credibility in research study

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.7: Evaluating the Quality and Credibility of Your Research

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 6613

• Steven D. Krause
• Eastern Michigan University

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Finding evidence that answers a question is only the first part of the research process. You also have to evaluate the quality and credibility of your research. Inevitably, as we’ve already seen in this chapter, you do this as you consider the origins of your research—primary versus secondary research, scholarly versus popular sources, the Internet, and so forth. But evaluating the quality and credibility of your research is more subtle and complicated than just determining the source of the evidence. Consider again the example from the beginning of this chapter about deciding which computer to buy. One of the things you would have to weigh is the credibility of the information you received from your friends compared to the information you received from a salesperson at the computer store. You can probably count on your friends to be trustworthy and honest, but they might not know much about computers. Conversely, while a salesperson might know a lot about computers, you may be uncertain to what extent you can trust him to give you the best advice. The salesperson wants to sell you a computer, which means that his motivations might be consciously or unconsciously influencing the information he is providing you.

Who should you trust? We have all been in situations like this, and there is no easy way to answer that question. Chances are, you’ll make your computer decision based on your interpretation of the evidence and based on what you perceive to be the reliability and credibility of your different sources. If someone else were faced with the same computer decision and the same evidence, they might make a different choice. That is why there are different kinds of computers on the market and that is why different people can do the same sort of research about “the best” computer and why they can arrive at different conclusions.

Academic research is not much different in the sense that different researchers, considering the same or similar evidence, often arrive at different conclusions. Academic research rarely provides clear answers in the sense of definitively knowing the “rights” and “wrongs” about some issue. Not all academics think that computer hacking is wrong (or right), that the solution to commercial over-fishing is strict international control, or that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby depicts the connection between material goods and the American dream. Rather, there are debates about these issues, differences of interpretation and opinion that result from different researchers looking at the same evidence.

Furthermore, the debates about differences of opinion on how to interpret evidence are good and healthy because these discussions further our understanding of complex issues. If we all agreed that something was true, then there would be no point in conducting research and writing about it. Indeed, if we all agreed about everything and had all of our questions answered as well as we thought possible, there would be no point to education at all!

Ultimately, there is no easy formula for evaluating the credibility and reliability of research. But there are some basic questions you should ask about your all of your evidence to ensure it is reliable and credible:

• Who wrote it?

What do you think motivated the writer?

Where was it published, when was it written.

Who wrote or said it?

Is there an author named with the evidence?

If your evidence does not name the author, it might still be reliable, especially if you have confidence about where the evidence was published. However, most credible and reliable publications tell readers who wrote the articles they contain.

On Web pages and other Internet-based sources, it can sometimes be tricky to find the name of the Web page’s author. Many web sites don’t name an author, which, given the nature of the Web, should send up red flags for you as a researcher regarding the credibility of the evidence. But like print publications, more credible Web pages will include the name of the page’s writer. Be sure to look for the writer’s name throughout the particular page (including the bottom) and related pages within the Web site.

What are the qualifications of the author?

Does he or she seem to be an expert in the field?

Have he or she written about this topic before?

Are there other experiences that seem to uniquely qualify him or her as a reliable and credible source on this topic?

Many academic publications will give a lot of detail about their authors, including their degrees and academic training, the institution where they work (if they are a college professor or instructor), and other publications they have had in the past. Popular sources tend to include less information about their writers, though they too will often indicate in a byline (where the writer’s name is listed in a magazine or newspaper article) if the writer is a reporter, contributing editor, or editor for a particular subject.

Credible web sources will also describe the qualifications of the source’s author or authors. If you can find an author’s name on a Web site but you can’t find anything about their qualifications on their research subject, you should be suspicious about what that research has to say.

Have you come across the writer based on some of the other research you have done?

After you have conducted a bit of research on your topic, you might find yourself coming across the same authors writing similar articles in different publications. You might also find different publications referring to the author or her work, which would suggest that the author is indeed reliable and credible in her field. After all, if other articles and writers refer positively to a particular writer or her articles again and again, then it seems likely that the often-referred-to writer is credible.

Understanding and trusting the expertise of the author of your evidence is probably the most crucial test of credibility and reliability of that evidence.

Simply put, academics find evidence that comes from an author who is a credible expert to be much more persuasive than evidence that does not come from an expert.

For example, while my mom is a reliable source of information regarding many different topics, it would do you little good for me to interview her for an academic research project about the problems of over-fishing. Mind you, I value my mom’s thoughts and wisdom, and she might have some things to say about the effects of decreased catches of fish that I find insightful. However, because my mom doesn’t have any expertise about commercial fishing and because she doesn’t know anything more (or less) about it than most people, most of the readers of my research project won’t be persuaded by what she has to say.

On the other hand, my mother was a hospice work for many years, working with terminally ill patients and their families. If I were conducting research about the advantages and disadvantages of hospice care for terminally ill patients, my mom might be a very interesting and credible source.

Is the writer identified with a particular organization or group that might have a specific interest in the subject of the writing?

This can often be the source of conscious or unconscious bias. An obvious example: a writer who is identified as a member of the National Riflemen’s Association, which represents a variety of Americans particularly interested in protecting the right to own guns, will certainly have a different view on gun ownership than a member of The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, an organization working to enact gun control legislation.

You need to be particularly careful with Web-based sources of research when considering the writer’s affiliation with different groups or organizations. There have been numerous incidents where Web page writers falsely claimed their Web pages were affiliated with particular groups or causes.

Does the writer identify himself or herself with an explicit political group or party?

Considering a writer’s politics is particularly important when thinking about the credibility of a Web site. Besides the ease with which a writer can misrepresent themselves or others, the low cost and wide reach of the Web has also made it an attractive forum for hate groups, terrorists, and other “fringe” political movements. This doesn’t automatically mean the information you find on reactionary or radical Web sites is wrong; however, writers with particularly strong and extreme politics frequently present information that is biased to the point of inaccuracy.

Of course, while it is important to consider why a writer wrote about her subject and to think about how her motivations impact how she wrote about his or her subject, having a particular bias or motivation doesn’t automatically lead to a lack of credibility or reliability.

Was the piece of writing published in an academic or non-academic source? A book, a journal, a magazine, etc.? I’ve already discussed this a great deal in this chapter; generally speaking, academic sources are considered more credible than non-academic sources, and print-based sources are generally considered more credible than web-based sources.

But there are some more subtle tests of credibility and reliability concerning where a piece of research was published. For example, single-authored or co-authored scholarly books on a particular subject might be more regarded as more credible than a scholarly journal article because books go into much greater detail on topics than journal articles.

Are you familiar with the publication? If you are a new researcher to a particular field of study this can be a difficult question to answer since you might not have heard of some of the more well-known and credible publications known in that field. But once you get to know the field better (which will inevitably be the case as you conduct more research on your topic), chances are you will begin to realize certain publications are seen by experts in the field as more credible than others.

Last, but far from least, the date of publication can dramatically effect the credibility of your research. Obviously, this is especially important for date-sensitive research topics. If you were writing a research project about the Internet and the World Wide Web, chances are any research older than about 1990 or so would be of limited use since the Web literally did not exist before 1990.

But other potentially less obvious topics of research have date sensitive components to them. For example, if you were doing research on cigarette smoking or drunk driving, you would have to be careful about evaluating the credibility of research from the 1970s or 1960s or earlier since cultural “norms” in the United States for both smoking and drinking have changed a great deal.

Knowing (or rather, not knowing) the date of publication of a piece of research is yet another thing to be worried about when evaluating the credibility of Web-based sources. Many Web sites do not include any information about the date of publication or the date when the page was last updated. This means that you have no way of knowing when the information on that dateless page was published.

The date of publication is a key piece of information, the sort of thing that is always included in more print sources. Again, just because the date of publication or update is missing from a Web site does not automatically discount it as a credible source; however, it should make you suspicious.

Exercise 1.5

Working alone or collaboratively in small groups, consider a variety of different types of research—articles from scholarly and non-scholarly sources, newspaper articles, books, web sites, and other types of evidence. Using the criteria discussed here, how would you rate the quality and credibility of your research? Which of your sources seems the most reliable? Are there any pieces of evidence that, upon closer examination, do not seem credible or reliable?

Evidence Quality and Credibility Checklist

• The writer’s name
• Qualifications
• Expertise in the field
• Previous publications on the topic
• Unique experiences of the writer

Why did the source write or say it?

• Association with an organization or group
• The writer’s stated or implied politics

Where (what source) was it published?

• Academic/scholarly source versus non-academic/popular source
• Prior knowledge of publication

When was it published or said?

And when it comes to evidence from the ‘net and World Wide Web…

• It’s still important to know who wrote it, why you think they wrote it, where you found it online, and when was it published.
• If you don’t know the answers to the who/why/where/when questions, you should be skeptical of the evidence.
• Don’t be fooled by Web sites that “look” real, because…
• Anybody can publish information on the Web, no matter what that information is. Unlike most scholarly and many non-scholarly publications, Web writers don’t have to have the work reviewed by editors and publishers to reach an audience.
• The Internet and the World Wide Web are still good places to find research. You just have to be a bit more careful with them.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• About This Blog
• Official PLOS Blog
• EveryONE Blog
• Speaking of Medicine
• PLOS Biologue
• Absolutely Maybe
• DNA Science
• PLOS ECR Community
• All Models Are Wrong
• About PLOS Blogs

Impact AND credibility matter when researchers evaluate research

by Veronique Kiermer, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, & James Harney.

