Peer response 3 | GEN 103 Information Literacy | Ashford University
Your response to your classmates must be substantive. Share ideas, explore differences, and think critically about your classmates’ posts. Bring in information from your textbook, classroom resources or other credible sources that you find to contribute to the discussion. You are invited to share relevant audio, video, or images in your responses. You must cite and reference any sources you use, even in your responses to your classmates.
The second source by Jay Hancock is a popular source since it offers a report of the issue in question: employees’ privacy in relation to the wellness program (UC Santa Cruz University, n.d.). In addition, it features public opinion on the topic of discussion. For instance, the report’s author includes Ray Hunt’s view, president of the Houston police department, about giving their information to healthcare providers (Hancock, 2015). Furthermore, the article is not peer-reviewed, like in a scholarly paper, since it is just edited by its editor and published.
Both the articles have their specific audiences. The first article by Ajunwa et al. (2016) is a scholarly article is written, targeting scholars. The report is written mainly for academic purposes and for academicians who mostly find the results helpful to further their research on the same topic or in a related field. The audiences are the specialists and researchers who are peers to the research’s contributors (Morehead State University, 2015). With this audience, the language in the articles is topic-specific, such that it only reflects the topic under discussion, utilizing vocabulary related. The organization of the article is formal and orderly, with the subtopics arranged in chronological order. Images may be present, but only if they represent something about the topic. As a popular article, the second article targets the general audience and readers since they usually entertain, inform, and persuade individuals about a particular matter (Morehead State University, 2015). The audience, in most cases, is not specialized, but the general public is looking to be informed about the current events and issues, which may include sports, politics, and culture. The article’s organization lacks order since the author is not guided. The language is not formal but chosen to suit the reader and the writer. Images are primarily used with no direct connection to the topic.
The two articles have different levels of credibility. The first article, which is a scholarly source, is more credible because they have been through a review process that is rigorous and comprehensive by scholars and specialists who have the knowledge and expertise on the topic under discussion (Elmhurst University, 2020). Features making it credible include past literature about the subject and supporting documents cited and forming the reference section of the article. An example of the cited source is in use where Ajunwa et al. says that it is not yet defined if the wellness program providers meet the HIPAA regulations, applicable to hospitals and doctors, and goes ahead to state its contents (Ajunwa et al., 2016). On the contrary, the second article by Hancock is not credible since it is not reviewed, instead edited and published by the publishing bodies, magazines, and news blogs. It lacks features like citations and references to support the presented information and offers unsubstantial information with no facts or proof. An example is where the author, Hancock, says that millions of people find themselves in the situation as Houston cops, who are unwilling to give their information to healthcare providers (Hancock, 2015). There is no supporting evidence from research that could substantiate the claim.
The first article by Ajunwa et al., a scholarly source, can support academic research in the same field of study by scholars and researchers. The source would be significant in research situations in employee medical information and information privacy at the workplace. My concern while using these sources is little information present; hence I will need to have additional research to beef it up in the long run. The second article, a popular source, could address gaps in the current initiatives about employee healthcare and related trends. In situations where people need to understand what is going in the employment sector as far as healthcare is concerned, the source might come in handy. My concern, however, when using the source remains the unsubstantial information presented by the author. There is a lack of proof and facts accompanying the article.
Ajunwa, I., Crawford, K., & Ford, J. S. (2016). Health and big data: An ethical framework for health information collection by corporate wellness programs. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 44(3), 474-480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110516667943 (Links to an external site.)
Elmhurst University. (2020, Aug 13). Source evaluation and credibility: Journals and
Hancock, J. (2015, Oct 2). Workplace wellness programs put employee privacy at risk. CNN.
Morehead State University. (2015, Dec 8). Distinctions among types of periodicals: Intended
UC Santa Cruz University. (n.d.). Distinguish between Popular and Scholarly Journals.