Print this chapterPrint this chapter

Research Skills

Source Credibility

credibilityThe degree of trust we should invest in a source should directly match to its level of credibility. But how do we decide upon this level? In essence, we do so by asking (and responding to) the right sorts of question. These include:

  • Is the source corroborated?  Are there other sources which agree with the one in hand?
    BREAK
  • Does it stem from a reputable (reliable) source?
    BREAK
  • Was this source a witness to the reported events or is the evidence purely anecdotal - i.e. reported second-hand (the difference between a primary and secondary account)?  If they were there, could their ability to see have been hampered in any way by factors that could cloud or otherwise affect their judgement (loss of memory, inebriation, poor eyesight, shock, age etc.)?
    BREAK
  • Does the source have a vested interest to distort the truth (i.e. do they stand to gain anything by doing so)?  Do they have a vested interest to be truthful?
    BREAK
  • Does the source have any relevant expertise (i.e. one that relates to the evidence being presented)?
    BREAK
  • Is the source neutral (i.e. does it present both sides of the argument) or could it be guilty of bias - for example, could the evidence have been interpreted in some way that is less than objective (i.e. one-sided)?  Does it employ any emotive language in order to get its points across?

In reality, of course, not all of these questions will need to be addressed. For this reason, you will need to judge for yourself which are the most relevant or appropriate for a particular source, and of course this will vary from context to context. 

BREAK 

What is important is that you recognise which criteria positively affect, and which negatively affect the credibility of a source and the evidence they present. Corroboration, for example, is a positive credibility criterion.  The greater the amount of agreement between sources or evidence, the greater the likelihood that that evidence will be true (although, of course, this will not always be the case).

The same can be said of evidence put forward by reputable sources – i.e. ones with a reputation to uphold.  Such sources might include teachers, lawyers, policemen, broadsheet newspapers, news-corporations or more generally, those that can be relied upon to tell the truth. 

An ability to see / understand / interpret / judge etc. will also lend weight to evidence.  In particular, a primary report – i.e. one given by somebody who was there at the time, can be regarded as more credible than a secondary one, since it offers a first-hand account of the issue on which it is reporting (although this can also be flawed).

Where a source has a vested interest to report the truth (for example, a reputable newspaper or news-broadcaster) or a relevant expertise in the field that is being reported on, we have strong grounds for believing it. 

And finally, a neutral account (i.e. one that gives details of both sides of a debate and does so in neutral, i.e. not emotively charged, terms), can be regarded as more credible than one which is slanted or biased (i.e. one-sided or emotively charged). 

BREAK

Turning this on its head, where a source is not corroborated, lacks a solid reputation, has no clear ability to see / understand / interpret / judge the issue it reports on; has an apparent vested interest in (i.e. stands to gain from) distorting the truth, lacks relevant expertise and/or offers a one-sided account, then any one of these points will affect its credibility.  

 

You may have noticed that the first letter from each of these credibility criteria spells out the word craven:

BREAK 

Corroboration;

Reputation;

Ability to observe/judge;

Vested interest;

Expertise and

Neutrality (or lack of it)

 

BREAK

This mnemonic is often employed by critical thinkers as a memory aide for dealing with each (although there is no officially  ‘correct’ order in which to do this). You should compare your sources using these criteria, and you could use a table format to make a quick comparison, such as in the example below:

BREAK

 

Corroboration

Reputation

Ability   to see/judge etc.

Vested   interest

Expertise

Neutrality

Source x

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source y

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 BREAK

qaQuick Activity

Have a go at trying out the CRAVEN scale by evaluating a text of your choice using the worksheet below. This is an essential activity, so you can upload your completed worksheet if you wish. You can upload a Word document with typed answers, or a scanned pdf copy of your handwritten answers.

Research Skills - CRAVEN worksheet Upload your completed worksheet here

BREAK

To sum up: when collecting research, it's important to make sure the information is credible (trustworthy and good) - especially if you are using the internet. You need to compare the information given on one website, or in one newspaper article, to the same information in a book or academic journal, and make sure the facts match before using it in your research project. If they don't, you will need to do some more research to see which source has got the right information and stick to using that.

BREAK