of unknown origin 438 Research clearly shows …
University study 247 A University of Texas at Austin study
Think tank study 230 An evaluation by the American Institutes for Research
News media study 185 A 2008 Chicago Sun-Times series, called Schooled in Fear
Association study 98 A report released by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers
For-profit study 93 Study from the Evergreen Education Group, a consulting group based in
Evergreen, Colorado
Foundation study 89 A report issued this week from the Annie E. Casey Foundation
University research center study 84 Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice at Stanford University
Peer-reviewed journal study 45 A new study … in Education Next
Study by an unaffiliated/independent research 34 Author Dan Pink
Union study 21 A United School Employees of Pasco survey
Government expert 742 Associate superintendent for curriculum, instruction, and accountability
University expert 406 An education professor at Stanford
Think tank expert 248 The vice president of national programs and policies for the Washington-
based Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Association expert 228 A former president of the New York chapter of the National Association of
School Psychologists
For-profit expert 170 An educational consultant who has worked with school districts throughout
Texas
Expert with unknown affiliation 137 Experts say
News media expert 87 Jay Matthews advises us that, based on recent research
University research center expert 87 Associate director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the
University of Washington
Foundation expert 64 Bush Foundation President … released the group’s report
Unaffiliated expert 61 Susan Ohanian
Union expert 51 President of the American Federation of Teachers
Outlet types: Item ran in:
Examples of outlets
An online-only outlet 361 National Journal Education Experts Blog
Education Week 159 Education Week
A newspaper 1332 The Orlando Sentinel
Newspaper items: Newspaper size Examples of newspapers
Small (circulation < 100,000) 794 The Dalton Daily Citizen
Medium (circulation 100,000–499,999) 462 The Denver Post
Large (circulation > 499,999) 76 The New York Times
Headline example
Item is Education Week or newspaper commentary 126 Charters: Students With Disabilities Need Not Apply?
Online-only outlets: Outlet sponsor Outlet examples
Association-sponsored outlet 43 BoardBuzz
Educator-sponsored outlet 67 Sherman Dorn
Media model outlet 147 Inside School Research
Other outlet 45 Intercepts
Think tank–sponsored outlet 59 The EnterpriseBlog
Item topic (each item can be assigned to multiple topics)
Headline examples
Politics and governance 455 Race for education dollars—Maryland legislators should heed the state
superintendent’s advice.
(continued)
178 EDUCATIONAl RESEARCHER
Even online-only outlets with university sponsors (mainly
faculty bloggers) gave short shrift to peer-reviewed education
research. Peer-reviewed journals were mentioned in less than 5%
of the university-sponsored outlets’ coded items that mentioned
research. This means that faculty member–sponsored outlets
mention peer-reviewed journals at rates similar to the sample as
a whole.
Why don’t education writers mention more peer-reviewed
education research? Interestingly, one obvious obstacle was not a
significant barrier: Just 5 of the 33 study participants said they
avoided peer-reviewed education journals because of the cost
associated with downloading articles from journals that erect pay
walls. Rather, the stumbling blocks were more basic: For instance,
this author was forced to revise the interview protocol to define
peer review because 9 people were uncertain what it meant. This
was likely related to the background of the interviewees, which
was typical of American journalists: Although all interviewees
were college graduates, just 20% had pursued majors in the social
sciences. The remainder pursued journalism and/or humanities-
related majors. This is likely also why nearly half the interviewees
(n = 15) found peer-reviewed journals difficult to understand. In
fact, difficulty understanding peer-reviewed journals was one of
two top reasons why interviewees avoided citing peer-reviewed
education research. A veteran newspaper reporter explained,
I don’t have enough personal expertise to know what I’m looking
at. … I sort of went fishing. I don’t know whether this is credible
research or not. … I don’t know if it’s groundbreaking or
something that says what another study says. I found it to be
diminishing returns.
In the wake of industrywide financial pressures that leave little
room for any activity with the possibility of providing diminishing
returns, few study participants had even tried such a foray into the
world of peer review (Pew Research Center, 2011, 2013).3 So it
makes sense that time constraints were the other top reason why
interviewees did not mention peer-reviewed journals. One educa-
tion reporter at a newspaper that had recently undergone layoffs
was among the 16 interviewees who lacked time to decipher peer-
reviewed research. He said, “I don’t know what would happen if
my editor came over and I was just reading a magazine.”
Another obstacle for interviewees was the perception that
peer-reviewed education journals did not publicize their articles
1,852 of 227,095
items that ran
1/1/10-6/30/10
were coded
because they
men�oned ed res.
and/or experts
(.8%)
159 Edweek items
coded (52%)
137 items men�on
research
8 items men�on
p.r. jrnls (6%)
41 items men�on
univ. res. (30%)
124 items men�on
experts
60 items men�on
univ. exp. (48%)
102 items men�on
exp. AND res.
361 online-only
items coded (11%)
281 items men�on
research
12 items men�on
p.r. journals (4%)
67 items men�on
univ res (24%)
250 items men�on
experts
109 items men�on
univ. exp. (44%)
170 items men�on
exp. AND res.
1,332 newspaper
items coded (.6%)
1,140 items
men�on research
25 items men�on
p.r. journals (2%)
139 items men�on
univ. res. (12%)
1,060 men�on
experts
237 items men�on
univ. exp. (22%)
868 items men�on
exp. AND res.
FIGURE 1. Numbers and percentages of items that mentioned
education research and expertise
Peer-reviewed journals were only coded as “research” because a
peer-reviewed journal “expert” category would imply that the
person worked for a peer-reviewed journal.
Code Frequency Example
Money 353 South Adams seeking further cuts in budget
Assessment & accountability 269 New York State places dozens of NYC schools on replacement list
Health 258 What if schools couldn’t serve chocolate milk?
Personnel 255 Union’s offer underwhelms
Teaching and learning 255 Momentum Building for Hands-On Science Learning
Special populations and equity 235 CUSD tackles equality in sports
Parents and community 199 New NORD leaders in tough spot—Low funding limits summer programs
Legal and discipline 184 Bullying May Be Decreasing, Survey Finds
Technology 87 8-hour school day?—Plan would give some students extra 2 hours of
computerized math, reading
Miscellaneous
Headline example
Item was focused on research 572 Second Study Gives Thumbs Up to N.Y.C. Charters
Locally focused outlet example
Item ran in a locally focused outlet 1348 Voice of San Diego
Average number of words per item 643
Table 1 (continued)
ApRIl 2015 179
with news releases (n = 8). Even interviewees who regularly
perused peer-reviewed journals found it more efficient to rely on
news releases rather than wade through articles. Interviewees
selected because they had made the rare decision to mention
peer-reviewed studies said they found the research they had
mentioned as a result of publicity efforts instigated by the
researcher or via search results featured prominently on Google.
More generally, Internet search engines were the main way in
which interviewees found academic research.
Certainly, when it comes to many of the obstacles described
in this section, science and medical reporters face many of the
same constraints as education writers. Yet they quote peer-
reviewed journals more often. Interviewees believed that jour-
nals in those fields more aggressively publicized their articles.
