Fragments, Fallout, and Freedom--Part 9
Credibility
One of the people who sent me a private message via Facebook (FB) in the past few weeks asked a question in the form of a statement that went something like this (going from memory here): I don’t understand why you trust opinion columns for facts and then seem surprised when other people point this out. First, I’m not sure that I followed the line of thinking exactly, so I will be making some assumptions in my response here. Specifically, I don’t recall feeling or expressing surprise at any point in any of the referred-to online discussions. I don’t believe the private message involved any malicious intent though, and it deserved a decent response. I hope to see if I can unpack it more thoroughly in a blog post than I could manage in a private FB message. You should know also that I did respond privately and said, among other things, that I would like to revisit this later, perhaps in a blog post.
I think one question disguised in the statement was probably this one: Why don’t you stick to primary sources? The superiority of that information source had been alluded to in a comment by someone else on a FB thread earlier. I believe that person commenting was laying claim to this justification for a forcefully-expressed opinion that countered mine. Additionally, the comment implied that what I had posted was not to be trusted because it did not contain references to primary sources. Furthermore I was being a shill for leftists by falling for the ideas in the article. My FB thread accuser was disappointed in me for this. I believe my credibility and that of the article writer were both being assailed in these comments on the FB thread.
What I had posted was a link to an article in which a white person used a recent-personal-experience narrative to highlight the assertion that she can never fully understand the perspective of a person whose race is different from her own, despite her best efforts to understand. That central idea makes a great deal of sense to me. I don’t think I can do that either, although I also do try to understand. My marriage to an Asian man would hardly have survived for more than 38 years if both of us had not made constant efforts to understand each others’ perspective. If we had always done this perfectly, we would probably have had smoother sailing at some points during our marriage. All that to say why it makes sense to me that we can never fully understand another’s perspective, although we try. This seems so self-evident to me that personal claims to the contrary seem lacking in self-awareness, at best.
“Primary source” was defined this way in a Google search: “In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.”
A key takeaway from this definition is that “primary source” is firmly nestled within the context of a study of history. It represents an attempt to get at the truth of something that happened some time ago (when the reader was not present) without having to deal with the potential cloudiness of second-hand reporting. In other words, primary sources are assumed to be more accurate than secondary accounts–because of the likelihood that things such as human error, bias, or selective reporting have interfered with accuracy in secondary sources.
Within the past few weeks, on a bunny trail while working on a project together, a Methodist friend shared with me her desire to hear all sides of political matters so that she can make the best possible decision when it comes time to vote. In the brief conversation that followed, she lamented the fact that it’s almost impossible to get information from primary sources. I also learned in this conversation that my Christian friend and I shared an alma mater, with the same major. Because of this I knew instantly that she has undoubtedly learned many of the same things I learned in school about how to do research. She knows the value of primary sources, but also understands the real-world difficulties of accessing them and interpreting them accurately.
Certainly, we both know that “primary sources” is the gold standard for credible historical research. We know also though that use of primary sources does not guarantee perfection in research. Skewing primary source material to “prove” an inaccuracy is entirely possible, as are less devious errors–simple misinterpretations, for example. Nevertheless, in the media world, reporters for every news outlet chase on-the-scene reporting–the current-events equivalent of historical primary sources. These reports provide the raw material for opinion columns and other kinds of commentary–secondary sources, in other words.
My friend and I both know that knowledge must often be gained from secondary sources and that these sources are commonly recognized as credible in the academic world if they are deemed to be reliably accurate. As I understand it, usually the reliability of these secondary sources is evaluated by using a number of different data points, possibly even including some subjective ones. These factors may include academic credentials, work history, positions held, contributions to publications, publication of original works, recognition by other professionals, and accomplishments of various kinds, etc. Journalists, for example, working for old and well-tested media outlets (that adhere to widely agreed-upon professional standards for journalism) come close to having my automatic respect in the “work history” department. People with academic credentials also convey “value” to me.
