A clever hook is commonly used to spark the reader's interest, therefore I hope organic farming can be interesting; for that was the subject assigned to me for this final essay that you are now reading. And with that introduction, let us prepare to dig deep into the process that I used to research my topic.
Before my research, I had a vague idea of what organic foods are. Within a few minutes, I discovered that organic foods are approved by the USDA based upon certain standards. The USDA consumer brochure gives a brief summary of these standards,
"Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation."
However, I conducted several searches in order to stumble upon what I learned. Searches always use some form of a strategy; even if a strategy is not intended. I began my search at the Haystac Catalog because it was the first on the list, and I rationalized that going down the list would save time; instead of blankly staring at the list in an effort to pick which one I should choose first. I used the subject heading option because, clearly, "organic farming" is a subject. Immediately, I found a book by the name of The Basic Book of Organically Grown Foods, which is authored by the staff of a publication by the name of Organic gardening and farming. The title was almost a sufficient evaluation of the text. The word "basic" indicates its angle, and the phrase "organically grown foods" indicates the topic relevance; search success.
After my initial success, I turned to Academic Search Premier. I used the search terms "organic" and (boolean operator) "farming." The results that I first received seemed to be lacking in relevance, so I narrowed my search (using a link provided on the left-hand side) by the subject "Organic farming." I soon found an article which contained a global view of organic farming, and past organic farming policies. I thought this would provide greater depth to my research; not did I have information on what it is, but I information on its history.
I then went to a disciplinary database. Agricola, an agriculture-based database was an obvious choice. This database categorized the results; I found a category that included consumer information, and in this category I found an online consumer brochure about organic farming. This article provides information that is most useful for the people who purchase organic products; if no one purchased organic products, then the industry would not exist. This article is clearly relevant.
Lastly, I approached the infamous Google. I used the search terms "organic farming" in quotes. The result that I fancied the most is from the USDA website, which led to a page with the title, Organic Agriculture. Once I reached the page, I noticed the words "Economic Research Service" in bold letters with the subtitle: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America. This page not only gave a brief overview of what organic agriculture is, but it introduces an economic element into the picture. At the bottom of the page, there are also several links to recommended readings, data, and related items. Not only did I get a result, but a result that leads to even more results; clearly it is a worthwhile result.
How did I come to the conclusion that these searches were good sources? I took into account topic relevance, angle and authority. Every result that I listed comes from a source with authority (unless you believe the USDA holds no authority). I then tried to include a circumspect arrangement of angles, which included: consumer/economic/global/historical/basic standpoints. One would suspect that many revisions had to take place to locate such a variety of results.
To my surprise, I did not have to revise any of my searches. However, technically you can say I had to do so for my search on Academic Search Premier; when I narrowed the search by subject. Although, that required a simply click of the mouse and could hardly be defined as a revision. I credit this absence of revision to my simple and specific search terms. In the game of research, topics tend to be highly complex, but search terms must be simple. I could easily continue my search using the search strategies.
A question that was raised by my search is, "What benefits does organic farming offer to society?" Another question I have is, "Is organic farming practical on a national scale?" Of course, Lexis Nexis and JSTOR are additional databases in which I could further explore my research subject.
Bibliographic citation:
1. The Basic book of organically grown foods, by the staff of Organic gardening and farming. Edited by M. C. Goldman and William H. Hylton 1. Publ. info. Emmaus, Pa., Rodale Press Book Division [1972] call number S605.5 B38
2. Explaining organic farming through past policies: comparing support policies of the EU, Austria and Finland. Author: Lesjak, Heli Annika Journal of Cleaner Production; Jan2008, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p1-11, 11p FULL TEXT: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFX-4M04J1J-1&_user=521381&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059560&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=521381&md5=9bcf1c5e0ec0b0c666b4017e6bc709a5 and a just-in-case link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.005
3. Organic Food Standards and Labels : The Facts The National Organic Program Printed: April 2002 Updated: January 2007 http://desearch.nal.usda.gov/cgi-bin/dexpldcgi?qry2146737728;102
4. Organic agriculture Briefing Rooms http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/ Updated date: November 27, 2007 USDA Economic Research Service
Friday, December 14, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
Self-Gratuity Essay
Again and again, I am requested to regurgitate information from rote memorization and cite evidence of said memorization. Again and again, I purposefully include logically-reached opinions because I care for an education; (GASP) more than I care about a graduation plague. Although unpopular (even for my mom), I would rather learn how to live well, than learn how to live for a paycheck. While we are free to pursue happiness; few realize that happiness is a form of the mind. As happiness is clearly insignificant to every human being, (again and again) teachers only ask students to exercise the intellectual capacity of computer memory. So much for happiness.
Anyways, information is a cornerstone of human civilization. From instruction manuals to blueprints, information is highly practical. Information can also be strongly theoretical, such as concepts or ideas. The mass quantity of information has led to the need of organization of it; libraries and databases are products of this need. However, an understanding of information, its organization, and its ethics is helpful in maximizing its usefulness.
