How can you ensure your sources are credible?

When it comes to practical fieldwork and policy making, I have found it helpful to have the people that have had an experience speak for themselves. This avoids experts, who are not even researchers, having to say "In Malawi, we met Maria who said a, b, c, d." Where possible, bring the "Maria" to tell their own story. That is more aunthentic, and they can answer questions directly.

I guess it helps if you're the source. My speaking gigs are almost always built around my own personal experiences, research and ridiculous crazy sh*t that has happened to me! Interestingly, I've heard my own stories retold by others as their own and had my research misquoted, misinterpreted and generally misused fairly often.

Something that stands out is to use a model to get your audience to believe in your fact/source is to use multiple sources pointing towards the same fact. Also some inspiration from the book 'Good To Great' the model the author uses to separate the great companies from the rest is a comprehensive and will earn the credibility of most, using such a model to present our facts or stats will bring in high regard

The integrity of information shared should weigh on the mind of the speaker more than the persuasion intended. Consequently, the pedigree of sources must me considered. Does the referenced quote or personality have the intended experience or have they put in the work to qualify as a standard of reference. In academic writing or policy work for instance, you want to ensure that the work is published in an accredited and credible journal or book that is related to the topic. Also, consider the research style adopted to see if it is quantitative, qualitative or a mixed approach depending on the context and persuasive value intended to be attached.

Biases can be intentional or contextual. To explore the biases, we can understand the position and interest of the author. A bias could be clarified in the contextualisation of a claim or portrayal. It might not be a form of bias but lens that the author has in a particular community and cultural context. This is important for DISCERNING use of sources and not to characterise certain positions as biases.

1) Ideally, your sources won't be totally unheard of to your audience. Even if it's new, it shouldn't be from some unchartered part of the internet that no one in your field is aware of. 2) The info in your sources should be verifiable and mirrored in other sources that are easy to get a hold of (ex: Fox and CNN may present the news with very different slants, but they're usually reporting the same basic facts of an event). 3) Know your audience and context. Some audiences in some contexts may find anecdotal evidence and lived experiences--like the posts under a Reddit thread--to be credible.

In my opinion, having a mix of both historical data and the latest research to highlight the changes over time and current trends provides a holistic viewpoint of the information being shared. It can help to bolster your credibility as a content expert.

Information and societal perspectives evolves. Ensure that your sources are current and relevant to the present context. A good practice is to find the timeframe of any major shifts and look for sources which are post that date. (So, in the world of AI, that would be in the last 60 days or less - as it's evolving in months, not years)

Use of outdated information or facts is a commonly used way to find information that underlines your message as a speaker. Being critical as audience when you see use of old sources is prudent! That said - some updated data is hard to obtain and sometimes authers are forced to use older data (+5 years). The next question to ask is “what is old data” and in my experience this answer is hard to get right without the context. If we talk climate then it is clear that updated information is important when looking at the recent developments but if you talk about population demography you might use older data as the frequency of data gathering is lower.

I prefer to consider the target audience and pick sources that may be recognized by them. Or atleast sources that are well-regarded in that specific field. If it's a fact, better to have 1-2 more sources to cross-verify. If it's an opinion or analysis, the credibility of the source is prime. I personally feel the need to be sure of the sources and have them ready before speaking. But when delivering, it's probably best to use a healthy mix of stating the facts as a part of the story and bringing the source in to endorse only when necessary for better impact. Like for example: "Using energy-efficient fans could help reduce up to XX% of energy bills. However, a <Big4> survey says YY% people don't consider it for ABCD reasons."

Verify that any claims made are actually supported by the cited sources. Any author who twists the statements of cited sources to fit an agenda will quickly lose credibility when discovered. Buy books and use services such as inter-library loan, Worldcat, and Google Books, to get at original sources to verify whether an author's claim is legitimate and verifiable.

Never let facts get in the way of a good story! I've heard many speakers cite and recycle stores and "facts" that are simply wrong. However, they sound great and illustrate the point they are trying to make. However, it doesn't make the story or evidence or quote correct. We are pre-wired to accept information and it falls in line with our "optimism bias." However, the only way to be certain is trust but verify. Go to the original source! Nonetheless, this takes work and time.

In addition to the basic review of the content and data to conclusion path. I think it is important to review counter arguments to the content to see if there are any holes you are not thinking off. You also want to understand the bias of the peer reviewers, publishers, or those sharing the content.