But a veteran education reporter for a daily newspaper also noted
differences between the education and medical fields: “I think
medical research is on its face more interesting. We’ve had great
steps forward. The world [has been] changed by medical research.
I don’t think we can say the same for education research.” This
may, of course, be a self-fulfilling prophecy. In ignoring peer-
reviewed education research, journalists may also be limiting its
potential to influence the broader world.
Universities
Universities serve a core research function. So one might expect
them to be the top source of the education research that reaches
the public via the news media sampled for this study. They are
not. They are a distant third, behind government (45%) and
“unknown research,” a category that includes all research cita-
tions that did not mention a person or institutional affiliation
(28%).4 University research and think tank research are men-
tioned at nearly the same rates (16% vs. 15%). This is the case
even though universities produce 14 to 16 times more research
than think tanks (Yettick, 2009). Further, most of the think
tanks mentioned (87%) were advocacy-oriented think tanks
rather than organizations like RAND that embrace a more aca-
demic approach in that they strive to conduct empirical research
and do not seek to promote a specific cause.
Audiences and thought leaders who submit commentaries
(i.e., op-eds) mention university research most: Commentaries
in newspapers and Education Week are twice as likely as articles
to mention university studies.
Online-only outlets are nearly twice as likely as newspapers to
mention university research. One reason is that newspapers are
so thoroughly focused on government that other types of
research and expertise get squeezed out. More than 64% of
coded newspaper items mentioned at least one government
expert and/or study.
Like other types of online-only outlets, educator-sponsored
media outlets gravitate toward research and expertise that
matches their sponsor type. As such, universities are a particu-
larly important source for educator-sponsored outlets: Educator-
sponsored outlets are three times more likely to mention
Table 2
Complete List of Peer-Reviewed Journals Mentioned in Study
Sample, by Number of Media Citations, Impact Factor, and Field
Journal Name Total Cites Impact Factor Field
Pediatrics 7 5.4 Pediatrics
Education Next 5 NR N/A
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 4 4. 3 Pediatrics
Developmental Psychology 3 3. 4 Psychology, developmental
Educational Leadership 3 0. 2 Education and education research
New England Journal of Medicine 3 53 Medicine, general and internal
Health Affairs 2 3. 8 Health policy and services
Journal of the American Medical Association 2 30 Medicine, general and internal
Kappan 2 0. 2 Education and education research
American Journal of Health Behavior 1 1. 2 Public, environmental, and occupational health
British Journal of Educational Psychology 1 1 Psychology, educational
Child Development 1 3. 8 Psychology, educational
Current Directions in Psychological Science 1 3. 5 Psychology, multidisciplinary
Economics of Education Review 1 1. 1 Education and education research
Elementary School Journal 1 1. 1 Education and education research
International Journal of Science Education 1 1. 1 Education and education research
Journal of Adolescent Health 1 3. 1 Psychology, developmental
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 1 NR N/A
Journal of Human Resources 1 2. 1 Economics
Literacy Research & Instruction 1 NR N/A
Music Educators Journal 1 NR N/A
Psychological Science and the Public Interest 1 NR N/A
Source. 2010 Thomson-Reuters Social Science Edition.
Note. NR = not ranked by Thomson-Reuters; N/A = not applicable. Impact factor and field are provided by Thomson-Reuters.
180 EDUCATIONAl RESEARCHER
university research and experts than are the “media model” out-
lets that dominate the online-only sample.
However, when the “educator-sponsored” category is divided
into K–12 educators and university educators, it becomes clear
that university-sponsored outlets prioritize university research
more than outlets run by K–12 educators. About 40% of the
coded, research-citing items from university educator–sponsored
outlets mention university research as compared to 16% of the
items drawn from K–12-sponsored outlets. This gap makes
sense when one considers that, unlike in the life sciences, practi-
tioners in the education field (i.e., teachers) rely more on practi-
cal experience than research (National Research Council, 2002).
In the sample as a whole as well as in all three outlet types,
universities were much more frequently called upon to provide
educational expertise than research: Among coded items that
mentioned educational experts, 28% cited university-affiliated
experts. Among coded items that mentioned research, 16% cited
university research (see Figure 1).
As a source of educational expertise in the sample as a whole,
universities are second only to government. However, online-
only outlets and Education Week mention university experts
about twice as much as newspapers.
Interview results helped explain the underrepresentation of
university research, especially as compared to university experts.
As with other sources, news values were the standard against
which this type of research and expertise were judged. Localism
(proximity) and objectivity were the two news norms most com-
monly employed to judge both academic research and experts
and other research/expert types. Unlike Henig (2008), this study
did not find that interviewees were skeptical of education
research as a result of high-profile academic disagreements, such
as the debate between Caroline Hoxby and Margaret Raymond,
which was covered extensively by some outlets. (See, e.g.,
Viadero, 2009.) In fact, most were unaware of such issues. One
of the few interviewees to even mention the Hoxby debates
dismissed them as “insider baseball” irrelevant both to him and
to the readers of his locally focused news outlet. More generally,
although a handful of interviewees expressed deep skepticism or
scorn related to the field of education research, the predominant
view was more along the lines of this response: “That’s like ask-
ing me what I think of politics. There is good education research,
lousy education research; influential, not influential. … I see lots
of different patterns, not one.”5 The differences between my
findings and Henig’s are likely due in large part to my decision
to focus on a wide range of education writers rather than restrict-
ing my sample to affiliates of elite, national outlets. Local writers
were simply too distracted by local affairs to spend a great deal of
time pondering the nature of education research or following
scholarly debates, high profile or not.
Nine interviewees preferred to mention research and experts
associated with local institutions. The news value “elitism” was
localism’s kryptonite, with reporters sometimes willing to inter-
view an out-of-state professor if he or she was an Ivy League pro-
fessor. Perhaps as a result, most of the universities most frequently
mentioned as sources of education research and expertise are elite,
Research I institutions (see Table 3). Unlike elitism, other news
values acted in concert with localism: For instance, a local research
study that was in line with news values emphasizing clarity was
preferable to a local study that was more ambiguous.
Journalists’ emphasis on localism may help explain why uni-
versity research is less frequently mentioned than expertise: The
human subjects rules that faculty members must follow may lead
researchers to disguise the locations of their study sites. But the
same researchers are not similarly constrained when it comes to
providing expert commentary on, for instance, a proposed pol-
icy. By contrast, when the local school district issues a report,
journalists can rest assured that it is a study of local schools.
Given that nearly every newspaper sampled had a specific local
geographic focus, it is unsurprising that government research
and expertise dominated newspapers.