Today we’ve posted a report , along with accompanying data, on qualitative research we conducted about how researchers assess the credibility and impact of research. This study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and conducted with the assistance of the American Society for Cell Biology . The findings will inform future PLOS activities to support improved research assessment practices — specifically to support efforts to move emphasis towards individual research outputs and away from journal-level metrics. 

As we wrote in October 2020, we are interested in how researchers evaluate research outputs when (1) conducting their own research, and (2) when they take part in committees for hiring or grant review. In particular, we were interested in how researchers make judgments about the credibility and impact of the research outputs — including papers, preprints, research data — that they encounter in these contexts.

We interviewed 52 cell biology researchers.  Our approach focused on the goals they are trying to achieve (e.g.”identify impactful research to read”), rather than the tools they are presently using to carry out these tasks. By focusing on researchers’ goals (the what ) rather than how they are achieving them, we sought to better understand how we might influence those practices. This qualitative research will be followed by survey work to better quantify our findings. This will provide insights into opportunities for better solutions for improved research assessment. In particular, we’ll understand what signals of credibility and impact might provide researchers with more useful ways than journal impact factor or journal prestige to assess the quality and credibility of individual studies and individual researchers.

Our results confirmed our initial hypothesis that the credibility (or trustworthiness) of research outputs is the central concern for researchers when conducting their own research, and that impact was a strong focus when researchers are part of hiring or grant review committees. But we established that researchers also assess attributes of research outputs related to reproducibility, quality, and novelty. 

In addition, we found that researchers said they assessed credibility in committees more frequently than we anticipated, given that impact considerations — including journal impact factor — are prevalent in committee guidance and research assessment objectives (see for example McKiernan et al . (2019), Niles et al. (2020), Alperin et al. (2020), and Sugimoto & Larivière (2018)).

Our interviews confirmed that convenient proxies for credibility and impact, usually those based on journals, are used pervasively and are common in both research discovery and committee activities. 

Our research also indicates that when researchers inspect publications to evaluate credibility they try to minimize the amount of time they spend reading and understanding publications. Their tactics included selective reading of the abstracts, figures, and methods sections. Sometimes they said that they also look for signals such as whether data was available and had been reused, whether peer-reviewed versions of preprints have been published, and whether open peer review reports were available. 

Insights that help us better understand what researchers’ goals are and how they make judgements about credibility when discovering and reading research may offer opportunities to provide more reliable signals that help them with these tasks, yet are better tailored for credibility judgments than journal-level metrics. The stated importance of assessing credibility by researchers who participate in research assessment committees also suggests an opportunity for funders and institutions to better align their guidelines with the practice and motivations of committee members. 

After our follow-up survey work to validate these preliminary findings, we will report back and hope that this research will help others in the understanding and development of better methods of research assessment.

Written by Veronique Kiermer and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz Earlier this month the Open Science Monitoring Initiative shared a draft of Open Science monitoring…

Note: The following announcement was published by the East African Science and Technology Commission (EASTECO). PLOS is a proud partner of EASTECO…

Since September 2023, cOAlition S, in partnership with Jisc and PLOS, have been working with a multi-stakeholder working group to identify business…

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 18, Issue 2
• Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Helen Noble 1 ,
• Joanna Smith 2
• 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast , Belfast , UK
• 2 School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield , Huddersfield , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Helen Noble School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Rd, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK; helen.noble{at}qub.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Evaluating the quality of research is essential if findings are to be utilised in practice and incorporated into care delivery. In a previous article we explored ‘bias’ across research designs and outlined strategies to minimise bias. 1 The aim of this article is to further outline rigour, or the integrity in which a study is conducted, and ensure the credibility of findings in relation to qualitative research. Concepts such as reliability, validity and generalisability typically associated with quantitative research and alternative terminology will be compared in relation to their application to qualitative research. In addition, some of the strategies adopted by qualitative researchers to enhance the credibility of their research are outlined.

Are the terms reliability and validity relevant to ensuring credibility in qualitative research?

Although the tests and measures used to establish the validity and reliability of quantitative research cannot be applied to qualitative research, there are ongoing debates about whether terms such as validity, reliability and generalisability are appropriate to evaluate qualitative research. 2–4 In the broadest context these terms are applicable, with validity referring to the integrity and application of the methods undertaken and the precision in which the findings accurately reflect the data, while reliability describes consistency within the employed analytical procedures. 4 However, if qualitative methods are inherently different from quantitative methods in terms of philosophical positions and purpose, then alterative frameworks for establishing rigour are appropriate. 3 Lincoln and Guba 5 offer alternative criteria for demonstrating rigour within qualitative research namely truth value, consistency and neutrality and applicability. Table 1 outlines the differences in terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research.

• View inline

Terminology and criteria used to evaluate the credibility of research findings

What strategies can qualitative researchers adopt to ensure the credibility of the study findings?

Unlike quantitative researchers, who apply statistical methods for establishing validity and reliability of research findings, qualitative researchers aim to design and incorporate methodological strategies to ensure the ‘trustworthiness’ of the findings. Such strategies include:

Accounting for personal biases which may have influenced findings; 6

Acknowledging biases in sampling and ongoing critical reflection of methods to ensure sufficient depth and relevance of data collection and analysis; 3

Meticulous record keeping, demonstrating a clear decision trail and ensuring interpretations of data are consistent and transparent; 3 , 4

Establishing a comparison case/seeking out similarities and differences across accounts to ensure different perspectives are represented; 6 , 7

Including rich and thick verbatim descriptions of participants’ accounts to support findings; 7

Demonstrating clarity in terms of thought processes during data analysis and subsequent interpretations 3 ;

Engaging with other researchers to reduce research bias; 3

Respondent validation: includes inviting participants to comment on the interview transcript and whether the final themes and concepts created adequately reflect the phenomena being investigated; 4

Data triangulation, 3 , 4 whereby different methods and perspectives help produce a more comprehensive set of findings. 8 , 9

Table 2 provides some specific examples of how some of these strategies were utilised to ensure rigour in a study that explored the impact of being a family carer to patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis. 10

Strategies for enhancing the credibility of qualitative research

In summary, it is imperative that all qualitative researchers incorporate strategies to enhance the credibility of a study during research design and implementation. Although there is no universally accepted terminology and criteria used to evaluate qualitative research, we have briefly outlined some of the strategies that can enhance the credibility of study findings.

• Sandelowski M
• Lincoln YS ,
• Barrett M ,
• Mayan M , et al
• Greenhalgh T
• Lingard L ,

Twitter Follow Joanna Smith at @josmith175 and Helen Noble at @helnoble

Competing interests None.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

3 Critically Appraising the Quality and Credibility of Quantitative Research for Systematic Reviews

• Published: September 2011
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter looks at how to evaluate the quality and credibility of various types of quantitative research that might be included in a systematic review. Various factors that determine the quality and believability of a study will be presented, including, • assessing the study’s methods in terms of internal validity • examining factors associated with external validity and relevance; and • evaluating the credibility of the research and researcher in terms of possible biases that might influence the research design, analysis, or conclusions. The importance of transparency is highlighted.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

What We Offer

With a comprehensive suite of qualitative and quantitative capabilities and 55 years of experience in the industry, Sago powers insights through adaptive solutions.

• Recruitment
• Communities
• Methodify® Automated research
• QualBoard® Digital Discussions
• QualMeeting® Digital Interviews
• Global Qualitative
• Global Quantitative
• In-Person Facilities
• Healthcare Solutions
• Research Consulting
• Europe Solutions
• Neuromarketing Tools
• Trial & Jury Consulting

Who We Serve

Form deeper customer connections and make the process of answering your business questions easier. Sago delivers unparalleled access to the audiences you need through adaptive solutions and a consultative approach.

• Consumer Packaged Goods
• Financial Services
• Media Technology
• Medical Device Manufacturing
• Marketing Research

With a 55-year legacy of impact, Sago has proven we have what it takes to be a long-standing industry leader and partner. We continually advance our range of expertise to provide our clients with the highest level of confidence.​

• Global Offices
• Partnerships & Certifications
• News & Media
• Researcher Events

Sago Announces Launch of Sago Health to Elevate Healthcare Research

Sago Launches AI Video Summaries on QualBoard to Streamline Data Synthesis

Sago Executive Chairman Steve Schlesinger to Receive Quirk’s Lifetime Achievement Award

Drop into your new favorite insights rabbit hole and explore content created by the leading minds in market research.

• Case Studies
• Knowledge Kit

The Swing Voters Project, May 2024: Georgia

Enhancing Respondent Engagement: Best Practices for Modern Quant & Qual Design

• Get in touch

• Account Logins

The Importance of Establishing Credibility in Qualitative Research

• Resources , Blog

Key Takeaways:

• It’s essential to establish credibility in qualitative research projects early on to have your findings considered valuable.
• Strategies to build credibility in qualitative research include triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing, thick description, reflexivity, saturation, and external audits.
• Addressing issues such as bias, poor clarity, or lack of diversity in qualitative research projects also helps improve your overall research process.

Qualitative research is a type of research that involves exploring the subjective experiences and meanings of individuals. Unlike quantitative research focusing on measurable variables, qualitative research relies on data gathered through observation, interviews , and other methods to provide insight into complex human phenomena. However, the credibility of qualitative research can be questioned if the researcher fails to establish its trustworthiness. Therefore, establishing credibility in qualitative research cannot be overstated.   

