Samuel Shely

F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-Combined201580
Home My courses Fall 2015 F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580
Thursday, October 22 Sources Discussion Forum (037) Sources Assignment

Search forums

Sources Discussion Forum (037)

Sources Assignment
Sources Assignment

Sources Assignment
Display replies in nested form

Sources Assignment
by Delanie Knight - Monday, 26 October 2015, 7:35 PM
Part 1
My topic, having to do with mega churches and mega pastors, is a very opinionated topic in the
Christian world. Coming in to my discussion, I figured that the conversations going on between
people would be evenly split between the supporters and the critics. After conducting some
research, though, I was very wrong. Most of the sources I found about mega pastors were
written by extreme critics who, may or may not have, exaggerated their information. Lots of
people talked about the corruption and greed of ALL the pastors. Not many people had any good
things to say, really. Bias was most obviously present.
My research never really reflected my opinion. In fact, it did the quite opposite. According to my
research thus far in my path, mega pastors are just bad. That is, really, the only word to describe
all of the hate written about them. My own take, though, is a neutral one. I believe that my

subject is circumstantial. Not all mega church pastors can be generalized in one statement, and
although my research for the inquiry path does not prove it, I hope that further scholarly research
does.
For me, only the conversations going on about the topic were biased, not necessarily my own
idea. I think I have done a pretty good job, thus far, eliminating as much bias as possible.
According to most of the research done on the inquiry path, my topic most definitely adheres to
confirmation bias, but I think I did a pretty good job at eliminating that aspect in my writing. I
believe that scholarly research on broader topics will level out the bias.
Part 2
Generally, a strong source would be one that includes many areas of research and is reviewed by
many. There are scholarly sources in which researchers and scientists write, and even deeper,
there is archives from museums and primary sources. As far as the inquiry product is concerned,
though, I only have to go into scholarly research. Peer review is an important aspect for strong
sources. The reviewing process will help eliminate bias and, possibly, explain and/or give the
topic more detail. Not only does the information have to be write for one scholar, but it has to be
correct in the eyes of many. A drawback on scholar work is that the information given may be
harder to understand by the reader, and the information is a bit harder to find. On the other hand,
information from websites and newspaper articles do not have to be reviewed as thoroughly. This
is one drawback. Also, the content can basically be written by anyone. Newspaper articles and
websites are easily accessible and can be seen by anyone. Although these types of sources are
generally frowned upon for writing research papers, some are very good and valid sources. It is
just more dicult to determine the validity of the information presented. Ideally, an individual
would have a mixture of all types of sources in order present all aspect of the conversations
within the topic. General sources, like blogs, newspaper articles, and websites, give an overview
on what is being talked about within the general public. Scholarly sources, like journals, and peer
reviewed articles, will deepen the conversation and give it more academic backing.
Part 3
EAGLE, DAVID E. "Historicizing the Megachurch." Journal of Social History. 48.3 (2015). Print.
This article leaves the reader questioning what went on during the biblical times. The author
never even really presents any biblical information, in which, I think, could even better extend his
point. There is one specific case that I remember where Jesus preached in front of thousands. It
is the story of the bread crumb and fish. This source, overall, is factual information that delves
into the history of the megachurch. It goes against what most people think and proves that
mega churches have been around much longer than the 20-30 we thought it has. It even
proved me wrong. I thought the mega church movement was a newer happening. The author
may very well think that the criticisms against mega churches are absurd because of the nature
of his article. He present the history, and these critics do not talk about how mega churches
evolved. Although leaders from the past are criticized, they are not in the way that mega pastors
are today. Oddly enough, this source has a lot to do with church structures and architecture. In
some ways. The size of the literal church does tie in, but I find it interesting how this author spent
much time researching structures.

