See attached
1
Name
English II
Touchstone 2.1
March 6th, 2024
Source Evaluation
The source I have chosen for evaluation is “The State of the UBI Debate: Mapping the Arguments for and against UBI” by D. Afscharian, V. Muliavka, M. S. Ostrowski, and L. Siegel, published published by De Gruyter (2022). The central argument of the research paper focuses on the various themes and arguments surrounding Universal Basic Income (UBI). This source is integral to my project as it comprehensively analyzes the current state of UBI debates, categorizing arguments and themes to offer a structured overview.
The source’s credibility is anchored in the authors’ collective expertise and academic affiliations of the authors; Dominic Afscharian, Viktoriia Muliavka, Marius S. Ostrowski, and Lukáš Siegel. Afscharian’s position at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Tübingen underscores a strong foundation in political science, while Muliavka’s association with the Graduate School for Social Research at the Polish Academy of Sciences contributes a valuable social research perspective. Additionally, Ostrowski’s affiliation with the European University Institute and Siegel’s role at the Bratislava International School of Liberal Arts bring diverse academic backgrounds, consolidating the source’s credibility across multiple disciplines. The article is published by De Gruyter, a reputable academic publisher, which adds to the source’s credibility. De Gruyter is well-regarded in the scholarly community, and the fact that the article underwent a review process and was accepted for publication by this esteemed publisher enhances the reliability of the information presented in the source.
This source is highly valuable to my research project. It systematically organizes UBI debates into three main categories and seven themes, providing a framework for understanding the arguments favoring and against UBI. The authors, in a thematic analysis, examine the core principles, the impact on capitalist society, and the relationship with the state, offering a deep exploration of UBI’s nature. This breakdown allows me to identify more developed areas that require further exploration in the debates. The source’s usefulness extends to its identification of an argumentative deadlock, providing insights into the challenges faced by UBI proponents. By understanding these challenges, I can tailor my arguments to effectively communicate the societal benefits of UBI and address potential counter-claims.
Generally, the source “The State of the UBI Debate” is a credible and valuable asset to my research project. Its credibility is established through the authors’ expertise, peer-reviewed publication, and recent publication date. The usefulness of the source lies in its systematic organization of UBI debates, providing a comprehensive framework that aids in the identification of key arguments and areas for further exploration. This evaluation affirms the source’s reliability and its significant contribution to advancing my understanding of the UBI discourse.
Reflection Questions
1.
What types of questions did you ask yourself when evaluating the credibility and usefulness of your source? (2-3 sentences).
When evaluating the credibility of the source, I asked questions about the authors’ qualifications, institutional affiliations, and the publication venue to ensure their expertise and reliability. For assessing usefulness, I questioned the source’s purpose, methodology, and how well it aligned with my research needs, focusing on its potential to contribute meaningfully to my argument and address relevant points.
2.
How do you feel this evaluation practice will help you as you continue to move through the research process? (2-3 sentences)
This evaluation practice will enhance my ability to discern reliable and pertinent sources, ensuring the quality of information incorporated into my research. As I progress through the research process, it will serve as a foundation for making informed decisions about source selection, contributing to the overall credibility and strength of my academic work.
Reference
Afscharian, D., Muliavka, V., Ostrowski, M. S., & Siegel, L. (2022). The State of the UBI Debate: Mapping the Arguments for and against UBI.
Basic Income Studies,
17(2), 213-237.