This article aims to explore the significance of credibility in qualitative research , define the term, and discuss strategies for establishing credibility in research. By understanding the importance of credibility, you can ensure your data is trustworthy, your results are reliable, and your research is valid. Ultimately, this will contribute to improving the overall quality of qualitative research.  

In this Article:

Understanding credibility in qualitative research, triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing.

• Thick Descrip tion

Reflexivity

External audits, need qualitative research you can trust.

Book a consultation with our team to find the high-quality solutions you need for your next project.

Request a consultation

Credibility is fundamental to any qualitative research study as the bedrock of reliable and trustworthy findings. Credibility refers to the degree to which your research can be deemed responsible and accurate. It safeguards against subjective experiences, emotions, and perspectives that may otherwise obscure the true nature of your research subject.  

It’s important to note that credibility and validity are two separate concepts, although they are often conflated. While validity refers to the extent to which your research measures what it claims to measure, credibility deals with the trustworthiness of your data collection and analysis methods. In other words, credibility is a measure of how well you can establish the accuracy and reliability of your findings.  

If your study lacks credibility, your findings will be dismissed as unreliable or unimportant. This is particularly relevant in qualitative research, where the subjective nature of your results may make them more susceptible to skepticism. However, several methods exist to establish credibility in your study, which we’ll explore more closely below.  

Prioritizing credibility in your qualitative research builds trust with your participants and fellow researchers and enhances your contribution to your field. Furthermore, your reliable and accurate findings help advance the body of knowledge in your area of study. Therefore, it is essential to remember that credibility is vital to conducting impactful and trustworthy qualitative research.  

Ultimately, the importance of credibility cannot be overstated in qualitative research, as it is the foundation for producing high-quality research that makes a difference in the world.  

Building C redibility in Q ualitative R esearch: Effective S trategies

Qualitative research can provide valuable insights and understanding of complex social phenomena. However, the credibility of qualitative research findings is often questioned due to the subjective nature of data collection and analysis. To address this issue, there are various strategies available to establish the credibility of your research.   

T riangulation is a powerful and effective strategy that significantly enhances the credibility of qualitative research. This technique involves using multiple sources or methods to collect and analyze data, thereby increasing the rigor and trustworthiness of the research findings. By combining different sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and focus groups, you can cross-check your results and ensure that your findings are consistent and reliable.  

This approach also helps to identify potential biases or limitations in the research and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Employing triangulation allows you to ensure your research is based on diverse perspectives and experiences, strengthening the credibility and impact of your findings.  

Another strategy used to build credibility is member checking. This is a powerful tool that validates the data’s accuracy and promotes a collaborative relationship between the researcher and the participants. This approach allows the participants to have a say in the research process, and their feedback is valuable in confirming the accuracy of the research findings.  

Member checking is done in various ways, such as sharing transcripts, summaries, or the entire research report with the participants. The participants can then review the information and provide feedback to you on any discrepancies, inaccuracies, or missing data. This process helps establish credibility and builds trust and rapport between the researcher and the participants.  

Additionally, member checking allows the participants to clarify or expand on their experiences, which can further enhance the richness and depth of the data.  

Peer debriefing is a valuable strategy for enhancing the credibility of qualitative research. It involves enlisting the help of other researchers, who are experts in the field, to review and provide feedback on the research process and findings. This process of critical evaluation helps to strengthen the research by identifying any weaknesses, biases, or limitations that may exist.  

Peer debriefing is an effective tool for ensuring that the data collected is accurate, relevant, and reflects the participants’ experiences.   

It’s important to note that peer debriefing is not just limited to reviewing research findings, but also includes evaluating the research process. This consists of the methodology, sampling strategy, and data collection techniques. By involving other researchers in this process, the research can be conducted with due diligence and rigor, ultimately increasing the overall quality of the study.  

Thick Description

Thick description is a qualitative research strategy that provides a comprehensive and detailed description of the research setting and participants. This approach helps you better understand the context of your project, including the cultural, historical, and social factors that may influence the phenomenon under study. The help of detailed descriptions of the research context and participants also ensures your findings are grounded in the realities of the social world you are studying.  

Thick descriptions also help you identify and explore your research topic’s complexities and nuances. For example, suppose you are studying the experiences of immigrants in a particular community; you may use thick descriptions to provide a detailed account of the cultural and social factors that shape their experiences. This helps uncover underlying patterns and themes that may not be immediately apparent and provides a deeper understanding of the respondents.  

Researchers’ biases and perspectives can influence the research process and findings in qualitative research, compromising the study’s credibility. Reflexivity is a strategy that aims to address this issue by encouraging you to reflect on your own biases and perspectives and account for them in the research process. This is achieved through keeping a research journal or memo, where you can reflect on your experiences, assumptions, and biases that may impact the research. Being transparent about your preferences and perspectives makes the research process more credible and trustworthy from the outset.  

Furthermore, reflexivity can lead to new insights and perspectives that may not have been considered otherwise. By acknowledging and accounting for your biases and perspectives, the research process becomes more transparent, and the findings are more trustworthy. Reflexivity also helps you build stronger relationships with participants by showing a willingness to listen and learn from their perspectives.  

Saturation is a crucial strategy in qualitative research to establish that the data collected is thorough and complete. In this strategy, you continue to collect data until you reach a point where no new information or insights are being revealed, indicating that you have reached saturation.   

The concept of saturation is fundamental in studies involving complex or nuanced phenomena with multiple perspectives. In such cases, reaching saturation helps confirm you comprehensively understand the studied topic. Saturation also allows you to identify and address any gaps in the data, which helps improve the overall quality of the research.  

Furthermore, reaching saturation increases the credibility and rigor of qualitative research, demonstrating a systematic and rigorous approach to data collection and analysis.

External audits are another useful strategy in building credibility and rigor in qualitative research. Independent third parties objectively evaluate the research process and findings, which helps ensure the investigation is conducted ethically and transparently. This also helps identify potential biases or limitations in the research and confirm that the findings are valid and reliable.   

External audits are critical in fields where research results can significantly impact policy or practice, such as healthcare or education. Reviews by third parties provide confidence that resulting policies and procedures are evidence-based and effective.  

Establishing credibility in qualitative research is essential for producing high-quality and reliable findings. To achieve credibility, you must use appropriate data collection and analysis methods, ensure transparency and clarity in the research process, and employ rigorous strategies for evaluating the quality of the research. By doing so, you enhance your potential to inform decision-making processes and advance knowledge in your field.   

Building credibility in your qualitative research is critical. It is a formality and a vital step towards producing trustworthy and valuable research that makes a difference in society.  

If you’re looking for reliable, high-quality quantitative and qualitative research solutions, Sago has an option to suit your needs. Our team is committed to helping you obtain the most accurate and reliable data possible, whether you need qualitative research facilities , recruitment , or digital tools .    

Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you achieve your research goals with confidence and accuracy.  

Build Credibility in Your Qual Research

Work with a trusted partner to establish credibility in your next qual project.

Decoding Gen C: Mastering Engagement with a New Consumer Powerhouse

Hottest Trends in Market Research Revealed

Women’s Health: Addressing the Elephant in the Room

Guide: Respondent Engagement Playbook

The Hidden Truths of Women’s Health Revealed

Report: Perceptions of Women’s Health

A New Generation Is Born: Meet Gen C

OnDemand: Breaking the Silence on Women’s Health: From Perception to Truth

The Swing Voter Project Pennsylvania: April 2024

Revolutionizing Healthcare Research: A Q&A With Industry Experts

Take a deep dive into your favorite market research topics

How can we help support you and your research needs?

BEFORE YOU GO

Have you considered how to harness AI in your research process? Check out our on-demand webinar for everything you need to know

No products in the cart.

How Do I Assess The Credibility Of My Qualitative Research

Whether you’re a student or an experienced practitioner, it’s not unusual to have a crisis of confidence during a qualitative research project.

This credibility checklist will help keep you on track.

1. Have I engaged with the literature?

A systematic literature review demonstrates your familiarity with the topic and positions you as a credible expert.

So, consider whether you've read and reported on the significant works in your field. Venturing out across different fields and disciplines will help you position yourself in the wider scholarly landscape.

You may need to revisit the literature at various points in your research process. It's not just a one-time process that you do at the beginning.

As your own research develops, you may need to go back to the literature for a deeper read and reflect on how it relates to your own research.

You might also want to seek out other literature that addresses issues that were not on your radar when you started the study.

>> Read how NVivo helps with literature reviews. 

2. Do I have a sound research question?

Let's say you're at a party and someone asks about your research.

Can you explain it in clear everyday language that doesn’t send them scurrying to the bar?

If the answer is yes, remember to point out why your research is important and mention who would be interested in the outcomes.

Your research question should uncover new ground and move the conversation forward in some way but it doesn’t need to be “ground breaking, unprecedented or paradigm shifting” (Golding & Sharmini & Lazarovitch, 2014, p. 569).

And it goes without saying, your final thesis or report should address and answer your research question.

3. Are my methods transparent?

Reviewers need to easily trace the steps you took to arrive at your results. They’ll want to know how your data was collected, recorded, coded and analyzed.

They’ll also want to understand the choices you made along the way.

For example, you might explain your reason for running focus groups:

“Focus groups work well for encouraging participants to explore topics that have shared social meaning but are seldom discussed” (Bailey, 2012, p. 3).

Analytical memos are the key to transparency.

