My husband is an academic. I'm fascinated with this profession (likely because I've always been tempted to do a PhD, but then remember that it's a 5 year deep dive on ONE subject, and I prefer to be a Jill-of-all-trades kinda woman). What I think I find most interesting about academia is that it's built on challenging each other and even attempting to disprove and discredit each other's work.
Conflict is not only embraced, it's built-in to the fabric of their identity.
Why is this?
Because research is at the foundation of academia—it's how you earn that Doctor title. You are not only judged on your research, but you are also judged on the sources you use to back up your research.
If you use unreliable sources, it not only weakens your argument, it jeopardizes your own credibility.
Many of us were *un*lucky enough to complete our studies before Wikipedia hit the main stage, so we know to be leery of its sources. And I'm sure some of us have already lectured our kids that they can't just source Wikipedia on a school paper (I can't be the only one!). They need to make sure that sources are credible, right?
But what does that mean?
Of course, credibility is situational. But let's look at the academic considerations of whether or not a source is credible:
-
Depth - How much information is there on the subject? Has it been thoroughly researched? How long has it been researched for? Are there established experts in the field?
-
Authority - This one is looking at the source separate from the information. Who is this person? How much do they know about the subject? Is this what they not only focused their PhD research on, but also the rest of their academic career on or is this a topic that they might only have surface level information on? For instance, my husband is a Doctor, but in the event of an emergency on a plane, he's not the type of Doctor you want even though he's exceptionally credible in his field of expertise (technology and aging, for the curious ones).
-
Objectivity - Is the information the source is using biased at all? Is the source biased? Will they profit from any particular viewpoint (i.e., did they secure funding from a clearly biased industry or organization?). Does the source, themselves, use credible sources in their work? We're getting a bit meta now, but you get the idea.
-
Currency - Is the research up-to-date? It's typical in academia to require research from the past 5 - 10 years to ensure it's current and relevant. This is especially relevant in fast-paced, constantly evolving industries. While someone might have been a very credible source in the past, if they haven't kept up with current trends or best practices, that questions their current expertise.
-
Purpose - What's the purpose of the information and who is the intended audience? Is it to persuade, to entertain, to assist in decision-making, to inform? We all know that there are some BRILLIANT people out there who might check all of the boxes above, but lack the ability to achieve its purpose. But, just as I touched on last week, there are others who are all talk and no action and, ultimately, the brilliant, but boring, expert will be considered more credible than the charlatan any day.
So am I suggesting we all need to do a PhD before we can be considered credible on a subject? I'm sure the universities would love that, but, nope.
Here are a few things you can do though:
-
Think like a student: While YOU may not be the expert, credibility can be gained by knowing who the experts are and how to access them. Even Albert Einstein knew this: “I don’t need to know everything, I just need to know where to find it, when I need it.”
-
Adopt a curious mindset: One of the reasons conflict is embraced in academia is because the focus is on the research. Most are drawn to the field because of genuine curiosity to learn and discover more. As this HBR article shows, leaders can benefit from the same mindset.
-
Admit your limits: But it's not all roses in research; there are some who are driven by ego and ignorance, just like in the business world. And this is where credibility can go south quickly: when experts lack the self-awareness of their blindspots and overestimate their efficacy and expertise resulting in an overconfidence bias nicely illustrated in this 5 minute video.
Best,
Christine