Table 3
Universities Most Frequently Mentioned by the News Media as Sources of Education Research and Expertise
Name Items That Mention Research Name Items That Mention Experts
Stanford 19 Harvard 31
Harvard 17 Stanford 31
New York University 14 New York University 30
University of Chicago 10 Columbia University 15
University of California, Santa Barbara 8 University of Illinois at Chicago 15
University of Illinois at Chicago 6 University of Chicago 12
University of Virginia 6 University of Virginia 11
Johns Hopkins 6 University of California, Los Angeles 10
University of California, Los Angeles 5 University of Arkansas 9
University of Arkansas 5 University of Washington 9
University of Washington 5 University of Wisconsin–Madison 9
University of Wisconsin–Madison 5 University of California, Berkeley 8
University of California, Berkeley 5 University of Michigan 8
University of Maryland 5 University of Minnesota 8
Florida State University 5 University of Missouri, Columbia 7
ApRIl 2015 181
The extreme form of localism emphasized at newspapers and
hyper-local online-only outlets has expanded in the past half a
decade. It results from efforts to increase advertising revenue and
stem reader losses by focusing on local news that is not available
from other outlets. Such localism has led newspapers to shutter
Washington bureaus as they (and competing, hyper-local online-
only outlets) devote resources to youth sports scores, police led-
gers, and other minutiae of provincial interest (Pew Research
Center, 2011). This approach frustrated interviewees, nearly half
of whom reported that localism made it difficult to mention any
research or expertise whatsoever because the material they
reported was too particular to a specific locality to lend itself to
a broader perspective.
Objectivity was another commonly cited news value used to
select and judge academic research and experts. Study partici-
pants rarely read the research to assess bias. Rather, they used
proxies to signal objectivity. Institutional affiliation (n = 19) was
the most commonly used signal, meaning some institutions or
types of institutions were viewed as objective, and some were
not. Funding was the most common means of deciding whether
an institution was objective (n = 8). Another signal of objectivity
was research that disconfirmed initial or past hypotheses or
claimed to lack a hypothesis (e.g., “I began the study with no
idea of what I would find”).
Experts were more likely to be considered objective if their
comments were middle of the road politically and/or they
acknowledged the validity of alternative views. Only a small
minority of interviewees (n = 5) said they tried to create objectiv-
ity by providing contrasting research conclusions and/or view-
points, creating a situation in which certain types of views (i.e.,
moderate) are privileged over others, regardless of what the pre-
ponderance of evidence might suggest.
Six interviewees placed academic research and experts in the
“objective” category. Six found them biased. Even those who
found university research and experts to be objective tended to
qualify their statements. “University studies seem to be more
neutral,” was a typical comment. Objectivity was viewed on a
sliding scale: To many interviewees, every source of education
research and expertise was biased, but some sources were more
biased than others.
One education writer proposed that even when biased, aca-
demic research was biased in a more harmless manner than
other research and expert types: “The main source of bias, if I
want to call it bias, has to do with the topic of research.” For
instance, a charter school study could investigate parental satis-
faction, or it could examine racial stratification. The first exam-
ple reflects an interest in choice as a driver of liberty interests,
while the second example reflects an interest in choice’s impact
on equity interests.
Another interviewee was more troubled by her perceptions of
academic bias, saying that professors had a tendency to suggest
that a research body was inadequate or nonexistent when the
cumulative results contradicted their political or ideological
beliefs:
I remember a … professor who teaches reading was asked:
“What is it we really know about teaching reading?” She said,
“Nothing.” We know a lot! Even when something is known, we
don’t know anything if it disagrees with our worldview … or
politics.
Localism and objectivity were not the only news values that
influenced the gatekeeping surrounding university research and
expertise. Seven interviewees also said that academic research
and expert comments were difficult to adapt to news values
emphasizing simplicity and/or clarity.
In addition to being influenced by news values, university
expert and research selection were also affected by interviewees’
limited knowledge of statistics and research methods. The subset
of interviewees who desired more training in these subjects did
not want more formal education. Instead they preferred a form
of on-the-job learning in which they cultivated journalistic
sources as personal tutors. Not surprisingly, these “tutors” were
often affiliated with universities. An outcome of the resulting
“teacher-student” relationship was that faculty members some-
times became trusted “super-sources” who shaped coverage in
ways that were both highly visible (e.g., via frequent quotations
in articles) and more difficult to detect (e.g., by providing input
on which stories to cover). This is perhaps one of the reasons 6
interviewees described academic experts as trustworthy. Trust
was a risk-management technique for individual interviewees in
that relying on trusted sources reduced the chance of making
embarrassing and potentially career-damaging errors.
As such, university super-sources could have an outsized
influence on coverage of education research and expertise. For
example, one young education writer turned to a super-source
professor when she found herself unable to quell what she viewed
as her editor’s misguided enthusiasm for publishing teachers’
names alongside value-added scores based on student assess-
ments. This writer invited her super-source to lunch, where he
proceeded to persuade her editor to take a different approach. In
a sense, he became an adjunct journalist.
Discussion
The results of this study suggest that peer-reviewed academic edu-
cation research and the AERA organization are barely a blip on the
radar of American education reporting. While university research
and experts are more prominently featured in news coverage, their
role is less extensive than one might expect, given that few other
types of organizations devote as many resources to research.
It is important to note that the disconnect between academic
education research and the news media is due, in large part, to
forces external to journalism, which are found at Level 3 of the
Shoemaker and Vos (2009) framework. First, purveyors of peer-
reviewed education research have been less proactive with pub-
licity than those in the science and medical fields, where news
coverage of academic and peer-reviewed research is more com-
mon. For example, in a 2010 AERA presentation, veteran higher
education editor Scott Jaschik described being “bombarded”
with “dozens and dozens” of university press office requests and
briefings related to (non–social science) research scheduled to be
presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (Baker, 2010). By contrast, Jaschik
reported receiving just two university emails publicizing studies
to be presented at that year’s AERA annual meeting.
182 EDUCATIONAl RESEARCHER
This lack of publicity on the part of universities may help
explain the finding that think tanks, which do publicize their
research, generate relatively more news per study than do aca-
demics (Rich, 2004). An additional reason is that think tanks
generally aim to influence policy by producing research that is
relevant to issues of public interest, which are often well aligned
with topics of news coverage (Rich, 2004). By contrast, academ-
ics have a different set of incentives (e.g., earning tenure, publi-
cation in peer-reviewed journals) that lead them to prioritize
studies that aim to advance the state of knowledge in their fields
in ways that are not necessarily relevant to the public, much less
newsworthy.
Yet even if universities wanted to publicize the subset of edu-
cation research that is relevant to the public, they might not have
the money: In 2011, American universities spent more than $65
billion on research and development, the majority of which they
received from federal grants and contracts (Britt, 2012). More
than half of these funds ($37.2 billion or 57%) went to the life
sciences, mainly the medical sciences ($20.4 billion or 31%). By
contrast, education research received $1.104 billion, or less than
2% of total expenditures.
Yet adequate education research may actually be more expen-
sive to implement even than some medical trials since relevant
studies can rarely be conducted in controlled, laboratory envi-
ronments. Seldom do they result in the discovery of one simple,
uncontested main effect: Rather, unintended consequences and
context-related interactions muddy the waters, limiting the cer-
tainty with which claims can be made (National Research
Council, 2002). This is problematic for journalists, who may
find that the qualifications inherent to the study of human sub-
jects in nonlaboratory contexts result in a nuanced interpreta-
tions that can seem like a simple lack of objectivity on the part
of the researcher. Certainly, perceptions of subjectivity were
problematic for participants in this study. A further issue is that
the more clear-cut results that emerge from randomized, con-
trolled, laboratory-based experiments permit medical researchers
to make claims with a relatively high degree of certainty com-
pared to researchers in education. Such straightforward claims
align with news values (mentioned by interviewees for this
study) emphasizing clarity, simplicity, and the need to write with
firm authority.
