From my perspective, if you are using the religious websites and blogs as data or evidence for an argument you are making, I don't see the problem with citing the sources. They serve as the text you are analyzing, and you are then providing the possibility for your readers the path to look at the text themselves. In this sense, it's not that different than if one analyzes, for example, a speech and provides the citation for where a print version or broadcast version of the speech can be found.
I'm not sure if this addresses your concern. Best wishes, ~Jenny [Who is procrastinating from the work of muddling through understanding an SPSS macro for Krippendorff's alpha . . . .] Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org on behalf of joseph@gelfer.net Sent: Thu 2007.05.03 00:19 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] "Validity" of citing internet sources? Hello list members Can anyone point me in the direction of any peer-reviewed papers which argue for the "validity" of citing internet sources as complements to regular print sources? Here's the context: I work in the area of Religious Studies. I like to cite church and religious organisation websites as an indicator of their positions on various contemporary issues. I also like to cite blogs of religious leaders who have significant public and publishing profiles, as these often contain some pretty impassioned content that may not make it through to "official" outlets. Now I know some folks find using such online sources as unscholarly, even if alongside all the traditional print sources. So what I'm after are papers from reputable journals which make a good case for the use of such online sources. Having had a look around the only papers I can find in the general subject area are concerned with dead links/the percentage of URL references which can no longer be verified. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, Joseph Gelfer. www.gelfer.net