There are no information "needs," but only informational wants. We want to have libraries. We want databases. We want to easily access information. We want blueprints, schematics, and statistics; because we want to continue having mansions, nuclear weapons, and stereotypes. Just like how we want to continue having comfort, hospitals, and social-awareness. But, what we want the most is to cheat hard work. We want it so badly that we have nicknamed it as a "need." And what we want is to learn what took others years to discover... but within the lines of a journal article. An example from my portfolio is unnecessary to illustrate this; the volumes upon volumes waiting upon library shelves are far more examples than I can ever cite.
I did not learn how to formulate a research question in our library class; I learned how to formulate research questions in our library class. I learned not how to create an initial research question; I learned how to broaden and narrow the initial research question to discover more research questions. An example of a broadened and narrowed initial research question is found on my research log entry from October 11, 2007. My initial research question in that log entry is, “Do we profile people based on their age?” I broadened that question by asking, “What is profiling and how do we use it?” And I then narrowed the question by asking, “Do people of differing ages, in general, treat each other differently?” Yet more, I learned how to strategically explore my question.
Formulating a research question is not practical enough; one must be capable of exploring a research question with haste and dexterity in order to meet practicality. Simplifying research terms is an easy way to increase the number of results. Let us simplify, "The connection between the body and the soul" to the simpler, "soul and body." By doing this, a search engine such as Google will limit the search to results with the words "soul" and "body," rather than searching for websites that include the words and phrases: "The connection" and "between" and "the body" and "the soul." In a database, there are the Boolean operators "and" and "or." If the Boolean operator of "and" is used in a database search with the terms "body" and "soul," results with both the terms will be identified. I used the terms “justice” and “philosophy” in this manner to find sources that contained both terms for my research log entry on October 18, 2007. The Boolean operator of “or” serves a different function. A database search that uses the Boolean operator of "or," with the search terms "body" and "soul," will show results that contains either of the words. However, these strategies should not be applied for the sake of application.
Search strategies should be carried out with intents; not because they are strategies. Humans talk in order to communicate; not because humans are humans. If I were to limit a database search of the terms "body" and "soul" with the Boolean operator of "or," I should not do so for its own sake; I should do so because I want to find results about only the body or just about the soul. Strategies should be executed with intents, but also revised to meet the intents. My research log entry from October 18, 2007 records my use of the Boolean operator “and” to find results containing both the terms “justice” and “philosophy.”
In order to effectively use traditional and new library resources and tools, an understanding of how to use them must be developed. To find a book using a call number, an understanding of what a call number represents is helpful. An understanding of Boolean operators is useful in a search for both the terms “body” and “soul.” My research log entry from October 18, 2007 illustrates my understanding of the Boolean operator “and” to find results containing both the terms “justice” and “philosophy.”
The aim of research is to find sources with authority, angle, and topic relevance. Research processes are used to carry out this aim. In addition to my search term “justice,” I use the search term “philosophy” to find sources with philosophical angles in my research log entry from October 18, 2007.
We also have a thing such as information ethics. The purpose of things such citations and bibliographies is to give credit to the author of a work. But if anything, information ethics is an information code of honor. A strong value of our current society is ownership. It is not the pen that I use; it is my pen. It is not the house that I live in; it is my house. It is not the information that I discovered; it is my information. Commercialism only further encourages our attraction to ownership. Not only is it my pen, but it is my pen that I bought. Not only is it my house, but it is my house that I bought. And not only is it my information, but it is my information that I can sell. Information ethics exists not to ethically share information, but to appease the owner's ego. Developing author's rights movements, such as Creative Commons seek to eliminate the commercial aspect, while continuing to note the author of a work. However, it should be noted that if the many were asked if hard work should be acknowledged, the many would cry yes. Although, if asked whether the author’s honor or information is useful to more people; it would be clear that information is useful to more people. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that every author will train himself or herself to reject ownership, therefore movements such as Creative Commons are practical for allowing maximal access to information while preserving the author’s ownership.
My only significant failures involved using too specific or too broad search terms, which often resulted in no results or too many results. The Golden Mean is an appropriate solution to these problems. I quickly solved these problems by broadening search terms that were too specific, or by narrowing search terms that were too broad. However, I do not understand how successes or failures can be “solved” (as stated in the rubric). So, I will also write on behalf of my successes. I believe these can be “solved” – or further explored – by developing new research questions that are raised by the results of the initial research question.
Clearly, I am capable of memorizing and citing information as the assignment requested. Of course I can endlessly type out lies about how I made progress achieving the course objectives, and rummage for some examples of how I did so. However, my essay included a bunch of fluff that contained nonsense such as opinions and thought. Therefore, I should be marked down accordingly for wordiness.