If you’re wondering about what sort of memos you should be keeping, invoke this clever mnemonic developed by Birks, Chapman and Francis (2008):

• M – Mapping research activities (documentation of the decision-making processes of research design and implementation as an audit trail).
• E – Extracting meaning from the data (analysis and interpretation, concepts, assertions, theories).
• M – Maintaining momentum (researcher perspectives and reflexivity throughout the evolutionary journey of the study).
• O – Opening communication (for research team member exchanges).

4. Have I laid my reflexive cards on the table?

Credibility depends on honesty and reflexivity, so you’ll need to openly acknowledge and address your biases and sociocultural position.

Be clear about:

• Your awareness of pre-existing knowledge and philosophical frameworks.
• Your own position in relation to research participants.
• The limitations of your method.
• Your openness to contrary evidence.

5. Have I collected enough of the right kind of data?

“The quality of your study starts with the data, as does its credibility. The depth and scope of the data make a difference. A study based upon rich, substantial, and relevant data stands out” (Charmaz, 2014, Location No. 1275).

Whatever your approach to doing qualitative research, the purpose for collecting qualitative data is to generate in-depth and rich data.

So if you are doing interviews, make sure that you have probed sufficiently so you truly understand what your respondent is saying.

Active listening and judicious probing are important skills to develop as a qualitative researcher. If you feel there are gaps in your understanding of an interview, it may be possible to go back to your respondents, or if that is not possible, to do a few more additional interviews to fill those gaps.

A common question is whether you have collected enough data.

The answer depends on the approach to your analysis. If you need to generalise your findings to a particular population, which may be the case in a mixed methods study, then you'll need to have a representative sample of the population that you're studying.

If you're doing a public consultation, you need to make sure that you have reached out to all the relevant stakeholders.

If you are doing a grounded theory study, then you'll be doing theoretical sampling – which means you stop collecting data when your sample is saturated i.e. when the data you are collecting does not reveal anything new. That might be after eight interviews or after fifty.

Taking an iterative approach to data collection can help to alleviate short comings.

For example, you could conduct a pilot set of interviews and do some preliminary coding - this might help you determine whether you need to tweak your questions or broaden the spread of participants.

If the time for interviewing has passed and you’re worried about the depth of your data - look at ways you can triangulate it:

• Find complementary studies or alternative theories.
• Explore it with a different methodological lens.
• Include the perspective of other researchers.

Just ensure you understand (and report on) the limits of your data.

Only make claims where there is clear empirical evidence to support them.

6. Is my coding up to scratch?

In the words of coding guru, Johnny Saldana, “the excellence of the research rests in large part on the excellence of the coding.” (Saldana, 2016, p. 2)

In practical terms this involves:

• Creating codes that adequately reflect what is happening in the data.
• Aiming for coding consistency (especially important for teams).
• Moving beyond purely descriptive codes to analytical concepts.
• Looking for the relationships between analytical concepts.
• Checking that these analytical concepts offer fresh insights about your topic.
• Reading The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers by Johnny Saldana.

To score even higher on the credibility scale, go back to the study participants and get their input on your interpretations (sometimes called member checking).

Wherever possible, seek the advice of trusted peers, supervisors and mentors.

7. Am I continually striving for ethical excellence?

Do you have ethics approval from relevant committees covering confidentiality and informed consent?

Credibility means treating your participants with respect and approaching your research with scholarly integrity.

Be careful not to plagiarize the work of others, make unsupported claims or ignore ‘problematic’ passages of text that don’t quite fit your theories.

8.  Have I got a strong narrative to tell?

Ultimately, credibility is about creating a coherent narrative that stands up to challenges and brings fresh ideas to the table.

"When I silently think or verbally whisper “Wow!” at the conclusion of someone’s work, I know that I have been given not just new knowledge but new awareness, and am now the better for it" (Saldana, 2016, p. 289).

Your results should represent the experience of your participants in a believable way and convincingly address the research question.

Along with ‘credibility’ you might want to consider a few other measures of quality, including: Dependability, accountability, confirmability, believability, trustworthiness, expandability, resonance, creativity, relevance, clarity, confirmability, significance, artfulness, authenticity, criticality, vividness, thoroughness, congruence, sensitivity, believable, completeness, publishable, generalizability, transferability, replicability and rigor.

Enough to make your head spin (but fun when sung to the tune of ‘I am the very model of Modern Major General’).

What’s your benchmark for research quality?

I’d love to hear your thoughts below.

NVivo is software that helps researchers to organize and analyze their qualitative data. Read more about how NVivo supports literature reviews.

Bailey, D. C. (2012). Women and Wasta: The Use of Focus Groups for Understanding Social Capital and Middle Eastern Women . The Qualitative Report, 17(33), 1-18. Retrieved from Nnsuworks.nova.edu

Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008) Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing 13(1), 68–75.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.) [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Clinton Golding, Sharon Sharmini & Ayelet Lazarovitch (2014) What examiners do: what thesis students should know, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39:5, 563-576, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.859230

Saldana, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.) [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kath McNiff

Kath McNiff is on a mission to help researchers deliver robust, evidence-based results. If they’re drowning in a sea of data (or floods of tears) she wants to throw them an NVivo-shaped life raft. As an Online Community Manager at QSR, she knows that peers make the best teachers. So, through The NVivo Blog, Twitter and LinkedIn, she shares practical advice and connects researchers so they can help each other. When she’s not busy writing blog posts, swapping stories on social media or training the latest tribe of NVivo users, she can be found wrestling four feisty offspring for control of the remote.

Recent Articles

How to Achieve Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is, by nature, more directional than quantitative research. There is a misguided assumption that qualitative data is somehow inferior, or at least more questionable, than quantitative data derived from market research. It all comes down to rigor in qualitative research, and whether your study meets certain criteria for credibility, dependability, transferability and confirmability.

Qualitative research is, by nature, more directional than quantitative research. Rather than producing facts and figures—like the hard lines of a drawing—it gives color to your customers’ experiences and provides context by exploring the how and why behind concepts or theories in question.

As a result, there is a misguided assumption that qualitative data is somehow inferior, or at least more questionable, than the quality of quantitative data derived from market research.

However, that’s not the case. Qualitative research plays an important role in understanding consumer attitudes and behaviors, measuring brand perceptions, finessing product development efforts, and achieving other goals as you strive to keep up with shifting demands from customers, new competitors and new technologies.

It all comes down to rigor in qualitative research , and whether your study meets certain criteria for credibility, dependability, transferability and confirmability.

How is Qualitative Research Trustworthiness Measured?

Led by Qualitative Research Director, Dawn McElfresh , The Farnsworth Group has been utilizing qualitative research for over 30 years to help clients make more informed strategic decisions.

When it comes to quantitative research, trustworthiness is measured in terms of validity and reliability. You can achieve trustworthiness in qualitative market research by demonstrating that your findings are dependable, credible, confirmable and transferable. Here are how those four concepts are to be understood:

1. Dependability in Qualitative Research

Dependability is used to measure or demonstrate the consistency and reliability of your study’s results. This starts by tracking the precise methods you use for data collection, analysis and interpretation and providing adequate contextual information about each piece, so that the study could theoretically be replicated by other researchers and generate consistent results. An inquiry audit—performed by an outside person—is one tool used to examine the dependability of a qualitative study. Alternatively, screening parameters can be used to solidify research dependability.

The Farnsworth Group demonstrates the dependability of research we conduct by using specific recruitment screener parameters that allow representation from a broad range of demographics, trade criteria, experience, geographic location and so on—so the insights represent the landscape desired by our clients plus aren't representing a slanted viewpoint from one concentrated demographic.

2. Credibility in Qualitative Research

Credibility is a measure of the truth value of qualitative research, or whether the study’s findings are correct and accurate. To some degree, it relies on the credibility of the researchers themselves, as well as their research methods. Triangulation, prolonged engagement with data, persistent observation, negative case analysis, member checks, and referential adequacy are all procedures that can be used to increase the credibility of qualitative studies. 

The Farnsworth Group demonstrates the measure of truth in research we conduct by conducting senior management analysis on the data collected during the in-depth interviews or focus groups. This involves summarizing each detail and finding the overlapping themes that are consistent—which drive the key insights found in the study.  

Our team’s unique combination of decades of industry experience within manufacturing and product development allow us to formulate strategic recommendations; these insights cannot be replicated by other research firms for this reason.

3. Confirmability in Qualitative Research

In terms of confirmability, you want to prove that your qualitative research is neutral and not influenced by the assumptions or biases of the researchers. Rather, trustworthy research should produce findings that objectively reflect information collected from participants. In other words, your data should speak for itself. Confirmability is often demonstrated by providing an audit trail that details each step of data analysis and shows that your findings aren’t colored by conscious or unconscious bias but accurately portray the participants’ responses. 

Confirmability of research conducted by The Farnsworth Group is achieved by our approach of summarizing the content of each question we ask during the in-depth interview or focus group.  This showcases the overlapping themes, without bias, plus all comments heard since they all can provide value to our clients. Qualitative reporting is about the details, and we provide all the color from the interview or focus group, so that the client can view everything without researcher bias.

4. Transferability in Qualitative Research

As the name implies, transferability measures whether, or to what extent, the study’s results are applicable within other contexts, circumstances and settings. It also can be thought of in terms of generalizability. In order to demonstrate transferability in qualitative research, you can utilize thick description, which involves providing adequate details on the site, participants and methods or procedures used to collect data during your study. 

This helps other researchers evaluate whether the results are applicable for other situations. While transferability cannot be proved with 100 percent certainty, you can demonstrate that it is highly likely in order to back up the trustworthiness of your qualitative market research.

