During my research process I typically ponder many different questions and strategies in doing so. Some questions I ask myself are “how reliable and accurate is the source I am currently looking at?” and “What can I do to make my research more efficient?” The challenges I normally face in doing research is finding enough time to actually get all the information I need, as well finding ones that are actually reliable. And even when both of these are fulfilled I will still run into the problem of the data I’ve collected being either not exactly what I am looking for or unrelated to the topic of my essays.

In terms of reliability, I gravitate more towards primary sources because they are more empirical rather analytical. What I mean by this is that we get the direct observations of a person, rather than the bias of the writer who talks about it. One interpretation says that “primary sources are original documents such as letters, diaries, legislative bills, laboratory studies, field research reports, and eyewitness accounts” (Hacker 561). These “authentic” documents really allow for the original meaning to be dug out. For example, if we were to read a diary of a person’s life, we actually grasp the experience of the person herself. But if we were to read a biography of a person, written by someone else, we lose the authenticity that a diary, or letter offers. Don’t get me wrong though. There are some good things about secondary sources offer, because they offer a counter- perspective or even other unseen motivations that are hidden in the document itself.

After reading this article though, I’ve realized that it’s not just as simple as primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, but transcends to a more complicated way of labeling types of sources. And that is what we call “B.E.A.M”.

 

“The standard classifications and [his] alternatives are based on very different criteria. (81)” However, in talking about the intricacies of B.E.A.M we learn how we can categorize sources as more than just simple labels.