by Daniel B. Griffith
ESB Basic/Shutterstock
If we want to garner trust in our conversations, we must be credible. As I noted previously, a lack of personal credibility is one of many barriers to civil discourse. Credibility also depends on how we support our assertions with credible information.
We must ensure that the facts and information we share are reliable and relevant. The information must not be distorted, exaggerated, tangential, the product of untrustworthy hearsay, or based on biased opinion absent context or clarification (among other characteristics). How others view the reliability of our information will lead them either to continue to trust us or quickly exit the conversation.
Let’s examine what constitutes credible information and how it helps us engage in productive discourse, maintain credibility, and foster trust.
What Constitutes Credible, Reliable Information?
For most conversations, we do not need to be experts, scholars, or walking encyclopedias to speak with authority based on credible, reliable information. We can, however, consider how scholars view this question. The University of Arizona Global Campus Student Support Services website distinguishes between scholarly and other sources which can both be credible and reliable. Scholarly sources are generally written by experts in a particular field of study for an audience within that field. Their credibility derives from a rigorous process of publication involving “peer review” by other experts and scholars in that field.
Books and articles in newspapers, trade journals, magazines, and many websites are intended for a general audience and are not scholarly. They can nonetheless be credible. UA’s website offers the CRAAPO test for assessing credibility, particularly of websites. Is the source Current, Relevant, and from a trustworthy and qualified Authority? Is it Accurate, unbiased, and free from emotion? Is its Purpose clear, such as to inform, teach, persuade, or entertain? Is it Objective and impartial, or offered as opinion, propaganda, or an expression of a political, cultural, or other bias?
Much of our discourse doesn’t require specific resources to support our viewpoints or establish facts. Depending on the context and audience, it may nonetheless be helpful to note a source you read, heard, or found on a website to support your message, including why you find the information reliable. Credible, reliable information can also include our general observations rather than hard facts and data. The credibility of such information comes from the trustworthiness and integrity you have established. Some observations are based on general knowledge the audience readily accepts, thus requiring no further verification, such as the weather patterns in the geographic region, the number of regular season baseball games (162) among sports enthusiasts, and holiday and cultural practices within a community.
There are endless sources of information we may use to support our arguments and viewpoints. We must credibly support our assertions as needed based on context, audience, and our best judgment of the situation.
What Information Is Unreliable or Lacking in Credibility?
Can we rely on information not generally considered reliable or credible? Perhaps, if you also represent the limitations of such information.
Pundits, partisans, and conflict entrepreneurs often state opinions as fact, make assertions and call upon facts favorable to their view, discount views favorable to others, ignore or distort the context of reliable facts, and engage in attacks, arguments, and distraction purposely designed to foment discord and close off dialogue. If you are squarely in their camp and abide by their rules of engagement, you are likely not demonstrating any desire for civil, authentic discourse. On the other hand, its fine to agree with their perspective and state as much, provided you also acknowledge that their viewpoints represent a partisan perspective to which reasonable people can disagree. Bonus points if you then invite others to share their contrary views for the purpose of lively, engaging, and respectful conversation that may enlighten everyone.
We should also be leery of alleged statements from absent, unnamed third parties to establish fact or support assertions. Statements like “people are saying” or “people tell me,” without substantiating the source, strain listeners’ credulity that the speaker should be blindly believed. It is also unjust to make accusations against a person of the basis of third-party information, and then claim the information is held in confidence, foreclosing their opportunity to defend themselves. Broadly inclusive, blanket statements such as “everybody knows,” “it goes without saying,” and “it’s irrefutable,” offered to claim universal truth which likely is refutable, should also be considered suspect.
Can We Offer Ourselves as a Credible, Reliable Source?
Authentic, civil discourse lives and breathes on information coming from participants’ direct experience absent the tangible sources described previously. We can learn from lawyers and how they treat witness testimony. Just as lawyers will trust, question, or attack the testimony of a witness, we may trust, question, or refute information shared by others based on implicit rules of evidence and admissibility.
If we know someone to be trustworthy from experience or prior interactions, we trust them to be truthful now. We find their information plausible because they were in the best position to have experienced what they now claim without need for further proof. We trust their information as “reliable” because it is consistent with previous accounts proven to be true. We trust it as “credible” because it is presented in a tone, context, and authentic voice and demeanor that makes it “worthy of belief.” Even absent, third-party representations may be treated favorably, just as “hearsay evidence” is allowed based on appropriate foundation and “hearsay rule exceptions” recognized in court. Our competence and character, or lack thereof, intuitively supports or refutes the trust others place in what we say.
Are We Open to Being Challenged?
Productive conversations balance advocacy and inquiry. Participants assert what they believe and are prepared to back up their beliefs. They are prepared to respond and defend themselves through the active, respectful inquiry of others. They welcome fact checking and accept the challenges that come with healthy, civil dialogue and respectful, vigorous debate.
