Research: evaluating credibility
Credibility is Rhetorical
What does it mean to say credibility is "rhetorical"? It means that source credibility is defined by your specific topic, the audience you are writing to, the context, and your purpose for writing. The quickest way to illustrate this point is to consider social media. Typically, it would seem unwise to incorporate someone's Twitter post in academic writing. Yet, if you were writing about a specific corporation, and you referenced a Twitter post made by the CEO, this seems like valuable information for your piece of writing, yes? Well, it sounds like that might be the case. Did the CEO make the same statement elsewhere, though? In another forum that is more formal than Twitter? You'd probably want to look for this, but if it comes down to choosing a quote from a journalist or a quote directly from the CEO on their Twitter feed, I would go with the first-hand source: Twitter! This is assuming that the content of the Twitter post is essential to the main point of what you are writing about: if it adds actual substance. If not, ditch this quest and go for substance. You see, "it all depends."
Even while source credibility is defined rhetorically, or situationally, you should use clear and specific criteria (see below) to prompt your own questioning, criticism, and defense of every source you decide to use. I say "defense" because it is imperative that you are able to defend why you've included every source you've referenced in a piece of academic writing, which means you need to know more about a source besides "it had good information that fit my topic and seemed true." Or even, "I found it in the library!" The fact is that you'll need to investigate further and take some extra time.
As you move along in your research process, take note of the strengths and weaknesses for each source. You may find stronger ones that you can use to replace weaker ones, so treat your list of sources as a work in progress, just as your drafts for writing should be. |
Relevancy: what is the source about?
Is the information directly relevant to what I plan to write about, or does it seem off-topic/obscure in some way? Is there a smaller part that is more relevant than the whole?
Does it provide specific information that I need in order to support my points thoroughly? Do I already have this information? If so, is it helpful to provide additional evidence in order to prove a point, or should I seek out different information to examine other aspects of my topic? |
If the source isn't relevant enough for you to use, stop looking at it and move on to find something else.
If it's relevant, evaluate for currency below. |
Currency: when was the information published or last updated?
For my subject matter, what would be considered up-to-date information? Has the information provided by this specific source changed much since this information was last published? Do I have access to more up-to-date information? Can I use this "outdated" information to illustrate history or change in some way?
|
If the source isn't current enough for you to use, ditch it, and find something better. If you're not sure, save it but try to replace it with something more current later.
If it's current, evaluate for detail below. |
Detail: how detailed is the information?
Approximately how long is the source? Is it a single page or a full eBook, for example?
Approximately how in-depth is the source? Does it focus on a single study, single event, or single interview? Or, does it synthesize sources, information, and research from various other places? Are there links, citations, and/or references to other sources? Are there charts, graphs, tables, or other depictions of data and research? How much will you be able to draw from the source? A sentence, two, or much more? Does it provide adequate depth of coverage for the subject matter it is covering, or will you need to find additional sources to fill in the gaps that this source fails to address? |
If the source isn't detailed enough for you to use, be on the lookout for something better. The more detail you get from your sources, the easier it will be for you to write without getting writer's block or running out of things to say since you'll have more content to draw from.
If it's detailed, evaluate for authority below. |
Authority: who is the author/organization responsible for the information?
Who is the author of the information? What are their qualifications? Education? Career? Awards? Reputation? Are they considered an "expert"? How long have they been working in their field, and what kinds of experiences have they had that might give them authority to speak on the subject?
Does the source include references to other authoritative sources? Have other authoritative entities reviewed or validated the information presented? Who sponsored or published the information? For example, what news organization or publication? What is their reputation? Have they earned any awards? What is their history? How factual is their reporting? Any known political, or other, biases? *Be sure to evaluate both the author and the organization if possible.
This worksheet from the LCC library might be helpful in your investigation of author/organization credibility.
|
If the source doesn't seem authoritative, look for something else. There are rare exceptions when you'll want to include the source anyway, but be cautious with this (see below about "worthy opponents"). Also, while you might find one source to be authoritative, your broader audience might have a different opinion. If your goal is to persuade, you need to acknowledge and accommodate the audience's preferences so as to keep their attention and build your own credibility.
As well, try to avoid gathering various sources with similar authority. It's better to branch out to establish diversity among your sources. If it's authoritative, evaluate for objectivity/bias below. |
Objectivity/Bias: what is the tone/purpose of the information?
Why was this information written? Was it written to inform me, persuade me, entertain me, or sell me something? Is the information "paid for" by an entity with agenda operating behind the scenes? Look to word choice, tone, and presentation for clues.
Does the information present limited points of view? Does it use emotions, belittling, or praising? *Please note: Opinion is not the same thing as bias. If the source adequately addresses opposing views but maintains its own stance, that is persuasive, for sure, but it is not the same thing as bias. It might be good argumentation. |
If the source doesn't seem objective, or free from bias, look for something else. There are rare exceptions when you'll want to include the source anyway, but be cautious with this (see below about "worthy opponents").
If it's objective/free from bias, evaluate for accuracy below. |
Accuracy: is the information accurate?
Are there errors of fact? Sometimes you won't be able to determine this until you've researched the subject for a bit and have had the opportunity to compare the information with information from other credible sources.
Are there errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation? This may indicate that the publication is not as reputable. Could it be a spoof? Watch out for sources that are created merely for entertainment but appear identical in format to credible sources. |
If the source turns out to be inaccurate, you shouldn't use it. Even slight inaccuracies should cause you to question the credibility of the source as a whole. See if you can find similar, accurate content presented elsewhere without the inaccuracies.
If it's accurate, you probably have a good source. Now, evaluate whether or not this credible source is the right fit for your "team"! |
Don't forget to build a strong team!
In order to establish credibility, you're going to need to look at each individual source, or "player," using the criteria above, but you are also going to need to look at the entire list of Works Cited, or the "team." Some of your goals should be to improve the diversity of your source types and perspectives, balance any especially biased sources, broaden representation of different perspectives/lenses, make sure who you've gathered to "play" is going to make for a good conversation or "game," and even pick out "worthy opponents" to go up against (when opposition is relevant to the writing task, such as in argumentative writing).
Watch the video below for more guidance and my weak attempt at talking sports ;) Ignore the comments about Ex-Changers if you're not a student in English 102 with Lemiere. As well, please forgive the misspelling of "their." Haha! This program auto-creates subtitles, and I missed that one. Someday I'll fix it.
|
Choose "worthy" opponents
When your writing task requires you to consider alternate viewpoints or opposition, as is the case with argumentation and most persuasive writing, it is important that you put some effort into ensuring that the sources you find to represent those viewpoints are also strong and credible; this means that you'll want to use the criteria above to help you select the best sources whether you agree with the source's content or not.
Sometimes, our temptation is to choose a weak opponent because this opponent is easier to disarm, but giving in to this temptation makes for a "bad" or "boring game," as described in my video above, and it puts you in a position where you're flirting with fallacious logic or reasoning. Specifically, choosing worthy opponents can help you to avoid the Straw Man Fallacy, where one side is made to look stronger by tearing down a poor, weak misrepresentation of another side, all for show. Watch the video to the right for a better illustration of this.
|
|