Source Credibility and Relevance
Evaluate sources using credibility, relevance, accuracy, purpose, currency, and authority. Explain why a source belongs in an argument.
A lesson of English 10, in Research and Synthesis, about 10 minutes.
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to evaluate sources for both credibility and relevance, distinguish between types of sources, and use databases effectively.
Two Questions for Every Source
- Is this source credible? (Can I trust it?)
- Is this source relevant? (Does it help me answer my research question?)
Both are necessary. A highly credible source may be irrelevant to your specific question. A highly relevant source may be unreliable.
Credibility Factors
Authority: Who wrote this? What is their expertise in this specific area?
Publication: Where was this published? Is it peer-reviewed? Does it have an editorial process?
Evidence: Does the author provide evidence for their claims? Can you trace the evidence?
Objectivity: Does the author acknowledge limitations and counterarguments? Does the source have obvious funding bias?
Currency: When was this published? Is the field one where information changes rapidly?
Source Types and Their Credibility Spectrum
Peer-reviewed academic journals: highest credibility for empirical claims; vetted by experts in the field before publication.
Academic books (university presses): high credibility; reviewed by experts; more space for complex argument than journal articles.
Reputable news organizations: strong for current events; editorial standards vary by outlet; check ownership and editorial history.
Government sources (.gov): strong for official statistics and policy; may reflect government perspective.
Think tanks and advocacy organizations: explicit perspective; useful for arguments; check who funds them.
Websites (.com, .org): highly variable; require full CRAAP evaluation.
Wikipedia: excellent for orientation and finding primary sources in the references; not citable directly.
Relevance Factors
Connection to your question: does this source directly address what you're investigating?
Scope: is the source's level of detail appropriate to your argument?
Agreement and disagreement: does this source provide useful counterargument?
Currency for your purposes: a 1990 study may still be relevant if the field hasn't changed; a 2018 study may be outdated if it has.