Adding to the confusion is, as Henig (2008) notes, educa-
tion’s lack of a small set of peer-reviewed, flagship journals such
as the Journal of the American Medical Association or the New
England Journal of Medicine that clearly signal to journalists that
the studies contained within are groundbreaking and method-
ologically rigorous.
Journalists’ perceptions that education is relatively subjective
may also have a basis in the nature of the field. Values have long
played a central role in the discipline because the education of
young people is tied to hopes and expectations for the future of
society (National Research Council, 2002). As a result, policy-
makers, practitioners, parents, and even researchers find it diffi-
cult to give research findings too much weight if they conflict
with deeply ingrained expectations and beliefs.
Despite these important (discipline-based, Level 3) differ-
ences between the fields of education and the life sciences, news
values found at Level 2 of the Shoemaker and Vos (2009)
framework also appear to explain key aspects of the disconnect
between education writers and academia. In many cases, jour-
nalists simply screen out research that is not associated with their
direct locality or, in the case of some academic research, in which
the location has been disguised. They assess research and experts
based on the application and misapplication of journalistic
norms of objectivity and bias and simplicity and clarity. In this
way, news values interact with the Shoemaker and Vos Level 1
influence of educational background in that interviewees often
used news values as “signals of quality” because they lacked the
skills to evaluate research and expertise using more appropriate
methodological standards.
Conclusion
Just as education research is unlikely in the foreseeable future to
be funded at the levels of medical research or to become less
context driven, news values are not going anywhere. If university
researchers wish to reach the public via the news media, they
need to figure out how to demonstrate that their work is relevant
to specific localities. They need to embrace simplicity and clarity
by writing lucid, concise news releases about their work. Further,
journalists have education levels similar to those found in other
populations (e.g., school board members, K–12 teachers) that
make important, direct decisions about schools. This suggests a
more universal need for the accessible communication of research
since statistical terms and results that are inscrutable to journal-
ists may be just as inscrutable to these other key stakeholders.
There are almost certainly lessons to be learned from the strate-
gies of peer-reviewed publications such as Education Next, the
Journal of the American Medical Association, and the New England
Journal of Medicine that have successfully penetrated the public
(and news media) consciousness. Future research might also
examine whether there are journals that have communicated, in
an accessible manner, less decisive findings of education research,
which often generates results that are more context dependent
and nebulous than those associated with the physical sciences or
medicine.
News values emphasizing objectivity and bias are more diffi-
cult to overcome in that it is not necessarily desirable for aca-
demics to stick to middle-of-the-road comments when their
research suggests more extreme statements or limit themselves to
studies that lack or contradict hypotheses. Such notions involve,
in a sense, the misapplication of journalistic values to social sci-
ence research. They represent an opportunity and a need for pro-
fessional development.
Given interviewees’ preference for on-the-job learning facili-
tated by expert sources, faculty members with an interest in
doing so have a golden opportunity to help fill the gaps in the
educational backgrounds of the journalism and English majors
who report most of the news about our schools. Here, too, jour-
nalism schools would appear to have a role by doing more to
instruct students on how to incorporate social science research
results into the coverage not only of education but of crime, gov-
ernment, and other areas of broad public interest. In doing so,
journalism educators would help their graduates—the majority
of whom will probably work for small, geographically focused
outlets—add meaning and perspective to their coverage rather
ApRIl 2015 183
than presenting local news as an unending series of unrelated,
idiosyncratic events. In the physical, environmental, and life sci-
ences, this movement has already begun in that numerous uni-
versities offer science and medical journalism degrees that
incorporate research communication. Universities even offer
sports writing specialties. Yet this author is aware of no similar
programs devoted to education. This is despite the fact that edu-
cation has traditionally been a bread-and-butter beat in American
newsrooms, with the Education Writers Association (the field’s
main professional organization) boasting 1,591 current journal-
ist members (Carlson & Roy, 2014).
A final recommendation is that the general interest news
media may always have a relatively limited interest in education
research and expertise because they serve audiences with interests
ranging from education to NFL football. Even if the amount of
research mentioned were to increase to double the rate found by
this study, it would still constitute only 1.2% of total coverage.
By contrast, specialist publications are more amenable to research
and experts: More than half of Education Week’s coverage men-
tioned education research and/or expertise. Interview results
suggest the publication has incorporated increasing amounts of
research in the wake of a Spencer Foundation grant that helped
fund an education research beat. Far from alienating readers, this
type of coverage appears to fulfill audience needs: Of the 20
most frequently viewed articles on Education Week’s website in
2010, 9 went beyond merely mentioning education research to
focus on it. This suggests that there may be even more opportu-
nities for outreach. This outreach has the potential to influence
other journalists since Education Week was study participants’
most frequent news source of information on education research
and expertise.
Even specialist news media may have a limited appetite for
education research. Yet social media platforms provide an ever-
expanding array of opportunities for researchers to directly
address members of the public. One of the easiest ways to
increase the amount of peer-reviewed education research that is
publicly available would be for university-based bloggers to
mention it more often.
Given that barely a medicine dropper full of peer-reviewed
research currently makes it into the pool of news media educa-
tion coverage, it would likely take only a small droplet of effort
to exponentially increase the dosage of peer-reviewed education
research and academic expertise that is readily and publicly avail-
able to practitioners, parents, policymakers, and voters who use
that information to make crucial decisions about our schools.
NoTES
1This definition of higher quality education evidence is far from
perfect. Peer review does not guarantee high-quality research. Nor are
peer-reviewed journals and academia the only source of high-quality
research. However, peer review does provide a measure of quality con-
trol. Similarly, so does university affiliation, which, at the very least,
tends to require a graduate degree, usually at the doctoral level, in a
subject relevant to the research topic. Certainly, other types of organiza-
tions such as school districts or non-advocacy-oriented think tanks may
employ staff researchers who possess such degrees, but the credential-
ing is generally more rigorous in academia. However, E. Haas (2007)
finds that advocacy-oriented think tank affiliates who are described as
experts in news media accounts often possess no more than a bach-
elor’s degree in a topic unrelated to the research topic while also lacking
work experience in the area. A caveat, of course, is that possessing an
advanced degree in the research area does not guarantee a high-quality
study. However, on a more practical level, for the purposes of this study,
it was necessary to use a quality measure that could be discerned from
news coverage: Institutional affiliations and names of peer-reviewed
journals are commonly mentioned in news coverage that cites research
and expertise, whereas detailed explanations of research design are rare.
In fact, often news accounts provide so little information even on insti-
tutional affiliation that it is difficult if not impossible to track down the
specific study or studies being referenced.
2In their book, which is as much a literature review as a theory-
building exercise, Shoemaker and Vos (2009) draw upon and describe
more than half a century’s worth of empirical studies, most of it within
the communication field. This research deeply informed the study
described in this article.