What is Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research?

Not only must the standard trustworthiness of the data collection be high, but the standard of trustworthiness of the interpretation of results must also remain high. Thematic analysis is a foundational and widely used qualitative research method .

Thematic analysis is a flexible and accessible approach to evaluating qualitative data—such as interview transcripts, field notes or other texts—that emphasizes identifying, analyzing and interpreting patterns, meanings and themes. The challenge is that there can be different ways to interpret data, and the researcher is often relied upon to make judgements and take action when it comes to theming, coding and contextualizing the data.

Here is a brief overview of how you can establish trustworthiness within each phase of the thematic analysis process:

1. Familiarize Yourself with the Data

The first step is to establish prolonged engagement with the data and triangulate different data collection modes. Document both reflective thoughts and thoughts about potential themes in the data. Keep records of all raw data and store it in organized archives.

2. Generate Initial Codes or Tally’s

Through peer debriefing, reflexive journaling and researcher triangulation, you have the option to generate initial codes using a reliable coding framework. Alternatively, you can use response tally’s to refer to when conducting qualitative theme analysis.

In any case, be diligent to leave behind an audit trail of this work, which means having documentation of all debriefings and meetings used in the generation process. 

3. Search for Themes and Patterns

During this phase, you will once again utilize triangulation to establish trustworthiness. You can also employ diagramming to track patterns and themes in the data. Maintain detailed notes about the development of certain concepts and themes.

4. Review Your Themes

Team members can help vet themes and subthemes during this phase. You also can return to the raw data to test for referential adequacy.

5. Define and Name Themes

At this point of the process, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation are tools used to establish trustworthiness in qualitative research. Maintaining rigorous documentation is also a key component.

6. Produce the Report

For this phase, you’ll want to provide thick descriptions of the context of your study and details on the process of coding and analyzing the data. This should include justifications for all analytical and methodological choices made throughout the entire study. Here is where you’ll also conduct member checks.

Establishing Trustworthiness in Qualitative Market Research

Qualitative studies are important within the realm of market research. However, in order for the results to be useful and meaningful, you have to take a rigorous and methodical approach to the collection of qualitative data and interpretation of its themes. This is crucial to ensuring that your findings are trustworthy and reliable. 

The Farnsworth Group has the right experience and tools to help you conduct qualitative market research for the building and construction, home improvement, or lawn and ranch industries. You end up with data-driven insights supported by industry expertise that provide you with actionable recommendations.

• First Time Freshman
• Transfer Student
• Art Institute Transfer
• High School Student
• Military Student
• International Student
• Returning Student
• Current Student

Four guidelines students should follow when determining credibility of research

• November 18, 2020

*This story was updated and edited by Jenna Heil on Tuesday, October 25, 2022 for clarity and brevity.

When gathering sources for your next term paper or project, it is important to determine credibility of research. Credibility can be seen as an important aspect of establishing trustworthiness, but it does require additional research. It’s important to look at who the author is, their background and their education. You can check an author’s h-index score, which according to Bernard Becker Medical Library , is “an estimate of the importance, significance, and broad impact of cumulative research,” by using Google Scholar .

Finding reliable sources is vital for college students to succeed, so when in doubt, ask yourself if the source checks the box in the following areas:

1. Relevance Relevance is a key factor to consider when doing research. If you are studying Picasso’s blue period and come across an article about Paloma Picasso’s perfumes, ask yourself if this is relevant to your larger research project or paper. If not, it’s time to mark the resource as irrelevant and move on to different sources. If it is relevant, the source checks the first credibility requirement.

2. Authority Next, it’s time to determine the authority of the piece. Authority and credibility typically go hand in hand, but depending on the information you are looking for, authority can change. For example, a publication that focuses more on fashion design has authority in this section, but doesn’t necessarily have authority in art history. To ensure you are discovering the most authoritative academic journals, magazines or reports in your specific area of interest, we recommend utilizing RMCAD’s databases .

3. Accuracy You’re halfway there! The next credibility requirement is determining if the source is accurate. This can be tricky if you are new to a field of information. Determining accuracy requires reading and learning as much as possible about something before forming an opinion. We recommend using your best judgment when labeling something as accurate and think about what you already know when forming your final verdict of the information presented.

4. Purpose The final step is determining the purpose of the source, which requires you to learn why someone is presenting the information. A YouTube star might show creative and unique makeup techniques, but with the goal to sell makeup. A late night talk show interviewee might be selling their new movie. An opinion piece may demonstrate bias, whether it is obvious or not. These are all important things to determine.

Remember, when doing research, you want to find the best information to support your ideas, which requires careful evaluation of the information you gather. Keep in mind – relevance, authority, accuracy and purpose when determining credibility of research.

This piece was written with the help of Martha Neth from the SLC . The SLC welcomes students from all programs both on-campus and online who strive to do better in the classroom while perfecting their craft. Self-schedule an appointment with the SLC here or email the SLC at [email protected] .

" * " indicates required fields

Classes Start Soon

Get started today.

By submitting this form, I authorize RMCAD and its partners to make or allow the placement of calls, emails, and texts to me at the phone number that I have provided, including through the use of automated technology, or a prerecorded or artificial voice. I understand that I am not required to provide my phone number as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services. I also understand RMCAD occasionally records phone conversations for training purposes and consent.

Recent Blogs

• Breaking Into Children’s Book Illustration
• Technology Meets Textiles: The Future of Fashion Design
• The Fascinating History and Exciting Future of Music Production: Exploring Analog And Digital Opportunities
• Mastering Light: The Science and Art of Photography Lighting
• The Intersection of Game Art and Narrative Design
• Student Login

We're accepting applications for our next session. No fee, Apply Today!

Classes Starting Soon!

No Application fee

How to Write a Powerful Credibility Statement (with Examples)

• The Speaker Lab
• June 4, 2024

Table of Contents

As a public speaker, capturing your audience’s attention is critical if you’re going to deliver your message effectively. But how do you engage your listeners? One way to do so is to create a credibility statement. These powerful sentences tell the audience why they should believe you, drawing from your experiences, research, and passion. Crafting a compelling credibility statement can seem daunting at first. But don’t worry—we have you covered! In this article, you’ll find examples of credibility statements that establish trust right from the start. So, if you’re ready to elevate your speaking game and connect deeply with your audience, keep reading!

What Is a Credibility Statement?

If you’ve ever wondered what makes a speaker truly believable, the answer lies in their credibility statement. This statement consists of 1-3 sentences that tell the audience why they should trust you and your message. Typically, it’s delivered right at the beginning of your speech, setting the stage for everything that follows. By establishing your credibility upfront, you give your audience a reason to listen and engage with your message. It’s about creating that connection and showing them that you’re not just another talking head, but a reliable expert.

Elements of a Strong Credibility Statement

So, what makes a credibility statement truly effective? There are a few key elements to keep in mind.

• Relevance : Your experiences and expertise should be directly related to the topic at hand. No one cares about your stamp collection if you’re talking about leadership.
• Specificity : Don’t just say you’re an expert—prove it with concrete examples and achievements.
• Brevity : Keep it short and sweet. Your credibility statement should be no more than a few sentences long.
• Authenticity : Be genuine and true to yourself. Don’t try to be someone you’re not because the audience will see right through it.

By crafting a credibility statement that ticks all these boxes, you’ll be well on your way to building credibility and establishing yourself as a trusted authority in your field.

Find Out Exactly How Much You Could Make As a Paid Speaker

Use The Official Speaker Fee Calculator to tell you what you should charge for your first (or next) speaking gig — virtual or in-person! 

Examples of Effective Credibility Statements

Now that we’ve covered the basics, let’s dive into some examples of effective credibility statements. As you consider these examples, take note of how each speaker captures their audience’s attention and trust.

Demonstrating Expertise and Knowledge

One of the most powerful ways to build credibility is by showcasing your deep knowledge and expertise on a subject. Take this example from a keynote speech on cybersecurity:

“As a former FBI agent with over 20 years of experience investigating cyber crimes, I’ve seen firsthand the devastating impact of data breaches on businesses and individuals alike.”

By highlighting their unique background and experience, this speaker immediately positions themselves as an authority on the topic. As a result, the audience knows they’re in good hands and can trust the information that follows.

Highlighting Relevant Experience and Background

Another way to build credibility is by sharing relevant experiences or background that directly relates to your topic. For example:

“As someone who struggled with addiction for over a decade, I know how lonely and hopeless it can feel. But I also know that recovery is possible, because I’ve lived it myself.”

This speaker strikes a chord by honestly recounting their personal struggles and achievements. From here, they will likely cover related topics such as how to get help or how to help friends who struggle with addiction.

Showcasing Awards and Recognition

Showcasing your accolades can add weight to your argument. If peers recognize and honor what you do, don’t hesitate to let people know. Consider how this credibility statement example lists significant (and relevant) awards without bragging.

“As a three-time Olympic gold medalist, I know what it takes to perform at the highest level. And today, I’m here to share those secrets with you.”

By highlighting their achievements, this speaker immediately captures the audience’s attention and respect. Now listeners know they’re learning from someone who has truly excelled in their field.

Sharing Personal Stories and Anecdotes

Sometimes, the most powerful way to build credibility is by sharing a personal story or anecdote that illustrates your expertise or passion for the topic. For example:

“When I first started my business, I had no idea what I was doing. I made every mistake in the book. But through trial and error, I learned what it takes to build a successful company from the ground up. And that’s what I want to share with you today.”

