Credibility

About: Credibility is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 13730 publications have been published within this topic receiving 331944 citations. The topic is also known as: believability & plausibility.

Peer Debriefing: Who, What, When, Why, How

Abstract: The research methods literature recommends peer debriefing as a process to enhance the credibility of qualitative research However, few details about how to plan, implement, and report this process are provided This article delineates specific issues to consider: whom to select, what to do, when to meet, how to conduct, and how to report the process Students may use these guidelines to assist in designing, executing and evaluating qualitative research studies Incorporating these considerations may result in more effective implementation of peer debriefing methods and more credible reports of qualitative research ********** The purpose of this article is to discuss peer debriefing in qualitative research--why it is important, who should do it, how to conduct it, and how to report it Research methods texts advocate peer debriefing as a process to enhance the credibility or validity of qualitative research (Creswell, 1998; Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner, & Steinmetz, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 1996; Merriam, 1998) Despite widespread recommendation of this technique, the methodological literature provides few specific details about how to implement and evaluate this process This article provides a set of decision-making considerations for researchers who are designing and conducting peer debriefing methods While this paper is directed primarily to doctoral students conducting qualitative research studies, this article may also be of interest to faculty who teach research methods and to experienced researchers Why? In peer debriefing, researchers meet with one or more impartial colleagues in order to critically review the implementation and evolution of their research methods The role of the peer debriefer is to facilitate the researcher's consideration of methodological activities and provide feedback concerning the accuracy and completeness of the researcher's data collection and data analysis procedures Works by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Spall (1998) are useful sources for novice researchers contemplating peer debriefing Lincoln and Guba provided an influential discussion of criteria to evaluate the trustworthiness of qualitative research and proposed a comprehensive list of techniques, including peer debriefing, to address these standards Spall reported research on operational models used for peer debriefing by dissertation students Her findings indicated the importance of trust in choosing debriefers, the commitment of all parties to cultivate a high-quality product, and the developmental nature of the process While Spall articulated research findings rather than methodological advice, her article nonetheless contains detailed information that stimulates additional ideas for implementation The ultimate purpose of peer debriefing, contend Lincoln and Guba (1985), is to enhance the credibility, or truth value, of a qualitative study, by providing "an external check on the inquiry process" (p 301) Peer debriefring is particularly advisable because of a distinctive characteristic of qualitative research--the researcher-as-instrument Individual researchers are the primary means for data collection and analysis Each investigator brings a different combination of subjective knowledge, skills, and values to the research endeavor As a result, researchers must come to know their unique characteristics as research tools and to understand how their subjectivity affects the conduct and results of their research Researcher subjectivity is often equated with bias and seen as something to be avoided In contrast, Peshkin (1988) asserts that subjectivity "can be seen as virtuous, for it is the basis of researchers' making a distinctive contribution, one that results from the unique configuration of their personal qualities joined to the data they have collected" (p 18) Peer debriefers can be especially helpful to assist students to become aware of what they bring to the research, whether virtues or pitfalls …

Helpful or Harmful? How Frequent Repetition Affects Perceived Statement Credibility

Abstract: On the basis of experimental data, we study how repetition of a statement affects perceived statement credibility. We identify 2 counteracting effects: The first effect, known as “truth effect,” describes a positive relationship between repetition and statement credibility. People tend to ascribe higher credibility to messages that they repeatedly encounter. In contrast, the second effect occurs when repetition is taken too far. Here, an indirect and negative effect is identified and participants start to perceive the message as a persuasive attempt. This perception triggers reactance, which in turn considerably reduces participants' trust in the source and leads to a significant decrease in the overall credibility of the message. Our results broaden the understanding of the benefits and harms of repeated persuasive messages.

Combining information from sources that vary in credibility

Abstract: Models describing the role of source credibility in information integration were tested in two experiments. In the first experiment, subjects estimated the value of used cars based on two cues: blue book value and an estimate provided by one of three friends who examined the car. The three sources were described as differing in mechanical expertise. In the second experiment, subjects rated the likeableness of persons described by either one or two adjectives, each adjective contributed by a different source. The sources differed with respect to the length of their acquaintance with the person to be rated. In both experiments, credibility of the source magnified the impact of the information he provided. Further, this multiplicative effect of a source was inversely related to the credibility of the other source, in violation of additive or constant-weight averaging models, but consistent with a relative-weight averaging model.

Information as Influence: How Institutions Mediate the Impact of Scientific Assessments on Global Environmental Affairs

Abstract: The recognition that information matters in world affairs raises a number of questions as to when, how, and under what conditions it influences the behavior of policy actors. Despite the vast and growing array of institutions involved in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information potentially relevant to global governance generally, and global environmental change specifically, our understanding of the role that these "information institutions" play in world affairs remains limited. This paper examines how institutions mediate the impact of scientific assessments on global environmental affairs and highlights the pathways through which information has influence on the policy and politics of environmental issues. We identify salience, credibility and legitimacy as the critical attributions that different audiences make about an assessment that determine whether they will change their thoughts, decisions, and behavior in response to it. We also outline how institutional rules regarding participation, framing, and scope and content allow knowledge systems to reach needed thresholds of salience, credibility, and legitimacy and to balance the tradeoffs and tensions among them.