As a Christian, I especially value the perspective of another Christian who also can check many of the above credibility boxes to my satisfaction. By providing additional context and bringing his or her own wisdom to bear on the issue at hand, such a person can help me interpret facts. Ideally, this person also lives with personal integrity, although this is not always knowable from a distance. In my estimation, some columnists fall into this reliable-interpreter category, and I am grateful for them. I see them as providing a needed service because none of us can be present in every place and time when history is being made, but these columnists often come closer to that ideal than we can. I make no apology for citing such sources as being credible, even if their writing falls into the opinion category rather than the “primary source” category.
Back to the FB article on racism. I believe that the “primary source” issue had limited relevance in that thread because it was a current event rather than a historical event. Because it was written as a personal experience, it could hardly be correctly called a secondary source, so “primary source” might have even been a defensible label, if the historical/current aspects had not “disqualified” it. In any case, I believe it to have been a valid reference point for understanding something about racism. It was a limited perspective, of course, because it was one person’s experience, but it rang true for me partly because of how it resonated with my own experiences. It was not the last word, but it was a good word, and I believe casting aspersion on it was ill-advised.
I started writing today under the title “Trust.” Eventually I realized that this post was taking a different turn than I expected, and “Credibility” seemed to suit the content better. Even that, though, turns out to be a fairly slippery concept, not easily reduced to sound-bite certainties. I may try again later on the “trust” topic, and may need to do some later mopping up on the credibility one.
None of what I’ve written here on credibility stands a chance of being convincing to anyone who does not have some level of trust in me. While I certainly have no right to demand such trust, I do hold it dear. Thank you to all who have offered me this gift.
******************
Early in my blogging life someone who knew a lot more than I did about subscribing to and following blogs told me that every time I edited a blog post after it was initially published, it generated a new notification to followers/subscribers. If that is indeed the case, I apologize to those of you who have no doubt been annoyed by my making multiple small changes to already-published posts. I simply can’t always get it right the first time. Neither can I delay publication entirely till all my perfectionisitc tendencies have been appeased. At some point, I “go for broke” and hit the “publish” button. If rescue is needed, it will need to happen later, probably in the light of day.
One of the people who sent me a private message via Facebook (FB) in the past few weeks asked a question in the form of a statement that went something like this (going from memory here): I don’t understand why you trust opinion columns for facts and then seem surprised when other people point this out. First, I’m not sure that I followed the line of thinking exactly, so I will be making some assumptions in my response here. Specifically, I don’t recall feeling or expressing surprise at any point in any of the referred-to online discussions. I don’t believe the private message involved any malicious intent though, and it deserved a decent response. I hope to see if I can unpack it more thoroughly in a blog post than I could manage in a private FB message. You should know also that I did respond privately and said, among other things, that I would like to revisit this later, perhaps in a blog post.
I think one question disguised in the statement was probably this one: Why don’t you stick to primary sources? The superiority of that information source had been alluded to in a comment by someone else on a FB thread earlier. I believe that person commenting was laying claim to this justification for a forcefully-expressed opinion that countered mine. Additionally, the comment implied that what I had posted was not to be trusted because it did not contain references to primary sources. Furthermore I was being a shill for leftists by falling for the ideas in the article. My FB thread accuser was disappointed in me for this. I believe my credibility and that of the article writer were both being assailed in these comments on the FB thread.
What I had posted was a link to an article in which a white person used a recent-personal-experience narrative to highlight the assertion that she can never fully understand the perspective of a person whose race is different from her own, despite her best efforts to understand. That central idea makes a great deal of sense to me. I don’t think I can do that either, although I also do try to understand. My marriage to an Asian man would hardly have survived for more than 38 years if both of us had not made constant efforts to understand each others’ perspective. If we had always done this perfectly, we would probably have had smoother sailing at some points during our marriage. All that to say why it makes sense to me that we can never fully understand another’s perspective, although we try. This seems so self-evident to me that personal claims to the contrary seem lacking in self-awareness, at best.
“Primary source” was defined this way in a Google search: “In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.”
