4X6 PHOTO STORAGE

You can also think about resources in terms of the context surrounding their creation:

There are three common (traditional?) descriptions for resources that you might encounter as you do research - while they're a little bit problematic at times - I do like them because they encourage us to think about who the person actually is that is creating the resource, and what kind of perspective they’re likely to be coming from.

Popular: Newspapers and general magazines.
Popular resources are written by people who aren’t experts on a subject, for other people who also aren’t experts in that subject.
Usually, the decision to publish their work is made an editor of that publication.
Their work generally doesn’t have footnotes or bibliographies. (In part this is because they’re reporting on what they’ve directly observed).

Trade: Professional magazines and newsletters (Like Computer Arts, or Prodesign).
These are written by experts for experts.
Sometimes have bibliographies, but they’re usually not extensive.
They usually also have editors like popular resources.

Scholarly: Academic journals.
Aim to publish original research.
Are written by those with higher degrees, masters and phds, and who are associated with research institutions.
Typically have a peer review process where colleagues from other institutions read and critique their work, before it is able to be published.

Peer review is usually most closely associated with academic journal articles, but academic books also go through a review process of sorts (emerge through reviewed journal articles at first, then through manuscript reading)

This means that when you’re reading scholarly resources, you’re accessing something that has been critiqued by a number of experts, that you can trust to be authoritative.

Internet publishing does complicate this model a little bit:
In all the other cases, there’s been an editor, or someone in the way, checking the work before it goes to press.

With companies like Google and WordPress making it so easy for anyone to blog, - even my dad has a blog - people are suddenly able to produce primary material in their own words, without having to go through an editor who might decide if their point of view is "worth putting up"!

This is actually quite a good thing. If you want to express your thoughts to others, you don’t have to get the permission of an academic review board before you can share them.

[I want to say something more along the lines of: you can probably recognize 'popular', 'trade', and 'scholarly' types of information online.... but don't know how to put this. And, additionally, because a popular and scholarly work can appear right next to eachother on the web (like, one click away), it's really key to be able to recognize one from another]

The boots are the same ones I used last year (and apparently you can still see the mud from the Ren Fest, lol!). Once again, the design I got from screenshots, put into a graphic editor and printed up big on paper. I then transferred the design onto a write-on cling sheet (similar material to a garbage bag), and used double-sided adhesive used in scrapbooking to get the design to stick.

This turned out so well that I actually did this process again on a different set of boots with a *much* higher heel. I'd bought those other boots last year before I finally--thankfully--discovered these online. (Good thing, too...I couldn't walk in those heels, and last year's photo shoot was at a Ren Fest!) You'll see those other boots in the pictures later...they look great, but I only wore them for a few minutes for the pictures!