Anyways, information is a cornerstone of human civilization. From instruction manuals to blueprints, information is highly practical. Information can also be strongly theoretical, such as concepts or ideas. The mass quantity of information has led to the need of organization of it; libraries and databases are products of this need. However, an understanding of information, its organization, and its ethics is helpful in maximizing its usefulness.
There are no information "needs," but only informational wants. We want to have libraries. We want databases. We want to easily access information. We want blueprints, schematics, and statistics; because we want to continue having mansions, nuclear weapons, and stereotypes. Just like how we want to continue having comfort, hospitals, and social-awareness. But, what we want the most is to cheat hard work. We want it so badly that we have nicknamed it as a "need." And what we want is to learn what took others years to discover... but within the lines of a journal article. An example from my portfolio is unnecessary to illustrate this; the volumes upon volumes waiting upon library shelves are far more examples than I can ever cite.
I did not learn how to formulate a research question in our library class; I learned how to formulate research questions in our library class. I learned not how to create an initial research question; I learned how to broaden and narrow the initial research question to discover more research questions. An example of a broadened and narrowed initial research question is found on my research log entry from October 11, 2007. My initial research question in that log entry is, “Do we profile people based on their age?” I broadened that question by asking, “What is profiling and how do we use it?” And I then narrowed the question by asking, “Do people of differing ages, in general, treat each other differently?” Yet more, I learned how to strategically explore my question.
Formulating a research question is not practical enough; one must be capable of exploring a research question with haste and dexterity in order to meet practicality. Simplifying research terms is an easy way to increase the number of results. Let us simplify, "The connection between the body and the soul" to the simpler, "soul and body." By doing this, a search engine such as Google will limit the search to results with the words "soul" and "body," rather than searching for websites that include the words and phrases: "The connection" and "between" and "the body" and "the soul." In a database, there are the Boolean operators "and" and "or." If the Boolean operator of "and" is used in a database search with the terms "body" and "soul," results with both the terms will be identified. I used the terms “justice” and “philosophy” in this manner to find sources that contained both terms for my research log entry on October 18, 2007. The Boolean operator of “or” serves a different function. A database search that uses the Boolean operator of "or," with the search terms "body" and "soul," will show results that contains either of the words. However, these strategies should not be applied for the sake of application.
Search strategies should be carried out with intents; not because they are strategies. Humans talk in order to communicate; not because humans are humans. If I were to limit a database search of the terms "body" and "soul" with the Boolean operator of "or," I should not do so for its own sake; I should do so because I want to find results about only the body or just about the soul. Strategies should be executed with intents, but also revised to meet the intents. My research log entry from October 18, 2007 records my use of the Boolean operator “and” to find results containing both the terms “justice” and “philosophy.”
In order to effectively use traditional and new library resources and tools, an understanding of how to use them must be developed. To find a book using a call number, an understanding of what a call number represents is helpful. An understanding of Boolean operators is useful in a search for both the terms “body” and “soul.” My research log entry from October 18, 2007 illustrates my understanding of the Boolean operator “and” to find results containing both the terms “justice” and “philosophy.”
The aim of research is to find sources with authority, angle, and topic relevance. Research processes are used to carry out this aim. In addition to my search term “justice,” I use the search term “philosophy” to find sources with philosophical angles in my research log entry from October 18, 2007.
We also have a thing such as information ethics. The purpose of things such citations and bibliographies is to give credit to the author of a work. But if anything, information ethics is an information code of honor. A strong value of our current society is ownership. It is not the pen that I use; it is my pen. It is not the house that I live in; it is my house. It is not the information that I discovered; it is my information. Commercialism only further encourages our attraction to ownership. Not only is it my pen, but it is my pen that I bought. Not only is it my house, but it is my house that I bought. And not only is it my information, but it is my information that I can sell. Information ethics exists not to ethically share information, but to appease the owner's ego. Developing author's rights movements, such as Creative Commons seek to eliminate the commercial aspect, while continuing to note the author of a work. However, it should be noted that if the many were asked if hard work should be acknowledged, the many would cry yes. Although, if asked whether the author’s honor or information is useful to more people; it would be clear that information is useful to more people. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that every author will train himself or herself to reject ownership, therefore movements such as Creative Commons are practical for allowing maximal access to information while preserving the author’s ownership.
My only significant failures involved using too specific or too broad search terms, which often resulted in no results or too many results. The Golden Mean is an appropriate solution to these problems. I quickly solved these problems by broadening search terms that were too specific, or by narrowing search terms that were too broad. However, I do not understand how successes or failures can be “solved” (as stated in the rubric). So, I will also write on behalf of my successes. I believe these can be “solved” – or further explored – by developing new research questions that are raised by the results of the initial research question.
Clearly, I am capable of memorizing and citing information as the assignment requested. Of course I can endlessly type out lies about how I made progress achieving the course objectives, and rummage for some examples of how I did so. However, my essay included a bunch of fluff that contained nonsense such as opinions and thought. Therefore, I should be marked down accordingly for wordiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)