Abbie Thacher

MLIS portfolio

bio

My name is Abbie Thacher and I am earning my Master degree in library and information science at the University of Washington in Seattle. As my capstone project, I am working with librarians and staff at UW to make research tools and library instruction more accessible to neurodivergent students. I am an Open Science and Scholarly Communication Intern at Arizona State University. I decided to get my MLIS because I love research and I think there is a lot of interesting research being done, but finding it and reading it is so hard especially outside of a university setting.

Outside of academic librarianship, I love reading and writing poetry, going to museums, and listening to pop music!

+------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ | Criteria | Excellent (5 points) | Good (3 points) | Fair (1 point) | Poor (0 points) | +------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ | Source Quality | Peer-reviewed scholarly articles or reputable books from recognized publishers. | Mix of peer-reviewed and other credible sources. | Limited use of peer-reviewed or credible sources. | Reliance on unreliable or outdated sources. | +------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ | Currency | All sources are current, published within the last 3 years. | Mostly current sources, with a few exceptions. | Some outdated sources (older than 3 years). | Majority of sources are outdated. | +------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ | Relevance | All sources directly contribute to the research topic and support the thesis. | Most sources are relevant, with a few only loosely connected. | Several sources lack relevance to the research topic. | Majority of sources are irrelevant to the research. | +------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ | Authority | Authors are experts in the field, with clear credentials and affiliations. | Authors have relevant expertise, but credentials may be less clear. | Authors may lack clear expertise or credentials. | Authors lack expertise or credibility. | +------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ | Methodology | Clear methodology outlined in primary research sources. | Methodology is evident but not well-documented. | Limited explanation of methodology. | Methodology is unclear or nonexistent. | +------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ | Bias | No evident bias; sources present a balanced view of the topic. | Minor biases present but acknowledged by the authors. | Noticeable bias impacting the objectivity of the sources. | Sources exhibit significant bias, compromising objectivity. | +------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+---------------------+---------------------+ Overall Score (out of 25 points): Comments: - [Insert any additional comments or feedback here.]