Primary
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFV-4V8FFCG-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=411a4bfd17ad84a0d2fd4c0a9061c717
Secondary
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/?scp=4&sq=overpopulation&st=cse
The article “Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact” by Kate Galbraith gains its information from the study “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals” by Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax. The secondary article does not go into as much detail, or quote enough of the primary to be as credible and makes conclusions that differ from the journal.
Galbraith’s article has many similarities with the original source, but as expected with a secondary article does not go into nearly as much detail as the primary article. The article is supported with quotes of findings from the study, thus making it a reliable source to receive the information without have to read the whole study. The article was originally published in the Globe and Mail, so being a newspaper article it was also supported with a quote from Paul Murtaugh one of the authors of the study. This gives the reader his personal opinion on the value of his work making the study seem more worthwhile. As a result the information seems to be more believable as the source is reliable. So compared to many secondary sources this article backs up the claim, but in order to truly convey her point more quotes should have been added.
A major difference between the article and study is that the article does not go into details of the methods used to acquire the data. The study uses genetic units, which represent the amount of relatedness to the original ancestor and their descendants. They then compared many countries and used their average fertility rates to calculate the amount of carbon emissions that is being added to the atmosphere per child per generation. The article did not discuss the effects of the study in any other country other than the United States. This gives it a biased opinion and makes the study appear to have done less research and been narrow minded in the investigation. But after reading the study it is known that 11 different countries were compared.
At the beginning of the article it states that “The study found that having a child has an impact that far outweighs that of other energy-saving behaviours.”(Galbraith 2009) This gives the impression that energy saving behaviours are insignificant compared to the cost of having a child. But the study clearly refutes this claim “This is not to say that lifestyle changes are unimportant; in fact, they are essential, since immediate reductions in emissions worldwide are needed to limit the damaging effects of climate change that are already being documented” (Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax 2009) Although Galbraith’s ideas are correct about the nature of the study she was incorrect in stating that, which limits the knowledge that can be gained from her article. This gives impressionable readers the notion that they should disregard things like fuel efficiency and replacing old appliances, when in reality ever little bit helps.
So as can be expected there are similarities and difference between the primary and secondary article. And although the secondary source is a fast convenient way to receive the information from the study it is not always accurate and reliable so in order to gain true knowledge the primary study must be read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that secondary articles are less detailed than primary sources. Primary sources include much more information related to the study being done, in your chosen article only a small part of the study was used. The author of the secondary article should have included more than just the results from the United States survey. I also noticed that secondary articles tend to use quotes from the authors of the primary sources to support their claim(s).
ReplyDeleteI really like how you explained yourself; you compared the two articles well, stating the major strengths and weaknesses of both articles. I agree that secondary articles, are less accurate, but that is also one of their strengths. If you want to educate yourself on the subject but don’t want to read a long article with big words where you risk getting confused, secondary articles work perfect to give you the overview of the subject you expected. This is where I disagree with your closing statement, even though primary articles are more accurate, they are written for an audience of readers who are already well educated in the field, and they won’t be confused by the complex vocabulary. Both articles have strengths it just depends whose reading it.
ReplyDeleteHey liia,
ReplyDeleteby the looks of it you thoroughly read both your articles! You seem to write so mush detail about your subject, that is great. I think that as a reader is would be easier to read if you maybe cut up your points more clearly. Maybe each point could be its own paragraph? It would just make it easier to follow and keep track of each point. Spacing is always great for organization. Or at least I find so.
Other than that, you made some good points comparing and contracting your articles. Good job!