Comments on: Explaining Authority

By: Explaining Authority (Part 2)

Explaining Authority (Part 2) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:45:50 +0000

[...] writing my previous post, our library director brought this report to my attention: “The Changing Nature of [...]

By: Thursday Night Links « Bib-Laura-graphy

Thursday Night Links « Bib-Laura-graphy — Fri, 29 May 2009 06:00:58 +0000

[...] discussion going on at ACRLog about explaining authorities to students.Â It’s not easy to do well, and it makes such a [...]

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:03:08 +0000

I agree with Pat Cumming that credibility can be a good way to talk about this. Soo Young Rieh has some interesting research on credibility.

Here’s part of an online tutorial that I worked on that deals with the evaluation of information
http://www.tcnj.edu/~liblinks/Module5/13_evaluating.html

By: geny150

geny150 — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:02:31 +0000

I think authority relates primarily to the source’s knowledge base. This is why a research article in a peer-reviewed journal has more authority then an article in a popular magazine. The author of the former has collected (and, we hope, read) previous works on the topic to inform himself and his opinions/hypotheses, and he has gone through the vetting process of having his article approved for publication by a number of other knowledgeable (again, we hope) scholars. His reputation as one of authority relates to his accumulated knowledge, as well as the knowledge of those willing to vouch for him. The reporter in a popular magazine, in the other hand, can only relay the information provided to him by his sources (which could be one or several people), and so the authority of that article can only be as strong as the knowledge of the people providing the information. (This is also why we might give more credit to a NY Times article than one from a small-town newspaper, because the NYT has greater access to those with more knowledge, presumably.)
It’s kind of like this. If I was going to choose a contractor, I would ask friends who have had work done on their house, because they have more knowledge of that area than my renting buddies who have not run into this issue, thereby giving my home-remodeling friends more authority. (This is probably also why Mom & Dad seem wiser as we get older!)
In conclusion, knowledge = authority.

By: Olivia

Olivia — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:47:47 +0000

Re: Laura H.’s comment about an activity, most of the instruction sessions I do revolve around specific assignments for classes, and so there’s already an activity built in: Find sources for the assignment. Having said that, I did a much less structured lesson for a journalism class recently, incorporating Pat’s suggestion about credibility. Not sure if it sunk in, but I *hoped* future journalists would be motivated to think carefully about their sources, if only because those sources ultimately reflect on them and their professional reputations.

By: Respect my authoritay! « Feral Librarian

Respect my authoritay! « Feral Librarian — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:23:09 +0000

[...] scholarship, teaching by Chris There is a great discussion going on at the ACRLog about Explaining Authority to [...]

By: Wednesday’s reads at About Anything

Wednesday’s reads at About Anything — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:03:38 +0000

[...] brief piece on the difficulty of explaining authority. [on [...]

By: rmm

rmm — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:09:59 +0000

Great discussion!

Ameet mentions usability as a factor in evaluating an article. What I see as a big stumbling block for students is when authority and usability clash: an article is authoritative (peer-reviewed), but practically unusable, from a student’s perspective, because the article is written for an audience of experts and is frustratingly arcane.

That’s one reason why students gravitate toward less authoritative sources, like Wikipedia, which are written for a general audience and are therefore more usable.

By: Pat Cumming

Pat Cumming — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:20:41 +0000

I’ve recently tried something in classes that seems to work. I use the term credibility instead of authority and then I ask them why they believe what I say, how do they know whether or not to believe a friend and what would make them believe something said by a stranger. They usually say that it’s because I’m paid by the college which leads us to a discussion of qualifications and then we move on to trust and verification and how information is presented, etc. I then go on to evaluate printed information and web sources according to the criteria they come up with. It’s really interesting to see their reaction and depending on the group, the discussion can be pretty lively.

By: Ameet Doshi

Ameet Doshi — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:35:40 +0000

Authority should not be viewed as an either/or binary concept, since (as the posting and Emily both point out) even sources with a verifiable pedigree, such as a “scholarly” Elsevier journal, should not be taken for granted. In my research sessions, I attempt to stress that all information is suspect and that values like authority should be evaluated as just one factor along with currency, relevance, usability, etc.

Furthermore, in my experience, it seems that the current thinking in LIS is that websites freely available online are inherently inferior because the editorial process is assumed not to be as evident or rigorous as with print media. I’m beginning to question that assumption, since there are numerous egregious examples of misinformation spread via print.

So, its pretty clear that the either/or construct doesn’t work. But perhaps this issue of evaluating authority transcends even a linear continuum (i.e. “authoritative” to “non-authoritative”), and requires a weighted, multidimensional approach taking many additional factors (currency, usability, relevance, purpose, etc) into account.