von, der R. M, and J.P Daniels. "Examining Megachurch Growth: Free Riding, Fit, and
Faith." International Journal of Social Economics. 39.5 (2012): 357-372. Print.
As of now, this source does not leave me, the reader, with any unanswered questions. The author
was very thorough, sometimes even repetitive is presenting his research. The title clearly entails
what the article is about: the growth pf megachurches. The information from this source can be
used in two main ways. On one hand, the growth of the Christian faith and the attendance of a
church heavily increasing is a good thing for Christians. On the other hand, many mega churches
are taking away the members of much smaller churches, and the critics are not having it. I am
not really sure if the author was intending for people to use his information a certain way. This
information can weave into how mega pastors add to the growth and what extents they may go
to in order to add to the congregation. Money, most obviously, plays a key role in expansion, and
this can continue my research into exactly how mega churches receive money. Mega churches
are growing at a crazy fast rate, and that fact cannot be challenged. What can be challenged,
though, are the motives for growth.
982 words

Rate: Rate...

Reply

Re: Sources Assignment

by Lukas Duemmler - Monday, 26 October 2015, 9:58 PM
Delanie, in part one you stated that your topic most definitely adheres to confirmation bias
and prior to that you said that your subject is circumstantial. I think that if a topic is
circumstantial, it leaves more room for people to implement bias because there is no way to
prove either side of the topic. I can see why you believe there is bias. Also, since not all
mega church pastors can be generalized in one statement, what are you doing in your
research to help make that more specific? Are you looking at the mega pastors as a whole, or
are you looking at individual pastors? I hope you can continue to keep the bias to a minimum
from your perspective, it seems like a tough task. Lastly, I liked how you ended where to find
strong sources. It sums up the two infographics and just about anything a teacher has ever
said about sources. General sourcesgive an overview on what is being talked about within
the general public. Scholarly sourcesdeepen the conversation. It especially ties into the
infographic with the boat, scuba diver, and submarine in that the deeper you dig for the
sources, the deeper the conversation gets and the better the academic credibility is.
210 words

Rate: Rate...

Re: Sources Assignment

by Samuel Shely - Monday, 26 October 2015, 10:05 PM

Show parent | Reply

Hey Delanie, I understand the struggles of having an extremely polarizing topic. Although I was able
to form connections at the end, the beginning of my inquiry path was very similar to yours. One
possible way to dial in on more sources supporting mega church pastors is to alter your route of
research. Instead of searching for sources solely supporting the pastors, it might be beneficial to look
for sources that identify the good things that mega churches are doing on a communal and global
scale.
I enjoyed reading your commentary in part two. I made similar connections when contemplating the
dierences between scholarly articles and sources such as websites and newspapers. You were
clear and concise in identifying the advantages and disadvantages of these sources. To further your
commentary, I believe that sources such as websites and newspapers are beneficial for identifying
the conversation behind an argument. Like you said, these sources are easy to read, therefore are a
good introduction into a topic. As one obtains a deeper knowledge of a subject, it is optimal to delve
into scholarly sources that have less bias in them. These sources hone in on specific aspects of a
topic or argument.
200 words

Sum of ratings: -

Show parent | Reply | Export to portfolio

Re: Sources Assignment

by Katherine Morton - Monday, 26 October 2015, 10:20 PM
I was pleased to read in part 1 that you are experiencing some of the same diculties as I am,
euthanasia seems to also be predominately one sided but surprisingly enough, the bulk of the
information I am finding is pro-euthanasia. I think that it is great that you have not taken any
stance so far as to which side you support, looking at it with an open mind will make it easier
for you to eliminate bias as much as you can. I also liked how you mentioned that valuable
information can be found in non-scholarly sources as well but the validity is very hard to
prove, I myself did not mention it in my own post but I believe that you are correct and
explained it well in saying that it is best used in addition to a more reliable source such as
scholarly articles.
147 words

Rate: Rate...

Sources Assignment
NAVIGATION

Home
My home
My profile
Current course
F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580

Show parent | Reply

Sources Assignment

Participants
Badges
Thursday, October 22
Sources Discussion Forum (037)
Sources Assignment
Kaltura Media Gallery
My courses

ACTIVITIES

Assignments
Forums
Resources
ADMINISTRATION

Forum administration
Subscription disabled
My profile settings

You are logged in as Samuel Shely (Log out)

F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580