Research 101: Credibility is contextual

Summary

This video covers the concept of credibility in research, emphasizing that the trustworthiness of a source depends on its origin, audience, and purpose. Effective researchers recognize that the level of credibility required varies with the context. While scholarly articles are often seen as credible, non-traditional sources like blog posts or tweets can also provide valuable insights. The key is to assess each source's background, purpose, and context. For example, a tweet from the White House may offer reliable information, but one from a fast-food chain may not be as relevant or trustworthy.

Takeaways

• 🔍 Credibility is contextual and depends on the source, audience, and how the information is used.
• 🎯 Effective researchers adjust their credibility benchmarks based on the purpose of their research.
• ☁️ Low-stakes information needs, like checking the weather for a picnic, require less authoritative sources.
• 📚 High-stakes research, like writing a dissertation, demands more authoritative and credible sources.
• 📝 Non-traditional sources, like blogs or tweets, can be valuable in research depending on context.
• ❓ Researchers must remain skeptical and assess the purpose, origin, and context of any source.
• 💼 A tweet from a credible source, like the White House, can provide insight, despite being non-traditional.
• 🔧 The format of a source (e.g., tweet) is less important than the reliability and context behind it.
• 🤔 The purpose of the information and how it was published are critical in evaluating its trustworthiness.
• ⚖️ Not all non-traditional sources are credible; researchers must carefully evaluate each source based on context.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the video transcript?

The main focus of the transcript is to explain the concept of credibility in research and how the context of a source affects its trustworthiness and relevance for different types of research.

What does 'credibility' mean in the context of research?

Credibility refers to the degree of trust researchers give to a source based on factors like where it came from, who created it, and how it is used in a specific research context.

How does the credibility of a source vary depending on the research context?

The level of credibility needed depends on the stakes of the research. For low-stakes information, like checking the weather, a simple source may suffice. However, more authoritative sources are required for high-stakes research, such as writing a dissertation.

Can non-traditional sources be considered credible?

Yes, non-traditional sources like blogs or tweets can be valuable and credible, especially when they come from reputable organizations or experts, but their credibility must still be evaluated based on context.

What example is given to explain how context affects credibility?

The example given is a tweet from the White House, which is considered credible for research on Obama's immigration policies because it comes from a reputable source (the president's office). In contrast, a tweet from a fast-food chain like White Castle would not be relevant or credible.

Why is it important to evaluate the source of information in research?

It is important because understanding the context in which the information was published helps researchers assess the reliability and relevance of the information for their specific research needs.

What should researchers be skeptical about when evaluating sources?

Researchers should remain skeptical about where the information came from, what the purpose of the work is, and the context in which the information is presented.

Why is the format of a source, such as a tweet, not the most important factor in determining credibility?

The format itself is not as important as understanding the context of why and how the information was published. A tweet from a reliable source can be credible, whereas a tweet from an irrelevant or untrustworthy source may not be.

What are some benchmarks researchers use to evaluate sources?

Researchers use benchmarks such as the origin of the information, the purpose behind its creation, and how it fits the context of their research to evaluate the credibility of sources.

What is the key takeaway from the transcript regarding the use of non-traditional sources?

The key takeaway is that non-traditional sources can still be credible and useful in research, but they need to be evaluated carefully in terms of context, purpose, and reliability.