3Only 4 interviewees regularly browsed peer-reviewed educa-
tion journals, looking for sources and ideas. All 4 were associated with
education-focused outlets.
4“Unknown research” was largely a phenomenon of commentaries
written by readers and thought leaders. It is mentioned in more than
half the commentaries found in Education Week and in newspapers.
(Many of the online-only outlets sampled blur the distinction between
opinion in news, so they are excluded from analyses that break down
news items into articles and commentaries). Unknown research is two
times more common in commentaries than in articles.
5Out of the 33 total interviewees, 21 made at least one positive
comment about education research, whereas 25 made at least one nega-
tive comment.
REFERENCES
Amend, E., & Secko, D. M. (2011). In the face of critique: A meta-
synthesis of the experiences of journalists covering health
and science. Science Communication, 34(2), 241–282. doi:
10.1177/1075547011409952
Baker, P. (Producer). (2010). Scott Jaschik, part 1 of 2. Retrieved from
Bowman, L. (2008). Re-examining “gatekeeping.” Journalism Practice,
2(1), 99–112. doi: 10.1080/17512780701768550
Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analy-
sis. Social Forces, 33(4), 326–335.
Britt, R. (2012). Universities report highest-ever R&D spending of $65
billion in FY 2011 (InfoBrief). Arlington, VA: National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation.
Bruns, A. (2009). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Carlson, C., & Roy, M. (2014). Mediated access: Education writ-
ers’ perceptions of public information officers’ media control efforts.
Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/pdf/sunshineweek/ewa-survey-
report-2014.pdf
Cassidy, W. (2006). Gatekeeping similar for online, print journalists.
Newspaper Research Journal, 27(2), 6–23.
Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Milan, S. (2012). Media society: Industries,
images, and audiences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dunwoody, S. (1980). The science writing inner club: A communica-
tion link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology &
Human Values, 5(3), 14–22.
Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Gans, H. (2004). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News,
NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. 25th Anniversary Edition.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
184 EDUCATIONAl RESEARCHER
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1982). Political
correlates of television viewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(1),
283–300.
Graber, D. (2009). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly Press.
Haas, E. (2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education
in the news media. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 63–102.
Haas, T. (2005). From “Public Journalism” to the “Public’s Journalism”?
Rhetoric and reality in the discourse on weblogs. Journalism Studies,
6(3), 387–396. doi: 10.1080/14616700500132073
Henig, J. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates: The
case of charter schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation and
The Century Foundation.
Hester, J., & Dougall, E. (2007). The efficiency of constructed week
sampling for content analysis of online news. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 84(4), 811–824.
Howell, W. (2008). Education policy, academic research, and public
opinion. In F. Hess (Ed.), When research matters: How scholar-
ship influences education policy (pp. 135–153). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Lagemann, E. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of educa-
tion research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lacy, S., & Riffe, D. (1996). Sampling error and selecting inter-coder
reliability samples for nominal content categories. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 963–973.
Lacy, S., Robinson, K., & Riffe, D. (1995). Sample size in content anal-
ysis of weekly newspapers. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 72(2), 336–345.
Lai, W., & Lane, T. (2009). Characteristics of medical research news
reported on front pages of newspapers PLos ONE, 4(7). doi:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006103
LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting eth-
nographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts; and, Field theory in social sci-
ence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Livingston, S., & Bennett, W. L. (2003). Gatekeeping, index-
ing, and live-event news: Is technology altering the construc-
tion of news? Political Communication, 20(4), 363–380. doi:
10.1080/10584600390244121
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pew Research Center. (2011). The state of the news media: An annual
report on American journalism. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Pew Research Center. (2013). The state of the news media 2013: An
annual report on American journalism. Washington, DC: Pew
Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Reese, S., & Danielian, L. (Eds.). (1989). Intermedia influence and the
drug issue: Converging on cocaine. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Riffe, D., Aust, C., & Lacy, S. (1993). The effectiveness of random,
consecutive day and constructed sampling in newspaper content
analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 133–139.
Rosenstiel, T., Mitchell, A., Purcell, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). How
people learn about their local community. Washington, DC: Pew
Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Shoemaker, P., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Singer, J. (2006). Stepping back from the gate: Online newspaper
editors and the co-production of content in campaign 2004.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 265–280.
Stack, M. (2007). Constructing “common sense” policies for schools:
The role of journalists. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 10(3), 247–264. doi: 10.1080/13603120701373649
Stocking, H., & Gross, P. (1989). How do journalists think? A pro-
posal for the study of cognitive bias in newsmaking. Bloomington,
IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills:
Smith Research Center, Indiana University.
Storm, J. (2007, May). The endurance of gatekeeping in an evolving
newsroom: A multimethod study of web-generated user content. Paper
presented at the International Communication Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Suleski, J., & Ibaraki, M. (2010). Scientists are talking, but mostly to
each other: A quantitative analysis of research represented in the
mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 115–125. doi:
10.1177/0963662508096776
Swanson, C., & Barlage, J. (2006). Influence: A study of factors shaping
education policy. Washington, DC: Editorial Projects in Education
Research Center.
Thomson Reuters (Ed.). (2010). Web of Science Social Sciences Citation
Index. Philadelphia, PA: Thomson Reuters.
Tunstall, J. (1971). Journalists at work: Specialist correspondents: Their
news organizations, news sources, and competitor-colleagues. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Ungderleider, C. (2006). Government, neo-liberal media, and educa-
tion in Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1), 70–90.
Viadero, D. (2009, October 14). Scholars spar over research methods
used to evaluate charters. Education Week, pp. 6–7.
Weaver, D., Beam, R., Brownlee, B., Voakes, P., & Wilhoit, G. (2007).
The American journalist in the 21st century: U.S. news people at the
dawn of a new millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weiss, C., & Singer, E. (1988). Reporting of social science in the national
media. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
West, D., Whitehurst, G., & Dionne, E. J. (2011). Americans want
more coverage of teacher performance and student achievement.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
White, D. (1950). The gatekeeper: A case study in the selection of
news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383–396.
Yettick, H. (2009). The research that reaches the public: Who produces
the educational research mentioned in the news media? Boulder, CO:
National Education Policy Center.
AUThoR
HOLLY YETTICK, PhD, is the director of the Education Week
Research Center at Editorial Projects in Education, 6935 Arlington
Road, Bethesda, MD, 20814; [email protected] Her research focuses on
news media coverage and policy related to K–12 education.
Manuscript received July 11, 2013
Revisions received January 2, 2014,
and January 12, 2015.
Accepted January 12, 2015
6/2/22, 8:18 AM Primary and Secondary Resources – Research Process – LibGuides at Northcentral University
https://library.ncu.edu/friendly.php?s=researchprocess/primaryandsecondary 1/5
NCU Library / LibGuides / Library How-To Guides / Research Process
/ Primary and Secondary Resources
Research Process
These pages offer an introduction to the research process
at a very general level.