This credibility statement is a great example of how powerful vulnerability and storytelling can be. By opening up about their own journey, this speaker creates a sense of authenticity and relatability. As a result, the audience knows they’re learning from someone who has been in their shoes and can offer valuable insights and guidance.

Leveraging Social Proof and Testimonials

Finally, don’t underestimate the power of social proof and testimonials in building credibility. If others have praised your work or benefited from your expertise, share those stories in your credibility statement. For example:

“Over the past five years, I’ve helped over 500 clients transform their health and fitness. But don’t just take my word for it—here’s what one of my clients had to say: ‘Working with Sarah changed my life. I lost 50 pounds, gained confidence, and finally feel in control of my health.'”

By sharing a real-life testimonial, this speaker provides concrete evidence of their impact and effectiveness. The audience now knows they’re learning from someone who has a track record of success and can deliver results.

Tips for Crafting Your Own Credibility Statement

Now that you’ve seen some examples of credibility statements, it’s time to craft your own. And don’t worry—we have some tips for you to keep in mind as you put pen to paper.

Identifying Your Unique Selling Points

What makes you stand out from other speakers or experts in your field? Maybe it’s your years of experience, your unique methodology, or your passion for the topic. Whatever it is, make sure to highlight it in your credibility statement.

For example, let’s say you’re a productivity expert who has helped thousands of people get more done in less time. Your unique selling point might be your proprietary system for prioritizing tasks and eliminating distractions. Make sure to mention that in your credibility statement because it’s a great example of what makes you unique.

Tailoring Your Statement to Your Audience

Remember, your credibility statement isn’t just about you—it’s about your audience and what they need to hear to trust and engage with you. So make sure to tailor your statement to their specific needs and challenges.

For example, if you’re speaking to a group of busy executives, your credibility statement might focus on your experience helping other high-level leaders optimize their time and energy. If you’re speaking to a group of students, you might focus on your own journey of learning and growth. Whatever the scenario, write your credibility statement with your audience in mind.

Practicing Delivery and Presentation Skills

Of course, it’s not just what you say in your credibility statement, but how you say it. Make sure to practice your delivery and presentation skills so that you come across as confident, authentic, and engaging. Pay particular attention to your body language, eye contact, and communication skills. Speak clearly and at a pace that allows your audience to follow along. And most importantly, let your passion and enthusiasm shine through!

Incorporating Storytelling Techniques

As we saw in the examples above, storytelling can be a powerful way to build credibility and connect with your audience, so don’t be afraid to incorporate storytelling techniques into your own credibility statement.

Updating Your Statement Regularly

Finally, remember that your credibility statement isn’t a one-and-done thing. As you gain new experiences, achievements, and insights, make sure to update your statement accordingly. Maybe you’ve recently published a book or received a prestigious award. Maybe you’ve helped a high-profile client achieve incredible results. Whatever it is, make sure to weave it into your credibility statement and keep it fresh and relevant for your audience.

Common Mistakes to Avoid in Credibility Statements

So far, we’ve covered examples of credibility statements and tips for crafting your own. Next, let’s talk about what not to do. Below are some common mistakes to avoid.

Overstating Qualifications or Experience

It can be tempting to exaggerate your qualifications or experience to make yourself sound more impressive. In the end, though, it’s not worth it. If you’re caught overstating your credentials, it can seriously damage your credibility and reputation. Instead, focus on highlighting your genuine achievements and experiences. Be honest about what you know (and what you don’t know), and let your authenticity shine through.

Using Jargon or Technical Language

Another common mistake is using too much jargon or technical language in your credibility statement. While you want to showcase your expertise, you don’t want to alienate or confuse your audience. Instead, aim to use language that is clear, concise, and accessible to your listeners. If you do need to use technical terms, make sure to explain them in plain English.

Relying on Outdated or Irrelevant Information

If you’re relying on outdated or irrelevant information in your credibility statement, it can make you seem out of touch or uninformed. For example, if you’re trying to demonstrate your knowledge about space, but you name Pluto as a planet in your credibility statement, you going to lose your crowd. To avoid this, stay current on the latest trends, research, and best practices in your field.

Similarly, if you’re sharing a personal story or anecdote, make sure it’s still relevant and meaningful to your audience. Don’t just rely on the same old stories you’ve been telling for years—keep things fresh and up-to-date.

Failing to Back up Claims with Evidence

If you’re making bold claims in your credibility statement, make sure you have the evidence to back them up. Don’t just say you’re an expert—prove it with specific examples, case studies, or testimonials. And if you’re citing research or statistics, make sure to use reliable sources and provide references if needed. The more concrete evidence you can provide, the more credible you’ll seem to your audience.

Neglecting to Adapt to Different Audiences

Finally, don’t make the mistake of using the same credibility statement for every audience. What works for one group may fall flat with another.

Instead, take the time to research your audience and tailor your statement to their specific needs, challenges, and interests. Show them that you understand where they’re coming from and that you have the expertise and experience to help them achieve their goals.

Free Download: 6 Proven Steps to Book More Paid Speaking Gigs in 2024​

Download our 18-page guide and start booking more paid speaking gigs today!

The Impact of Credibility Statements on Your Brand

In addition to building trust with your audience, credibility statements can have a huge impact on your brand . This goes for everyone, regardless of whether they’re just starting out or years into their craft. Let’s take a look.

Building Trust with Your Target Audience

At we’ve already covered, a credibility statement is all about building trust with your target audience. By showcasing your expertise, experience, and passion, you’re giving them a reason to believe in you and your message. And when your audience trusts you, they’re more likely to engage with your content, attend your events, and ultimately, become loyal customers or clients.

Differentiating Yourself from Competitors

In today’s crowded marketplace, it’s more important than ever to differentiate yourself from your competitors. Thankfully, a strong credibility statement can help you do just that. By highlighting your unique selling points and showcasing your expertise, you’re setting yourself apart from others in your field. You’re showing your audience why you’re the best choice for their needs and challenges.

Enhancing Your Professional Reputation

Of course, a credibility statement isn’t just about short-term gains—it’s also about building your long-term professional reputation. Every time you deliver a strong credibility statement, you’re reinforcing your brand and your expertise in the minds of your audience. Over time, this can lead to more speaking engagements, more media coverage, and more opportunities to share your message and make an impact.

Attracting New Opportunities and Partnerships

Speaking of opportunities, a strong credibility statement can also help you attract new partnerships and collaborations. When others see you as a credible expert in your field, they’re more likely to want to work with you and learn from you. This can lead to exciting new projects, joint ventures, and even long-term business relationships—all because you took the time to craft a compelling credibility statement.

Recovering from Negative Publicity or Reviews

Finally, a credibility statement can be a powerful tool for recovering from negative publicity or reviews. If you’ve faced criticism or backlash in the past, a strong credibility statement can help you regain trust and credibility with your audience. By focusing on your expertise, experience, and commitment to your audience, you can show them that you’re still a valuable and trustworthy resource, despite any setbacks or challenges you may have faced.

So the next time you’re preparing to give a presentation, set aside the time to craft your credibility statement. By crafting something compelling, you can showcase your expertise, experience, and passion. In addition, you can build trust with your audience, differentiate yourself from competitors, enhance your professional reputation, attract new opportunities, and even recover from negative publicity. The key is to be authentic, specific, and relevant to your audience’s needs and challenges. And of course, to deliver your statement with confidence and conviction.

FAQs on Credibility Statements

What are examples of credibility.

Credibility shines through awards, years of relevant experience, peer endorsements, and a solid track record. It’s the bedrock of trust.

How do you demonstrate credibility?

Show up with facts from reliable sources, share your achievements openly, and let your professional demeanor speak volumes.

How do you show credibility in writing?

Incorporate trustworthy references and use clear language that demonstrates expertise without resorting to jargon. Transparency is key.

How to write a credibility statement in a research paper?

Briefly mention your qualifications related to the study topic. Highlight past work or publications that bolster your authority on the subject matter.

As our examples have demonstrated, the power of a well-crafted credibility statement can’t be overstated. By showcasing who you are and what you’ve accomplished, you can create authentic connections with your audience. From highlighting key experiences to sharing personal anecdotes or leveraging social proof—the strategies we’ve explored today provide practical ways for building authenticity and trust.

Your next step? Put these insights into action when preparing future speeches or presentations, and watch as it transforms not just perceptions but outcomes too!

• Last Updated: June 3, 2024

Explore Related Resources

Learn How You Could Get Your First (Or Next) Paid Speaking Gig In 90 Days or Less

We receive thousands of applications every day, but we only work with the top 5% of speakers .

Book a call with our team to get started — you’ll learn why the vast majority of our students get a paid speaking gig within 90 days of finishing our program .

If you’re ready to control your schedule, grow your income, and make an impact in the world – it’s time to take the first step. Book a FREE consulting call and let’s get you Booked and Paid to Speak ® .

About The Speaker Lab

We teach speakers how to consistently get booked and paid to speak.  Since 2015, we’ve helped thousands of speakers find clarity, confidence, and a clear path to make an impact.

Get Started

Let's connect.

[email protected]

Copyright ©2023 The Speaker Lab. All rights reserved.

Straight Talk About Soy

The Takeaway: Soy is a unique food that is widely studied for its estrogenic and anti-estrogenic effects on the body. Studies may seem to present conflicting conclusions about soy, but this is largely due to the wide variation in how soy is studied. Results of recent population studies suggest that soy has either a beneficial or neutral effect on various health conditions. Soy is a nutrient-dense source of protein that can safely be consumed several times a week, and probably more often, and is likely to provide health benefits—especially when eaten as an alternative to red and processed meat.