If you’re reporting or writing something from a given source, it’s helpful to corroborate information with multiple other sources. Credentials are important, but it’s equally important to make sure other credentialed sources can verify something from one source to another. If you’re willing to do the dirty work to ask questions and go back to trace the answers to their original roots, you can develop a list of good sources for multiple articles when you find that they consistently give good information

True, but a presentation of evidence should present some level of counterargument, because “a credible source will have sufficient and valid evidence that can be verified” on both sides of a debate. Introducing other credible but opposite viewpoints can make a presentation more persuasive and interesting because it shows the speaker has evaluated multiple sides of the issue. We can increase the audience’s level of critical thinking—and no less importantly, our own!—through the art of counterargument. If we don’t present and respect ideas from the other side of the debate, there will be many present in most astute audiences happy to assist with that. 🙂

Like fantastic yet misleading news headlines, it's appealing to use misinformation as "click bait" for an audience. This last election cycle demonstrated to me that even "credible" sources took liberties with what constituted a fact. I added a step of finding at least 2 corroborating sources to help mitigate bias and misinformation. It doesn't take long and makes all the difference when your audience trusts you to get it right.

Follow the money - who paid for it? Purely profit making or at least partly philanthropic? Often that speaks volumes re credibility.

Remember, the credibility of a source may not depend on the source itself, but your audience. For example, let's pretend you found a quote from an individual whom you know the audience fundamentally disagrees with or may not find credible. However, if what they are saying, or the purpose behind what they are saying, fundamentally agrees with the majority of the audience then the audience is more likely to remember the quote or see it as credible; even if they may not fundamentally agree with the individual that said it.

As a public speaker, it is important to share the facts in an order so that the audience get an understanding what is the speaker actually trying to convey!

Everything is created on purpose, for a purpose. Understanding the this purpose, the author's position helps to respect different views of the world. In addition, this approach structures information that we already know.

I would say here that you wouldn't want to discard a source just because it is challenging to read, understand, and follow. You might find a scholarly article that is written by a top researcher or writer in a field and it might challenge you or contain unknown terms, and that's a positive rather than a negative.

The quality of data is very important and sometimes very difficult for the audience to decipher. If you are a good speaker or autor you describe the method used for analysis and data gathering. I sometimes use the appendix approach so add the supporting information.

I do my very best to avoid using other's works altogether. Still, sometimes it is needed, and only after reviewing the credentials, credibility, and reputation of the sources would I include them. I prefer to have these in a handout or slide if possible to avoid a misquote, misunderstanding, or even a bigger sin for me: not giving credit where credit is due.

I’m not sure about this? Presentation is no measure of research findings- think of a Dr’s handwriting is that a measure of their intellect? i hope not!

Remember the order in which you cite your sources. If you say something like "According to the Wall Street Journal..." but the audience feels that the WSJ is not a credible source, they will ignore what you say after it. However, if you have a meaningful quote/fact that you want to relay to the audience, it may be more beneficial to cite the source after you state the claim you want the audience to remember.

Learn from my mistake: use a simple citation format (Name of Source, Date) on the slide itself. Add the full citation in an Appendix. Otherwise: a) you'll use up valuable space on the slide that should go to content b) people will spend too much time nitpicking sources Place full citations at the end of the presentation (referencing the reference number or page in the presentation) in an Appendix, and share this as a leave behind.

Remember that stages can look different for us depending on how we can capture an audience. In a webinar I led on 'Hydroponic Fodder for Small Poultry Producers,' citing sources was crucial for credibility. I prefer the Chicago Style citation, which aligns with my diverse audience's academic and professional standards, including researchers and farmers. Any presentation slides, props with data, or quotes you give -- need a footnote, and you should offer a full bibliography at the end. A meticulous citation approach will boost your presentation's credibility regardless of your style or content. My result was a well-received webinar, with attendees citing the trustworthiness of the content as a key factor for further collaboration.

'Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth'. When writing anything online it's vital to be sure of your content because others may cite you as a reputable source; and once errors have been repeated they become accepted as immutable fact. With the arrival of AI chatbots this issue has exploded. Historically there has always been countless examples of entrenched misinformation amongst fact, but now we're helping an uncontrolled bushfire of errors that become impossible to untangle from reality. Those who aren't part of the solution are part of the problem.

Cross-Reference Strategically: Don't rely on a single source. Cross-check facts across multiple reputable platforms which often contradict each other. If there's a consensus, you're likely on the right track, but you'll need to intentionally push yourself to go outside of the sources which may be echo chambers of each other.

Be sure that you are citing a variety of authors/works/sources. Diversity in research is an important factor to ensure that we are giving voice to a number of different perspectives.

Check the Journal or publisher where the article was published. More recently, there has been concerns around Predatory journals (also called fraudulent, deceptive, or pseudo-journals). These are publications that make claims to be legitimate scholarly journals, but do not follow proper academic and ethical standards for the publication of scholarly work. Hence, findings in these journals are often times questionable and not well-written. Be on a look out for these types of journals prior to citing articles.

In my experience, the origin of the source is the most important thing. Assess the credibility of the origin; 1. Who are you quoting 2. What is their qualification or status on the subject being quoted 3. What is their institutional affiliation; this is more of a filter for what you may miss.