Critical Reading and the RADAR Framework Video Part 2

Hi everyone. Welcome to the second part of our videos on critical reading and the radar framework. In this video, we are going to further practice evaluating sources using the radar framework. You should have attempted task three of the critical reading worksheet before you started watching. Let’s move straight on to text A, which was from the back Heathrow website. You should have made a few notes on each element of the radar framework so far. First of all, rationale, this was about why the text was written, what were its aims, and could it be biased? So in this case, it is from a campaign group website.

The aim is to persuade people to support the expansion, particularly people in the local area. For that reason, it is likely to be biased. It is likely to emphasize the positives of the expansion without probably mentioning any of the drawbacks. A for authority, can you remember what that was about? It was about who wrote it and what their expertise was. Well, if you look carefully at the reference here, no author was listed. It’s not possible for us to identify whether they had any expertise in this area. It’s possible they did, but it’s equally possible that they didn’t. This should be making us ask questions. In terms of date, no date is listed on this website.

It’s quite possible the statistics or predictions may have been revised. Heathrow’s plans might have changed in light of some of the court cases and the challenges, so we don’t know if they are still accurate. Which brings us on to, A for accuracy. Aside from what we’ve just discussed, predictions may well be optimistic. They may be at the higher end of what is likely, in any case, no sources are referenced. We don’t know where the figures came from or how they were decided upon. It is likely that there would have been no peer expert, or editorial review process when this article was written. Finally, relevance, could you use this website when researching an essay on this subject?

Well, the source is relevant if you are writing about the expansion of Heathrow airport, but it is not appropriate for a university assignment because of the reasons we have already discussed. Text B was from the Independent News Website. Rationale, why was it written? Well, we could say it was aiming to inform, but that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t still be biased. The newspaper might want to emphasize some of the environmental drawbacks and maybe they might not want to focus on the economic benefits as much depending on their agenda if you like. It does, of course, report research from Greenpeace, which is an environmental organization.

Authority, if you look up the author of this text and you wouldn’t always have to do this, but you could find out that they are a freelance science correspondent who has written a number of published articles on environmental issues among others. They are likely to have some knowledge of the topic. In terms of the date, it was written in May 2019. It is quite recent, but it’s still possible that the situation has changed, Heathrow could have changed their plans, they might have reduced the noise impact on local residents. If we can’t find anything more recent, we should. In terms of accuracy, of course, reference is a particular study by Greenpeace.

It’s good that there is some research to back up these statistics. It does tell us a bit about how the research was conducted by overlaying flight data onto population data in the surrounding areas, but we might need to check the details of this research more carefully. The article would have been subject to review by an editor. In terms of relevance, the source is relevant and appropriate for a university assignment at foundation level, but perhaps not so much at higher levels. I hope you came up with some similar answers, but if not, don’t worry, it’s all about the learning process. You will have a further chance to practice this in the rest of the unit.