Soy is exalted as a health food by some, with claims of taming hot flashes, warding off osteoporosis, and protecting against hormonal cancers like breast and prostate.

At the same time, soy is shunned by others for fear that it may cause breast cancer, thyroid problems, and dementia, though these claims have not been substantiated.

Whether published in a popular press article or a well-designed clinical study, some debate about soy remains. As a species within the legume family , nutrition scientists often label soy as a food with potential for significant health benefits. However, due to contrary research that suggests possible negative effects of soy in certain situations, there has been a hesitancy to wholeheartedly promote soy.

Part of the uncertainty is due to the intricacy of soy’s effects on the body. Soy is unique in that it contains a high concentration of isoflavones, a type of plant estrogen (phytoestrogen) that is similar in function to human estrogen but with much weaker effects. Soy isoflavones can bind to estrogen receptors in the body and cause either weak estrogenic or anti-estrogenic activity. The two major soy isoflavones are called genistein and daidzein. Soy isoflavones and soy protein appear to have different actions in the body based on the following factors:

• Type of study . Is it being examined in a study with animals or humans? Soy may be metabolized differently in animals, so the outcomes of animal studies may not be applicable to humans.
• Hormone levels . Because soy can have estrogenic properties, its effects can vary depending on the existing level of hormones in the body. Premenopausal women have much higher circulating levels of estradiol—the major form of estrogen in the human body—than postmenopausal women. In this context soy may act like an anti-estrogen, but among postmenopausal women soy may act more like an estrogen. Also, women with breast cancer are classified into hormone type—either hormone positive (ER+/PR+) or hormone negative (ER-/PR-) breast cancer—and these tumors respond differently to estrogens.
• Type of soy . What type of soy is being studied: Whole soy foods such as tofu and soybeans, processed versions like soy protein powders, or soy-based veggie burgers? Fermented or unfermented soy foods? If supplements are used, do they contain isoflavones or soy protein?

Thus, there are many factors that make it difficult to construct blanket statements about the health effects of soy. 

Aside from their isoflavone content, soy foods are rich in nutrients including B vitamins , fiber , potassium , magnesium , and high-quality protein . Unlike some plant proteins, soy protein is considered a complete protein, containing all nine essential amino acids that the body cannot make which must be obtained from the diet. Soy foods are also classified as fermented or unfermented (see table with examples, below). Fermented means that the soy food has been cultured with beneficial bacteria , yeast, or mold. Some believe that fermenting soy improves its digestibility and absorption in the body, as this process partially breaks down soy’s sugar and protein molecules.

Research on Soy and Disease

Learn more about the research on soy and specific diseases or other conditions:

Soy protein took center stage after research showed that it might lower levels of harmful cholesterol. A 1995 meta-analysis of 38 controlled clinical trials showed that eating approximately 50 grams of soy protein a day (no small amount as this translates to 1½ pounds of tofu or eight 8-ounce glasses of soy milk!) in place of animal protein reduced harmful LDL cholesterol by 12.9 percent. [1] Such reductions, if sustained over time, could mean a greater than 20% lower risk of heart attack, stroke, or other forms of cardiovascular disease. In response to this finding, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed companies to claim that diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that also contain soy “may reduce the risk of heart disease.” [2]

However, a number of studies since have tempered that finding. [3] According to a comprehensive update of soy research by the nutrition committee of the American Heart Association (AHA) published in 2000, eating 50 grams of soy per day lowered LDL by only about 3%. [3] In October 2017, after review of additional scientific studies since the health claim was authorized, the FDA proposed a rule to revoke the claim because numerous studies presented inconsistent findings on the relationship between soy protein and heart disease. [4] Some of these inconsistencies may have resulted because soy was compared with a variety of alternative foods.

Even though soy protein may have only a small direct effect on cholesterol, soy may still benefit the heart in other ways. An epidemiological study following three large cohorts of American men and women who did not have cardiovascular disease at the start of the study found that those who ate the highest amounts of tofu and isoflavones from soy foods, compared with those who ate the least, had an 18% and 13% lower risk, respectively, of developing heart disease. [5] The benefit of tofu was stronger in premenopausal women and postmenopausal women not using hormone therapy.

Soy foods are generally good for the heart and blood vessels because they provide polyunsaturated fat, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and are low in saturated fat. Replacing red meat with plant proteins including soy foods, beans, and nuts was associated with a 14% lower risk of heart disease, as found in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, a large long-term epidemiological study of more than 43,000 men. [6] Another large cohort of more than 500,000 Chinese adults with no previous cardiovascular disease found that those with the highest intakes of soy (4+ days a week) compared with those who never ate soy had a 25% lower risk of deaths from heart attack. [7]

Hormone replacement therapy has traditionally been used as an effective treatment for hot flashes and other unpleasant symptoms that accompany menopause, but its long-term use has raised concerns of an increased risk of some diseases including breast cancer and stroke. Soy has been a popular alternative treatment but not clearly supported by research; in theory the potential estrogenic effects of soy isoflavones could help to tame hot flashes by giving an estrogen-like boost during a time of dwindling estrogen levels.

In many Far East Asian countries where soy is eaten daily, women have lower rates of menopausal symptoms, although research is conflicting as to whether soy is a primary contributor. [8] Reports suggest that about 70–80% of U.S. women of menopausal and perimenopausal age experience hot flashes, in comparison with 10–20% of Far Eastern Asian women. [9] Further, the average blood concentration of the isoflavone genistein in Asian women who regularly consume soy is about 12 times higher than that of U.S. women. [9]

Yet several meta-analyses and carefully controlled clinical studies have not found strong evidence of a link. [10,11] An AHA review in 2006 concluded that it was unlikely that soy isoflavones exert enough estrogenic activity to have an important impact on hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause. [3] A JAMA review the same year found highly conflicting results with soy isoflavone extracts and stated that the overall evidence did not support its benefit in relieving hot flashes. [12]

In another review of 43 randomized controlled trials have examined the effects of phytoestrogens on hot flashes and night sweats in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Four trials found that extracts of 30 mg or greater of genistein consistently reduced the frequency of hot flashes. Other trials that used dietary soy or soy extracts suggested a reduced frequency and severity of hot flashes and night sweats when compared with placebo, but these trials were small with a possible strong placebo effect. [8] No adverse effects were noted from the soy treatments when followed for up to two years, but the authors did not feel overall there was strong and consistent evidence for a benefit of soy.

Another meta-analysis of 16 studies found that soy isoflavone supplements had a small and gradual effect in weakening menopausal hot flashes compared with estradiol (human estrogen). However, authors noted weaknesses in the analysis due to a small number of participants and high variability in study design. [9]

A more recent review of randomized trials found that some studies showed benefit of soy supplements on hot flashes; the therapeutic dosage ranged from 40-70 mg of isoflavones daily. [13] The authors also observed that the presence of equol (a protective substance made from the breakdown of isoflavones that only some women can produce) may be needed for isoflavones to effectively reduce hot flashes. Despite these results, the study authors did not offer a confident conclusion on the use of isoflavone supplements due to variations in study design and length; differences in the types and dosages of supplements; and the small sample sizes and high drop-out rates.

This area needs further research as questions remain about a possible benefit of soy. Results are conflicting, potentially due to variation in the types of soy preparations used, the quantities given, and for how long they are used.

Phytoestrogens don’t always mimic estrogen. In some tissues and in some people, they may block the action of estrogen. If soy’s estrogen-blocking action occurs in the breast, then eating soy could, in theory, reduce the risk of breast cancer because estrogen stimulates the growth and multiplication of breast and breast cancer cells. Studies so far have not provided a clear answer. Some have shown a benefit with soy consumption and breast cancer while others show no association. [14-17] It appears that the effects of soy may vary depending on menopausal status, the age at which soy is consumed, and type of breast cancer.

In animal and cell studies, high dosages of isoflavone or isolated soy protein extracts tend to stimulate breast cancer growth. [18,19] However, studies that observe people consuming soy foods over time show either a protective or neutral effect. Women from Asian countries appear to receive greater protective benefit from breast cancer with high soy intakes than American and European women, but this may simply be a difference in the amount of soy consumed. [20,21] Asian women may have higher levels of equol, a substance metabolized from the isoflavone daidzein by bacterial flora in the intestines. [22] Equol is believed to block potentially negative effects of human estrogen, but not all women possess the bacteria needed to create equol. [23] It is estimated that 30-50% of all humans are able to produce equol. [24] Eating soy foods starting at an early age (such as those found in many traditional Far East Asian diets) may be why women from some countries find greater benefit from soy foods than others. [19] However, the overall evidence on equol and cancer risk is unsettled. [25]

The Shanghai Women’s Health Study which followed 73,223 Chinese women for more than 7 years has been the largest and most detailed study of soy and breast cancer risk in a population with high soy consumption. [26] In this study, women who ate the most soy had a 59% lower risk of premenopausal breast cancer compared with those who ate the lowest amounts of soy. There was no association with postmenopausal breast cancer. Risk was 43% lower when soy was eaten during adolescence. Seven years later, the study authors published a follow-up analysis from the same cohort over 13 years to evaluate any association between soy foods and specific types of breast cancer defined by hormone receptors and by menopausal status (Estrogen [ER] +/-; Progesterone [PR] +/-). [27] Key highlights of the study:

• A 22% lower risk of breast cancer when comparing the highest to lowest intakes of soy during adulthood.
• A 28% lower risk of hormone positive (ER+, PR+) breast cancer in postmenopausal women.
• A 54% lower risk of hormone negative (ER-, PR-) breast cancer in premenopausal women.
• A 47% lower risk of premenopausal breast cancer when comparing high to low intakes of soy during adolescence and adulthood.