Home
Finding a
Research Topic
Determining
Information
Needs
Primary and
Secondary
Resources
Academic,
Popular &
Trade
Publications
Scholarly
and Peer-
Reviewed
Journals
Grey
Literature
Clinical
Trials
Search this Guide Search
N
eed H
elp? C
hat N
ow
!
https://library.ncu.edu/
https://library.ncu.edu/
https://library.ncu.edu/
https://library.ncu.edu/howto
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess
https://library.ncu.edu/c.php?g=635502&p=4444798
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/researchtopic
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/determininginfoneeds
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/primaryandsecondary
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/academicandpopular
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/scholarlyjournals
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/greyliterature
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/clinicaltrials
javascript:void(0);
6/2/22, 8:18 AM Primary and Secondary Resources – Research Process – LibGuides at Northcentral University
https://library.ncu.edu/friendly.php?s=researchprocess/primaryandsecondary 2/5
Evidence
Based
Treatment
Statistics
Datasets
Scholarly
Research
Preparing to
Search
Reading a
Scientific
Article
Evaluating
Information
Finding Similar
Resources
Resources for a
Literature
Review
Resources for
Dissertation
Research
Organizing
Research &
Citations
Scholarly
Publication
Learn the
Library
Primary Sources
Primary resources contain first-hand information, meaning that you are
reading the author’s own account on a specific topic or event that s/he
participated in. Examples of primary resources include scholarly
research articles, books, and diaries. Primary sources such as
research articles often do not explain terminology and theoretical
principles in detail. Thus, readers of primary scholarly research should
have foundational knowledge of the subject area. Use primary
resources to obtain a first-hand account to an actual event and identify
original research done in a field. For many of your papers, use of
primary resources will be a requirement.
Examples of a primary source are:
Original documents such as diaries, speeches, manuscripts,
letters, interviews, records, eyewitness accounts,
autobiographies
Empirical scholarly works such as research articles, clinical
reports, case studies, dissertations
Creative works such as poetry, music, video, photography
How to locate primary research in NCU Library:
1. From the Library’s homepage, begin your search in Roadrunner
Search or select a subject-specific database from the A-Z
Databases.
2. Use the Scholarly/Peer-Reviewed Journal limiter to narrow your
search to journal articles.
3. Once you have a set of search results, remember to look for
articles where the author has conducted original research. A
primary research article will include a literature review,
methodology, population or set sample, test or measurement,
discussion of findings and usually future research directions.
N
eed H
elp? C
hat N
ow
!
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/evidencebased
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/statistics
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/datasets
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/scholarlyresearch
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/preparingtosearch
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/readingscientificarticle
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/evaluatinginfo
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/similarresources
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/literaturereview
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/dissertationresearch
http://ncu.libguides.com/organize_research
https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess/scholarlypublication
http://ncu.libguides.com/learn
http://ncu.libguides.com/az.php
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
6/2/22, 8:18 AM Primary and Secondary Resources – Research Process – LibGuides at Northcentral University
https://library.ncu.edu/friendly.php?s=researchprocess/primaryandsecondary 3/5
Ask Us! Secondary Sources
Secondary sources describe, summarize, or discuss information or
details originally presented in another source; meaning the author, in
most cases, did not participate in the event. This type of source is
written for a broad audience and will include definitions of discipline
specific terms, history relating to the topic, significant theories and
principles, and summaries of major studies/events as related to the
topic. Use secondary sources to obtain an overview of a topic and/or
identify primary resources. Refrain from including such resources in an
annotated bibliography for doctoral level work unless there is a good
reason.
Examples of a secondary source are:
Publications such as textbooks, magazine articles, book reviews,
commentaries, encyclopedias, almanacs
Locate secondary resources in NCU Library within the following
databases:
Annual Reviews (scholarly article reviews)
Credo Reference (encyclopedias, dictionaries, handbooks &
more)
Ebook Central (ebooks)
ProQuest (book reviews, bibliographies, literature reviews &
more )
SAGE Reference Methods, SAGE Knowledge & SAGE Navigator
(handbooks, encyclopedias, major works, debates & more)
Most other Library databases include secondary sources.
N
eed H
elp? C
hat N
ow
!
https://library.ncu.edu/c.php?g=635502&p=4444807
6/2/22, 8:18 AM Primary and Secondary Resources – Research Process – LibGuides at Northcentral University
https://library.ncu.edu/friendly.php?s=researchprocess/primaryandsecondary 4/5
Last Updated: May 26, 2022 11:58 AM URL: https://library.ncu.edu/researchprocess Print Page
Login to LibApps
Report a problem
Subjects: Arts & Humanities, Business, Computing & Information Technology, Dissertation Resources, Education,
Government & Criminal Justice, Health, Medicine & Nursing, Law, Library Services, Tools & Resources, Marriage & Family
Science, Psychology & Social Work, Sociology & Diversity Studies
Tags: annotated bibliography, Boolean operators, cited, cited references, citing articles, dissertation research, field codes, Google
Scholar, literature review, measurements, organizing citations, peer-reviewed journals, popular sources, primary sources, research
design, research methods, research topic, research_process, scholarly sources, searching, secondary sources, statistics, tests,
theoretical frameworks, theory
Beginning the Resarch Process Workshop
This workshop introduces to the beginning stages of the research
process, focusing on identifying different types of information, as well
as gathering background information through electronic books.
Beginning the Research ProcessBeginning the Research Process
Beginning the Research Process Workshop Outline
Was this resource helpful?
Helpful Not Helpful
N
eed H
elp? C
hat N
ow
!
javascript: window.print();
https://ncu.libapps.com/libapps/login.php?site_id=10732&target64=L2xpYmd1aWRlcy9hZG1pbl9jLnBocD9nPTYzNTUwMiZwPTQ0NDQ4NjU=
mailto:[email protected]
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=173406
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=110655
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=173407
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=173413
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=110467
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=173408
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=173409
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=110652
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=173410
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=110464
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=173411
https://library.ncu.edu/sb.php?subject_id=173412
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=annotated%20bibliography&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=Boolean%20operators&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=cited&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=cited%20references&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=citing%20articles&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=dissertation%20research&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=field%20codes&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=Google%20Scholar&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=literature%20review&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=measurements&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=organizing%20citations&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=peer-reviewed%20journals&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=popular%20sources&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=primary%20sources&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=research%20design&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=research%20methods&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=research%20topic&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=research_process&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=scholarly%20sources&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=searching&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=secondary%20sources&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=statistics&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=tests&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=theoretical%20frameworks&default_lg=1
https://library.ncu.edu/srch.php?tag=theory&default_lg=1
https://ncu.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=44643546
6/2/22, 8:18 AM Primary and Secondary Resources – Research Process – LibGuides at Northcentral University
https://library.ncu.edu/friendly.php?s=researchprocess/primaryandsecondary 5/5
N
eed H
elp? C
hat N
ow
!
https://library.ncu.edu/
https://library.ncu.edu/academicsuccesscenter
https://library.ncu.edu/ctl
https://library.ncu.edu/irb
https://library.ncu.edu/dissertationcenter
https://library.ncu.edu/adcenter
https://library.ncu.edu/jfkresources
https://library.ncu.edu/officeoftheregistrar
6/2/22, 8:15 AM How do I determine if a particular journal is peer reviewed? – Ask Us!
https://ncu.libanswers.com/faq/168490 1/3
1. NCU Library (https://library.ncu.edu/)
2. Ask Us! (/)
Ask Us!
Ask Another Question
Type your question keywords
0 options available. Use up and down arrows to browse available options and enter to select one.
Search
454 Answers (/search/)
Groups (#)
NCU ASC (/asc/)
NCU CTL (/ctl/)
NCU IRB (/irb/)
NCU Library (/)
NCU Office of the Registrar (/registrar/)
Topics (#)
6Academic Success Center (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Academic%20Success%20Center&adv=1)
20Alumni (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Alumni&adv=1)
46Business Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Business%20Research&adv=1)
1Center for Teaching & Learning (/search/?
t=0&g=3393&topics=Center%20for%20Teaching%20%26amp%3B%20Learning&adv=1)
1COMPS (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=COMPS&adv=1)
39Database Problems (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Problems&adv=1)
65Database Questions (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Questions&adv=1)
8Database Subscriptions (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Subscriptions&adv=1)
9Dissertation Center Documents (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Dissertation%20Center%20Documents&adv=1)
65Dissertation Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Dissertation%20Research&adv=1)
14Ebook Central Questions (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Ebook%20Central%20Questions&adv=1)
31Education Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Education%20Research&adv=1)
10EndNote (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=EndNote&adv=1)
3ERIC (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=ERIC&adv=1)
10Evaluating Information (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Evaluating%20Information&adv=1)
46Faculty (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Faculty&adv=1)
14Google (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Google&adv=1)
25Interlibrary Loan (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Interlibrary%20Loan&adv=1)
23JFK Law (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=JFK%20Law&adv=1)
13Legal Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Legal%20Research&adv=1)
27Library Access (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Library%20Access&adv=1)
2Library Workshops (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Library%20Workshops&adv=1)
83Locate items in the Library (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Locate%20items%20in%20the%20Library&adv=1)
55Locate Items Outside the Library (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Locate%20Items%20Outside%20the%20Library&adv=1)
22Marriage & Family Therapy Research (/search/?
t=0&g=3393&topics=Marriage%20%26amp%3B%20Family%20Therapy%20Research&adv=1)
23OpenAthens (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=OpenAthens&adv=1)
19Organizing Research and Citations (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Organizing%20Research%20and%20Citations&adv=1)
15Other (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Other&adv=1)
23Psychology Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Psychology%20Research&adv=1)
49Reference Management (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Reference%20Management&adv=1)
40RefWorks (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=RefWorks&adv=1)
2Research Consultations (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Research%20Consultations&adv=1)
122Research Techniques (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Research%20Techniques&adv=1)
9Service Desk (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Service%20Desk&adv=1)
4Syllabi (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Syllabi&adv=1)
20Technical Issues (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Technical%20Issues&adv=1)
10Tests & Measurements (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Tests%20%26%20Measurements&adv=1)
10Textbooks (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Textbooks&adv=1)
How do I determine if a particular journal is peer reviewed?
https://library.ncu.edu/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/asc/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/ctl/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/irb/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/registrar/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Academic%20Success%20Center&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Alumni&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Business%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Center%20for%20Teaching%20%26amp%3B%20Learning&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=COMPS&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Problems&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Questions&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Subscriptions&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Dissertation%20Center%20Documents&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Dissertation%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Ebook%20Central%20Questions&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Education%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=EndNote&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=ERIC&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Evaluating%20Information&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Faculty&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Google&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Interlibrary%20Loan&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=JFK%20Law&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Legal%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Library%20Access&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Library%20Workshops&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Locate%20items%20in%20the%20Library&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Locate%20Items%20Outside%20the%20Library&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Marriage%20%26amp%3B%20Family%20Therapy%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=OpenAthens&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Organizing%20Research%20and%20Citations&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Other&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Psychology%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Reference%20Management&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=RefWorks&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Research%20Consultations&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Research%20Techniques&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Service%20Desk&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Syllabi&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Technical%20Issues&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Tests%20%26%20Measurements&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Textbooks&adv=1
6/2/22, 8:15 AM How do I determine if a particular journal is peer reviewed? – Ask Us!
https://ncu.libanswers.com/faq/168490 2/3
Answer
You may determine whether or not a journal is peer reviewed/refereed using the Library’s Ulrichsweb database. To access Ulrichsweb, go to the
Library’s home page and then click on A-Z Databases (http://ncu.libguides.com/az.php) . You may then search for Ulrichsweb or browse
alphabetically.
In Ulrichsweb, you may search for the journal by title or ISSN (International Standard Serial Number). When you locate the journal in your search
results, an icon which looks like a referee shirt (see image below) will display in the results if your journal is peer reviewed. The absence of this icon
means that your journal is not peer reviewed.
Keep in mind, however, that peer reviewed publications often contain non-peer reviewed content, including editorials, book reviews and news items.
Only the research articles are peer reviewed.
It may also be important to evaluate the type of source (primary or secondary (http://ncu.libguides.com/researchprocess/primaryandsecondary) ) and
the type of peer-review for its suitability for graduate level research. It may be necessary to further investigate the publication and its editorial board to
further determine the quality of your resource or article. Click on the website provide in the Ulrichsweb entry to view the journal’s home page or
publisher’s page.
For additional instruction on using Ulrichsweb, please see the Ulrichsweb quick tutorial video (https://youtu.be/4UHOe6Pct6s) . For additional
instruction on scholarly vs. peer reviewed journals, please see the Library’s Scholarly vs. Peer Reviewed Journals (https://youtu.be/1JLnmO5lFaU)
quick tutorial video.
Find a Resource
Additionally, subscribed journals may be identified as peer-reviewed within the Library’s Find a Resource tool. You may access Find a Resource in the
center of the Library’s home page, or under Research Resources.
Search for a journal title (not an article title) or ISSN using Find a Resource. If the Library subscribes to that particular publication, you should see it
listed on the results screen. Check for the graduation cap icon and the label “Peer Reviewed” as shown below.
Topics
Research Techniques (/search/?t=0&adv=1&topics=Research%20Techniques)
Evaluating Information (/search/?t=0&adv=1&topics=Evaluating%20Information)
http://ncu.libguides.com/az.php
http://ncu.libguides.com/researchprocess/primaryandsecondary
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&adv=1&topics=Research%20Techniques
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&adv=1&topics=Evaluating%20Information
6/2/22, 8:15 AM How do I determine if a particular journal is peer reviewed? – Ask Us!
https://ncu.libanswers.com/faq/168490 3/3
Last Updated May 06, 2021
Views 4477
Answered By NCU Library
FAQ Actions
Was this helpful? Yes 24 No 1
Print (#)
Tweet (#)
Share on Facebook (#)
(https://library.ncu.edu/)
(/academicsuccesscenter)
(/ctl)
(/irb)
(/dissertationcenter)
(/adcenter)
(/jfkresources)
(/officeoftheregistrar)
https://library.ncu.edu/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/academicsuccesscenter
https://ncu.libanswers.com/ctl
https://ncu.libanswers.com/irb
https://ncu.libanswers.com/dissertationcenter
https://ncu.libanswers.com/adcenter
https://ncu.libanswers.com/jfkresources
https://ncu.libanswers.com/officeoftheregistrar
6/2/22, 8:17 AM How do I find scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles? – Ask Us!
https://ncu.libanswers.com/faq/168483 1/3
1. NCU Library (https://library.ncu.edu/)
2. Ask Us! (/)
Ask Us!