A key takeaway from this definition is that “primary source” is firmly nestled within the context of a study of history. It represents an attempt to get at the truth of something that happened some time ago (when the reader was not present) without having to deal with the potential cloudiness of second-hand reporting. In other words, primary sources are assumed to be more accurate than secondary accounts–because of the likelihood that things such as human error, bias, or selective reporting have interfered with accuracy in secondary sources.
Within the past few weeks, on a bunny trail while working on a project together, a Methodist friend shared with me her desire to hear all sides of political matters so that she can make the best possible decision when it comes time to vote. In the brief conversation that followed, she lamented the fact that it’s almost impossible to get information from primary sources. I also learned in this conversation that my Christian friend and I shared an alma mater, with the same major. Because of this I knew instantly that she has undoubtedly learned many of the same things I learned in school about how to do research. She knows the value of primary sources, but also understands the real-world difficulties of accessing them and interpreting them accurately.
Certainly, we both know that “primary sources” is the gold standard for credible historical research. We know also though that use of primary sources does not guarantee perfection in research. Skewing primary source material to “prove” an inaccuracy is entirely possible, as are less devious errors–simple misinterpretations, for example. Nevertheless, in the media world, reporters for every news outlet chase on-the-scene reporting–the current-events equivalent of historical primary sources. These reports provide the raw material for opinion columns and other kinds of commentary–secondary sources, in other words.
My friend and I both know that knowledge must often be gained from secondary sources and that these sources are commonly recognized as credible in the academic world if they are deemed to be reliably accurate. As I understand it, usually the reliability of these secondary sources is evaluated by using a number of different data points, possibly even including some subjective ones. These factors may include academic credentials, work history, positions held, contributions to publications, publication of original works, recognition by other professionals, and accomplishments of various kinds, etc. Journalists, for example, working for old and well-tested media outlets (that adhere to widely agreed-upon professional standards for journalism) come close to having my automatic respect in the “work history” department. People with academic credentials also convey “value” to me.
As a Christian, I especially value the perspective of another Christian who also can check many of the above credibility boxes to my satisfaction. By providing additional context and bringing his or her own wisdom to bear on the issue at hand, such a person can help me interpret facts. Ideally, this person also lives with personal integrity, although this is not always knowable from a distance. In my estimation, some columnists fall into this reliable-interpreter category, and I am grateful for them. I see them as providing a needed service because none of us can be present in every place and time when history is being made, but these columnists often come closer to that ideal than we can. I make no apology for citing such sources as being credible, even if their writing falls into the opinion category rather than the “primary source” category.
Back to the FB article on racism. I believe that the “primary source” issue had limited relevance in that thread because it was a current event rather than a historical event. Because it was written as a personal experience, it could hardly be correctly called a secondary source, so “primary source” might have even been a defensible label, if the historical/current aspects had not “disqualified” it. In any case, I believe it to have been a valid reference point for understanding something about racism. It was a limited perspective, of course, because it was one person’s experience, but it rang true for me partly because of how it resonated with my own experiences. It was not the last word, but it was a good word, and I believe casting aspersion on it was ill-advised.
I started writing today under the title “Trust.” Eventually I realized that this post was taking a different turn than I expected, and “Credibility” seemed to suit the content better. Even that, though, turns out to be a fairly slippery concept, not easily reduced to sound-bite certainties. I may try again later on the “trust” topic, and may need to do some later mopping up on the credibility one.
None of what I’ve written here on credibility stands a chance of being convincing to anyone who does not have some level of trust in me. While I certainly have no right to demand such trust, I do hold it dear. Thank you to all who have offered me this gift.
******************
Early in my blogging life someone who knew a lot more than I did about subscribing to and following blogs told me that every time I edited a blog post after it was initially published, it generated a new notification to followers/subscribers. If that is indeed the case, I apologize to those of you who have no doubt been annoyed by my making multiple small changes to already-published posts. I simply can’t always get it right the first time. Neither can I delay publication entirely till all my perfectionisitc tendencies have been appeased. At some point, I “go for broke” and hit the “publish” button. If rescue is needed, it will need to happen later, probably in the light of day.
posted by Miriam Iwashige at
9:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home