The Breast Cancer Family Registry was a prospective study following 6,235 women for 9 years diagnosed with breast cancer and living in the U.S. and Canada; intake of soy isoflavones was examined in relation to deaths from all causes. [28] Key highlights of the study:

• Women who ate the highest amounts of soy isoflavones had a 21% lower risk of death compared with women with the lowest intakes.
• Women who had ER-/PR- tumors and who were not receiving tamoxifen appeared to receive greatest benefit from the higher soy isoflavone intakes. However, isoflavone intake did not have a negative impact on women who were receiving tamoxifen or who had ER+/PR+ tumors.
• Of all ethnicities, Asian American women tended to have the highest isoflavone intakes at about 6 mg daily, but this amount was still much lower than women living in Asian countries who eat closer to 46 mg daily. The authors noted that American women appeared to benefit from eating smaller amounts of soy.

Another prospective study followed 1,954 American women who were breast cancer survivors for six years. [29] Key highlights of the study:

• Among postmenopausal women treated with tamoxifen, breast cancer recurrence was 60% lower when comparing the highest to the lowest daidzein (a specific type of soy isoflavone) No benefit was observed in women who had never used tamoxifen.
• Recurrence was lower with increasing isoflavone intake among women with tumors that were ER+/PR+ but not ER-/PR-.
• The most frequent sources of soy foods were not whole or minimally processed soy foods, but rather soy sauce, breakfast or diet drinks, tofu, diet bars, and soy protein isolate powder. The mean amount of isoflavones in the “high” category was about 19 mg daidzein and 27 mg genistein daily—a modest amount compared with Asian populations.
• The authors concluded that soy isoflavones eaten at levels comparable to those in Asian populations may reduce the risk of cancer recurrence in women receiving tamoxifen therapy and does not appear to interfere with tamoxifen efficacy. However, the findings need to be confirmed because they were mainly in subgroups and could be due to chance.

Prospective studies also find soy foods to be protective from breast cancer deaths:

• A cohort study of 1,460 Chinese women who were early-stage breast cancer survivors looked at dietary soy isoflavone intakes at baseline and after the breast cancer diagnosis, over a four-year period. [30] Higher soy intakes at baseline were associated with a 66% lower risk of deaths from any cause and a 64% lower risk of deaths from breast cancer. Higher soy intakes after diagnosis were associated with a 64% and 51% lower risk of deaths, from any cause and from breast cancer, respectively. The effects were greater in women who were premenopausal, had ER-/PR- tumors, and were taking tamoxifen.
• A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies found a 12% reduction in breast cancer deaths with each 5 gram per day increase in soy protein intake. [31]

However, randomized controlled trials do not show an effect of soy foods on risk factors for breast cancer:

• A review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) looked at isoflavone intakes ranging from 36-235 mg/day from food or supplements, taken from 1 month to 3 years, and breast cancer risk (as measured by breast density, changes in estrogen, and bloodwork) in healthy women. [32] The eighteen RCTs included both pre- and postmenopausal participants. No changes in breast cancer risk factors were found with isoflavone intakes. The authors noted limitations in their analysis in that there were wide variations in numbers of participants and the doses and duration of treatments, which made drawing firm conclusions difficult. Most importantly, these studies did not examine actual incidence of breast cancer.

The incidence of prostate cancer is highest in Western countries and lowest in Asian countries, where soy foods are a regular part of the daily diet. In addition, observational studies have found an increased risk of prostate cancer in Chinese and Japanese men who move to Western countries and adopt a Western diet, but not in those who continue eating a traditional diet. [33] Soy isoflavones, specifically genistein and daidzein, are incorporated in prostate tissue and may act as weak estrogens and inhibit the development of prostate cancer. [34]

In a meta-analysis of 30 case-control and cohort studies from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China, intakes of total soy foods, genistein, daidzein, and unfermented soy foods were associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer. [34]

A review of eight randomized controlled trials examined the effects of soy in men with or at risk of developing prostate cancer. Two of these studies found that isoflavone supplements or dietary soy protein reduced the risk of prostate cancer in men at high risk of developing the disease. However, none of the studies found a significant effect on prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, a protein produced by the prostate gland that is used to detect prostate cancer. There were no adverse effects reported with soy supplementation. The authors discussed limitations of the review including the small number of participants, the short duration of studies (less than one year), and variation in dosages and types of soy given. [33]

A small randomized controlled trial in 2021 examined if soy protein supplements could slow down or reverse rising PSA levels in men who had previously been diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer, but who had a recurrence (as evidenced by rising PSA levels). The study found that even though the soy protein supplements increased blood levels of genistein, there was no effect of the supplement versus placebo on PSA levels when given for 6-8 months. [35]

Fermented soy foods commonly eaten in East Asian diets, including natto, tempeh, soy paste, and soy sauce, contain isoflavones and also bacteria that might have benefits for neurological disorders including cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and Parkinson’s disease (PD). Soy’s antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects may reduce the oxidative stresses associated with AD and PD. [36] Animal studies have suggest that soy compounds can weaken the progression of AD and prevent nerve cell death. They also find that soy can reduce inflammation and excess free radical production in the brain. AD has been associated with decreased levels of beneficial anti-inflammatory bacteria while harboring increased levels of proinflammatory bacteria.  Fermented soy foods are produced with beneficial bacteria like Lactobacilli, Bifidobacteria, and Bacillus species that produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that regulates immune function and is being investigated for its protective effects on the brain.

Long-term low levels of estrogen the occur in menopausal women can reduce the number of estrogen receptors in the brain that are necessary for specific cognitive functions like memory and learning. [37] The soy isoflavone, daidzein, has been hypothesized to reduce decline in cognitive function or disease processes related to cognition and behavior. Thus, the possibility has been raised that eating soy foods might help prevent age-related memory loss or decline in thinking skills. [38]

Studies in humans, however, are not conclusive on soy’s effects on the brain:

• Trials have yielded contradictory results, with some showing a benefit with soy isoflavone supplementation [39, 40] and others showing no benefit. [41-43] A review of 13 randomized controlled trials found that in about half of the studies, isoflavone supplementation had a beneficial effect on cognition in older men and women compared with controls, including improvements in attention, information-processing speed, and memory. However the results overall were mixed, with other studies not demonstrating a benefit. This may have been due to differing dosages given or the types of cognition tests used. [37]

One large study in men found a detrimental effect on cognitive function. In a prospective cohort study of more than 3,700 Japanese-American men living in Hawaii, those with the highest intakes of tofu (eaten almost daily) at midlife ages had greater cognitive impairment and brain atrophy in late life compared with men with the lowest tofu intakes (almost never eaten). [44] However, the actual number of men eating very high amounts of tofu was small, and past dietary information was collected by relying on the participants’ memory, some of whom may have already experienced cognitive decline. Because of this, the researchers stated that the findings were too preliminary to make recommendations. [45]

A meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials found that although soy supplements raised thyroid stimulating hormone levels slightly, they did not have any effect on actual thyroid hormone production. [46] However, another study found that soy may interfere with thyroid hormone medication used to treat hypothyroidism. In one randomized double-blinded trial, 60 patients with a mild form of hypothyroidism (called subclinical hypothyroidism) were given low or high-dose phytoestrogen supplements (both also contained 30 grams of soy protein), the amount that might be obtained from a vegetarian diet. [47] Risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism was increased in the higher phytoestrogen group (no effect in the lower phytoestrogen group). The authors suggested that female vegetarian patients with subclinical hypothyroidism may need more careful monitoring of thyroid function. However, the authors also found a benefit on of reduced cardiovascular risk factors in the high phytoestrogen group, with a significant reduction in insulin resistance, inflammatory markers, and blood pressure. The effect of soy on thyroid function needs further examination.

• Anderson JW, Johnstone BM, Cook-Newell ME. Meta-analysis of the effects of soy protein intake on serum lipids. New England Journal of Medicine . 1995 Aug 3;333(5):276-82.
• Code of Federal Regulations. Health claims: Soy protein and risk of coronary heart disease . 21CFR101.82. 2001.
• Sacks FM, Lichtenstein A, Van Horn L, Harris W, Kris-Etherton P, Winston M. Soy protein, isoflavones, and cardiovascular health: an American Heart Association Science Advisory for professionals from the Nutrition Committee. Circulation . 2006 Feb 21;113(7):1034-44.
• FDA Statement. Statement from Susan Mayne, Ph.D. , on proposal to revoke health claim that soy protein reduces risk of heart disease. October 30, 2017. Accessed 3/26/2018.
• Ma L, Liu G, Ding M, Zong G, Hu FB, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Manson JE, Sun Q. Isoflavone intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in US men and women: results from 3 prospective cohort studies. Circulation . 2020 Apr 7;141(14):1127-37.
• Al-Shaar L, Satija A, Wang DD, Rimm EB, Smith-Warner SA, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, Willett WC. Red meat intake and risk of coronary heart disease among US men: Prospective cohort study. BMJ . 2020 Dec 2;371.
• Wang X, Yu C, Lv J, Li L, