Research Source Credibility

When research is problematic, the problem should be made clear to your reader. Problems of bias, sourcing, representation, completeness, limitation, and measurement should be faithfully communicated to the reader rather than hidden or otherwise obscured.

In research and writing, we use “credibility” to mean whether or not something is accurate, whether or not it can be believed or trusted—but that’s an incomplete picture of what credibility is. Credibility can rarely be assessed in binary oppositions—it’s rarely either accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect, credible or unsound, truthful or dishonest. Usually, it’s somewhere in the middle. While we should aim for the credible, accurate, and truthful side of the spectrum, research that falls short shouldn’t be discounted. Instead, it should be evaluated for what it is and explained or noted in context.

For our purposes (and many professional purposes), credibility is trustworthiness in a particular context. Being credible means representing research as what it is, which demands understanding the rhetorical situation and representing that rhetorical situation in good faith.

Of course, you should always aim to find credible, impartial, complete information (and/or sources). However, that’s not always possible (and sometimes, depending on your own rhetorical aims as a writer, it’s not always useful).

If you have/need/want to use source material that might be considered unreliable or otherwise flawed, aim for transparency. Above all else, be ethical, honest, and forthcoming about where your information comes from and what kind of information it is.

• If you need to use information from a partial (or biased) source, be clear about the source’s partiality (or bias) in your writing.
• If it’s incomplete, limited, or dissimilar, be clear about those problems.
• In situations where you have to evaluate, combine, and/or quantify incomparable, not-parallel, incomplete, or inexact “data,” just be forthcoming and clear about what you’re doing and how you’re doing it.

In other words, if you’re using biased, incomplete, or inexact information, be sure to communicate the nature of the source to your readers. (Be clear about a source’s bias, incompleteness, and/or other manipulation or interpretation.)

Credibility Considerations

Timing of the Event Recorded

If the article was composed close to the time of the event recorded, chances are it is primary material. For instance, a letter written by a soldier during the Vietnam War is primary material, as is an article written in the newspaper at the time of the Vietnam War. However, an article written about the Vietnam War in recent years would be secondary material.

Rhetorical Aim of the Written Item

Often, an item that is written with a persuasive, or analytical aim is secondary material.

Context of the Researching Scholar/Writer

Primary materials for a critic studying the literature of the Vietnam War are different from primary materials for a research scientist studying the affects of Agent Orange syndrome. The critic’s primary materials are the poems, stories, and films of the era. The research scientist’s primary materials would be the medical records of those person exposed to Agent Orange.

Authority

Who is the author/creator of the information? Is he/she the original author/creator? Is the person qualified? What are his/her credentials? What is his/her occupation?

Accuracy

Is the information accurate? How does it compare with other sources on the subject? Is it consistent with what else you know about the subject? Does it provide enough evidence to support its claim or position?

Objectivity

Does the source present a balanced view of the different perspectives on the topic? Is the bias of the author/creator obvious? Is the source trying to convince you of a point of view? Is the website or publication in which the item appears sponsored, or endorsed by a political or other special interest group?

Date of Publication

How important is currency to your topic? Is this research still relevant? Does it report facts from the actual time of the event or issue? Is it retrospective, providing some review or analysis of previous research?

Scope / Depth / Breadth

Is the source comprehensive for the entire field of study, presenting multiple viewpoints? Is it specialized, focusing on only certain aspects? Is it ethnocentric, reflecting the values or beliefs of a certain group?

Intended Audience / Level of Information

Who is the intended audience: the general public, the educated layperson, professionals, practitioners, scholars? Is it written at a level that is understandable and makes sense to you? Consider the vocabulary used. Does it build on what you already know? Does it include a bibliography or links to additional sources to consult?

Quality of Publication

Do you know anything about the publisher of the source? Is it published, sponsored, or endorsed by a professional association, organization, or society?

Ease of Use / Special Features

Does the source contain a table of contents and/or an index to facilitate use and find the specific information you need? Is it well-organized? Does it include a bibliography? Does it contain graphs, tables, charts, illustrations, photographs, maps, or other special features that add to its usefulness?

Your Own Use/Purpose

What are you using the source for? How are you treating the source?