Ask Another Question
Type your question keywords
0 options available. Use up and down arrows to browse available options and enter to select one.
Search
454 Answers (/search/)
Groups (#)
NCU ASC (/asc/)
NCU CTL (/ctl/)
NCU IRB (/irb/)
NCU Library (/)
NCU Office of the Registrar (/registrar/)
Topics (#)
6Academic Success Center (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Academic%20Success%20Center&adv=1)
20Alumni (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Alumni&adv=1)
46Business Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Business%20Research&adv=1)
1Center for Teaching & Learning (/search/?
t=0&g=3393&topics=Center%20for%20Teaching%20%26amp%3B%20Learning&adv=1)
1COMPS (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=COMPS&adv=1)
39Database Problems (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Problems&adv=1)
65Database Questions (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Questions&adv=1)
8Database Subscriptions (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Subscriptions&adv=1)
9Dissertation Center Documents (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Dissertation%20Center%20Documents&adv=1)
65Dissertation Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Dissertation%20Research&adv=1)
14Ebook Central Questions (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Ebook%20Central%20Questions&adv=1)
31Education Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Education%20Research&adv=1)
10EndNote (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=EndNote&adv=1)
3ERIC (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=ERIC&adv=1)
10Evaluating Information (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Evaluating%20Information&adv=1)
46Faculty (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Faculty&adv=1)
14Google (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Google&adv=1)
25Interlibrary Loan (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Interlibrary%20Loan&adv=1)
23JFK Law (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=JFK%20Law&adv=1)
13Legal Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Legal%20Research&adv=1)
27Library Access (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Library%20Access&adv=1)
2Library Workshops (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Library%20Workshops&adv=1)
83Locate items in the Library (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Locate%20items%20in%20the%20Library&adv=1)
55Locate Items Outside the Library (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Locate%20Items%20Outside%20the%20Library&adv=1)
22Marriage & Family Therapy Research (/search/?
t=0&g=3393&topics=Marriage%20%26amp%3B%20Family%20Therapy%20Research&adv=1)
23OpenAthens (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=OpenAthens&adv=1)
19Organizing Research and Citations (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Organizing%20Research%20and%20Citations&adv=1)
15Other (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Other&adv=1)
23Psychology Research (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Psychology%20Research&adv=1)
49Reference Management (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Reference%20Management&adv=1)
40RefWorks (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=RefWorks&adv=1)
2Research Consultations (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Research%20Consultations&adv=1)
122Research Techniques (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Research%20Techniques&adv=1)
9Service Desk (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Service%20Desk&adv=1)
4Syllabi (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Syllabi&adv=1)
20Technical Issues (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Technical%20Issues&adv=1)
10Tests & Measurements (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Tests%20%26%20Measurements&adv=1)
10Textbooks (/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Textbooks&adv=1)
How do I find scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles?
https://library.ncu.edu/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/asc/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/ctl/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/irb/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/registrar/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Academic%20Success%20Center&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Alumni&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Business%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Center%20for%20Teaching%20%26amp%3B%20Learning&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=COMPS&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Problems&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Questions&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Database%20Subscriptions&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Dissertation%20Center%20Documents&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Dissertation%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Ebook%20Central%20Questions&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Education%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=EndNote&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=ERIC&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Evaluating%20Information&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Faculty&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Google&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Interlibrary%20Loan&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=JFK%20Law&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Legal%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Library%20Access&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Library%20Workshops&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Locate%20items%20in%20the%20Library&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Locate%20Items%20Outside%20the%20Library&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Marriage%20%26amp%3B%20Family%20Therapy%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=OpenAthens&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Organizing%20Research%20and%20Citations&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Other&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Psychology%20Research&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Reference%20Management&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=RefWorks&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Research%20Consultations&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Research%20Techniques&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Service%20Desk&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Syllabi&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Technical%20Issues&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Tests%20%26%20Measurements&adv=1
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&g=3393&topics=Textbooks&adv=1
6/2/22, 8:17 AM How do I find scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles? – Ask Us!
https://ncu.libanswers.com/faq/168483 2/3
Answer
For brief instruction on scholarly vs. peer reviewed journals, please see the Library’s Scholarly vs. Peer Reviewed Journals
(https://youtu.be/1JLnmO5lFaU) quick tutorial video.
To ensure that your search results are from scholarly/peer reviewed journals, you will want to check the limit box on the search page, as shown below
for Roadrunner Search.
You will see a similar checkbox in many Library databases. However, you may find that some databases do not have a scholarly/peer reviewed limit
on their search page. This is usually because these databases ONLY contain scholarly/peer reviewed journals, so there would be nothing to remove
from your search results. Examples of 100% scholarly databases include Annual Reviews, ScienceDirect, SAGE Journals Online, Taylor and Francis
Online, SpringerLink, and Wiley.
It is very important to ensure that the scholarly/peer reviewed limits are still in place when you run another search. For every new set of
search results that you receive, check to see that the limits are still in place. If they are not, then add the limits back in to the search.
It is also important to keep in mind that not all scholarly journals go through the peer review process. For help determining whether or not a scholarly
journal is peer reviewed, review our FAQ here (https://ncu.libanswers.com/faq/168490) .
Topics
Research Techniques (/search/?t=0&adv=1&topics=Research%20Techniques)
Evaluating Information (/search/?t=0&adv=1&topics=Evaluating%20Information)
Last Updated Mar 01, 2021
Views 8337
Answered By NCU Library
FAQ Actions
Was this helpful? Yes 24 No 6
Print (#)
Tweet (#)
Share on Facebook (#)
(https://library.ncu.edu/)
(/academicsuccesscenter)
(/ctl)
(/irb)
(/dissertationcenter)
(/adcenter)
https://ncu.libanswers.com/faq/168490
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&adv=1&topics=Research%20Techniques
https://ncu.libanswers.com/search/?t=0&adv=1&topics=Evaluating%20Information
https://library.ncu.edu/
https://ncu.libanswers.com/academicsuccesscenter
https://ncu.libanswers.com/ctl
https://ncu.libanswers.com/irb
https://ncu.libanswers.com/dissertationcenter
https://ncu.libanswers.com/adcenter
6/2/22, 8:17 AM How do I find scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles? – Ask Us!
https://ncu.libanswers.com/faq/168483 3/3
(/jfkresources)
(/officeoftheregistrar)
https://ncu.libanswers.com/irb
https://ncu.libanswers.com/dissertationcenter
https://ncu.libanswers.com/adcenter
https://ncu.libanswers.com/jfkresources
https://ncu.libanswers.com/officeoftheregistrar
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.