Despite garnering a plethora of criticism and the emergence of myriad replacement metrics, the CRAAP test for evaluating resources remains the most well-known and widely-used standard in research guides and information literacy classes. I myself have always held a vague distaste for the tool, but I had not put serious thought into my reasons until recently when I consulted with a faculty member to develop an introductory library session for her class.
The argument that the CRAAP test inculcates intellectual laziness by reducing information value to a series of empirical question does not always hold water when the students in question are first-year researchers, new to both writing and to critical thinking practices. After all, any evaluation is better than no evaluation at all! That the test asks students to consider the source in front of them as a starting point, rather than as a single point within the holistic landscape of information, falls similarly flat when students have not yet developed the knowledge base to begin navigating their chosen fields.
However, putting all other considerations aside, the basic premise of the CRAAP test—the question, “Is your source CRAAP?” fails students through its implication that low-bar satisficing is the gold standard of source inclusion. If a source isn’t “crap” as per these rote questions of currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose, then it must be worthy of time and inclusion in a paper.
Instead, students should care about the topics they choose and the sources they read and cite. I do not wish to advance CARE as an alternative test but as a series of reflections that students may use to gauge not only the source of their investment in a resource but the factors that can make a source worthy of their investment.
With CARE, I ask students to consider the following themes along with associated questions and prompts:
Confirmed authority
Accessibility
Researched
Ethical
The goal of these questions is not to find easy answers that will determine whether or not a resource passes the test. Students need to understand that just finding a resource that speaks passably about their topic is not enough, and that they can use resources that they disagree with or even despise, if it is provoking a reaction in a way that is worth discussing and exploring.
I suggest that the main point of assigning first year students research at all is to nurture curiosity in their academic fields. Ensuring these same students care about the things they are reading and writing is the next necessary step.