5.3 Evaluating Individual Knowledge Sources for Harm
Use the questions below to assess individual knowledge sources for potential harms and benefits
Choose two or three sources that you located in Chapter 4. A reminder that you were to find sources that support the client in our case study. Let’s consider: what value does each source offer? What risks or harms could it pose? Asking these questions is a crucial first step in deciding whether to use a source.
Step 1: Stop and Reflect
Stop and Reflect
Consider your relationship to the knowledge source:
- What is your emotional reaction to this person/source’s ideas?
- Do they share new-to-you ideas? Or re-confirm things you already knew/believed?
- How relevant is this source to your purpose?
(Non)-Human Influence
We also need to determine whether the source is AI-generated:
- Do images have any missing or misplaced elements? Does lighting, textures, skin look realistic?
- Does audio sound realistic? Is narration natural or does it sound clipped, robotic, or emotionless?
- Is text or writing uniform and factual? Are words or phrases used over and over? Are there a high number of –em dashes– used?
Is an author/creator listed? Can you find any information about their positionality or intersections the author/creator to know that they’re real?
- Adapted from (Government of Canada, 2024
)
All activities can also be found in a downloadable workbook. Visit the ‘Using this Resource‘ page to access the workbook in MS Word and PDF formats.
Step 2: Check for Harm
Check for red flags about the trustworthiness of a source. A note that the questions below will not apply to every source:
Profit Over People
- Who owns or profits from this source?
- Who else benefits when these ideas are shared, or this source is used?
- Who is this source for? Who is sharing it or using it?
Misusing or Falsifying Authority
- Is the author/creator considered knowledgeable on this subject? Do they have training, education, permission, lived experience, or applicable credentials to the topic at hand?
- If speaking about or for a specific community or group, does the author identify their positionality?
- What do other, trusted people say about this author/creator?
Theft of Knowledge
- Do they credit where their ideas came from, or who influenced them?
- Are they sharing ideas or knowledge that is sacred, private, or culturally appropriated?
Exclusion, Deletion, and Censorship
- Is the creator/source using out-of-date information? If so, is that acknowledged?
- Can you trace their claims, quotes, or media? Does extracted information support their claims?
- Are you able to fact check their ideas? Are any being exaggerated, manipulated, omitted, cherry-picked, or taken out of context?
- Who else is saying the same thing? What other coverage can you find on the same topic/idea?
Harmful Terminology
- What words or language are they using to describe people? Do any terms raise red flags? For example, are they using slurs or other harmful terminology?
- Why would harmful language be used by that source/person?
Bigotry
- All sources have edges or limitations. Does this one hold problematic or harmful biases?
- Are the biases and limitations named, acknowledged, or addressed?
- Is the source/person attempting to hide/minimize their biases? Does problematic language reveal biased thinking?
Evaluating AI Generated Knowledge
- Who owns the company? What is their mandate? Is that information available?
- How was the model trained? Is that information available?
- What are the boundaries of the model (i.e. what is it “allowed” to talk about)? Is that information available?
Applying Evaluation Questions to Case Study Sources
For the purposes of this chapter, we’ve developed a list of evidence we found while searching for knowledge about our case . Find the resource list in your workbook, or in the dropdown menu below. Pause here to evaluate it; we (your authors) share our own reflections in the next section.
Resources to Evaluate
Those with Lived Experience
Community Representatives
Arm’s Length Observers
-
- Das, R.R., Sankar, M.J., & Agarwal,. R. (2021). Bed sharing versus no bed sharing for healthy term neonates. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021(4): CD012866. https://doi.org//10.1002/14651858.CD012866.pub2
- Harrington, C.T., Al Hafid, N., & Waters, K.A. (2022). Butyrylcholinesterase is a potential biomarker for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. eBioMedicine: the Lancet 80(June): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104041
- Mileva-Seitz et al. (2017). Parent-child bed sharing: the good, the bad, and the burden of evidence. Sleep Medicine Reviews 32: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2016.03.003
- Moore et al. (2021). Integrating cultural humility into infant safe sleep counseling: a pediatric resident simulation. Cureus 13(12): https://doi.org/10.7759%2Fcureus.20847
- Osei-Poku, G.K., Mwananyanda, L., Elliott, P.A. et al. Qualitative assessment of infant sleep practices and other risk factors of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) among mothers in Lusaka, Zambia. BMC Pediatr 23, 245 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-023-04051-9
- Priyadarshi, M., Balachander, B., & Sankar, M. J. (2022). Effect of sleep position in term healthy newborns on sudden infant death syndrome and other infant outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of global health, 12, 12001. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/10.7189/jogh.12.12001
- BBC – Is the Western way of raising kids weird?
- Global News – Researchers Say They’ve Found the Reason Why Infants Die from SIDS (refers to Harrington article above)
Care Providers
Power Holders
-
- Statistics Canada – Bedsharing in Canada
- Public Health Agency of Canada – Safe Sleep
- Canadian Paediatric Society and Government of Canada Joint Statement on Safe Sleep: Reducing Sudden Infant Deaths in Canada
- UNICEF – Trends in Under Five Mortality (Kenya) (Canada)
- UN Refugee Agency
- WHO Making sure newborns and children under 5 years sleep safely
- WHO Housing and Health Guidelines
