The significance of searching for credible sources to conduct research cannot be overstated. However, depending on ambiguous sources will challenge the credibility of the information, thus making arguments seem less believable. It is, therefore, crucial to acknowledge the credibility of a source and make it much more trustworthy. A deeper understanding of depth, currency, and objectivity is needed to understand purpose and authority (Belotto, 2018). Based on the subject, the definition of any credible source differs. Generally, for academic writing, a credible source remains unbiased and is reinforced by a piece of supporting evidence. While writing research papers, a researcher or writer must make sure that they use and cite reputable sources in the process.
Describe techniques used in decision-making
A stepwise decision-making approach may make a researcher more intelligent and cautious by organizing meaningful information and noting the options systematically.
Stepladder ladder approach
The technique entails going up and down the ladder. The approach inspires all team members to express their ideas on a particular subject before other groups’ ideas can convince others. In so doing, it eliminates groupthink and inspires honesty and authenticity in the team members’ responses.
The Delphi Approach
This technique was developed during the 1960s. It is an alternative while reaching a group consensus on critical decisions (Li et al., 2018). This incorporates all created ideas by a team and gives them to the leader of a group, who then synthesizes them into manageable considerable, and viable approaches. As a result, fewer possibilities are taken to the group to discuss and deliberate wholly. These options are essentially narrowed until the majority of those present reach an amicable conclusion. The concept is that when fewer options are accessible, a researcher and the team members will be capable of reaching an inevitable conclusion that is more accessible and with a higher level of collective agreement.
The use of the Weighted Scoring System
It is an excellent tool that can be employed in cases where a team has many ramifications for potential solutions but has yet to consume time to examine each choice’s ramifications thoroughly. In order to identify if methods or ideas have more risks than others, the weighted scoring approach is focused on the principle that the ramifications of straightforward approaches or ideas should be considered. All items are assessed concerning numerous criteria like the business value risks, costs, and the potential of acceptability and its impact on the overall scores. The approach that most researchers look for must offer a higher corporate value, become universally adopted, and be low-risk and cost-effective during the implementation stage. After providing each suggestion, it is due consideration that one can add up the scores and make a better team choice.
The Nominal Group technique
This technique develops the brainstorming dialogue by introducing a process of voting referred to at the end, which enables higher participation (Hugé & Mukherjee, 2018). In addition to casting votes, all group members are offered a chance to account for why they chose the alternative they think would suit them. One can use the nominal group approach in various ways based on the discussed topic. On the other hand, when the subject is contentious or delicate, one should focus on engaging the team using a poll that gives them the option to be anonymous. Also, the approach can be used throughout meetings as a part of an open forum format.
Ranking of possibilities
In ranking possibilities, teams should select the best options by voting on them, and after that, make an ideas inventory that is being considered. After attempting to reach a consensus on the issue or question with a broader range of potential outcomes, it might be an efficient approach in decision-making. The approach can be employed in various situations, such as live meetings, surveys, and emails. To acquire an agreement, a researcher should begin by asking everybody to make a personal list of their ranking of various approaches and options. After that, they can combine the average of the most substantive option, then proceed confidently, knowing that most people support and accept the decision.
Examining decision-making models
Making decisions based on Reason
In order to exploit the quality of different outcomes, decision-makers must examine numerous processes that the rational decision-making model explains (He & Jiang, 2018). Following the formal strategies in the rational decision-making model could be beneficial if one wants to ensure one makes the best possible options.
Making “Good Enough” Decisions
All individuals have restrictions in their decision-making processes that the limited model of rationality acknowledges. The finest alternative is selected without completing a thorough search for alternatives per this paradigm since humans consciously restrict their potential to manageable numbers and select the best alternative.
Making decisions based on intuition
Intuition-based decisions imply that one randomly selects the right choice and is commonly called “gut instinct .”Many individuals’ gut instinct is focused on the patterns and experiences they encounter around them. Individuals make intuitive judgments and draw on their earlier knowledge to reinforce their choice.
Apply decision-making techniques
Decision-making techniques can be applied in a myriad of ways.
Determining the decisions to make. When a researcher realizes they should make a choice, they should attempt to state the decision that researchers make as clearly as they can.
Compiling all relevant information. Before deciding, researchers should gather pertinent information, the information required, the most reliable sources, and ways of acquiring the information. Throughout the level, internal and external labor is needed. A specific knowledge level is internal, and one should seek it through self-assessment.
Identifying different available options. As researchers gather information, they will probably come up with multiple action plans, commonly referred to as alternatives. Researchers can utilize their imaginations and other facts to develop newer possibilities (He & Jiang, 2018).
Evaluating the expected evidence. The researcher should utilize their emotions and knowledge to visualize how it could be when they follow through with all possibilities up to the finish line.
Ten elements to determine a credible source: news, websites, articles, and facts.
- Time: The revision or publication time should be determined to examine if the data is up to date. It is crucial since old data can be utilized for background study; however, a study in various subjects like technology and science needs current sources.
- Content: It is essential to check if the data is just the author’s opinion or presents various facts. Also, the user should look if the source has links to the other sources or contains the original information. This should be checked since users frequently become frustrated once the source has other sources listed in the links (Nygren & Guath, 2019). The user considers the source most credible if they instantly obtain the appropriate data.
- Authority: Information is regarded as credible when its author has several degrees or credentials in a field. Therefore, it should be regarded if the data can be verified or if the article’s authors have the authority in the subject section (Nygren & Guath, 2019). This is important since, for clarification, the article’s author can be communicated.
- Publisher: Credibility can still be investigated by checking the organization’s reputation behind a source. The websites are regarded to be scholarly when the university press issues them.
- References List: Checking the work cited list can still determine credibility. This is important since if the sources are reliable and credible, the data in the source will still be reliable.
- Intended Audience: The source intended users should be checked by investigating the table of content, preface, and index to know the sources’ pitch, tone, and depth. It is crucial since if the source’s info is too dedicated to one’s requirements, and one can misinterpret the data.
- Reviews: Reviews can still be looked toward determining what other users say concerning the source. This is important in knowing if there is fundamental controversy concerning the validity of the source. In such a case, one can evade utilizing the source.
- Identify Bias: Knowing if the source’s author is biased is important since when the author is emotionally or financially linked with a subject, therefore can be the probability that information is not written relatively.
- Funds and Awards: The user should determine the rewards won by the source and the agencies presenting those rewards. The funds’ websites and articles for the research done by the article should still be known since it can assist in recognizing the potential effects of the research.
- Accuracy: If a source presents correct information, the source is regarded as credible. To know the accuracy, one can check the data contrary to other sources or various other data on which one has some understanding (Nygren & Guath, 2019). This is important in checking if the data is positioned on a source for just advertising.
References
Belotto, M. J. (2018). Data analysis methods for qualitative research: Managing the challenges of coding, interrater reliability, and thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2622-2633. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss11/2/
Li, H., Zhang, X., Ng, S. T., & Skitmore, M. (2018). Quantifying stakeholder influence in decision/evaluations relating to sustainable construction in China–A Delphi approach. Journal of cleaner production, pp. 173, 160–170. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652617308818
Hugé, J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The nominal group technique in ecology & conservation: Application and challenges. Methods in ecology and evolution, 9(1), 33–41. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/2041-210X.12831
He, Z., & Jiang, W. (2018). An evidential Markov decision-making model. Information Sciences, 467, 357-372. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020025518306170
Nygren, T., & Guath, M. (2019). Swedish teenagers’ difficulties and abilities to determine digital news credibility. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 23-42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331230259_Swedish_teenagers’_difficulties _and_abilities_to_determine_digital_news_credibility
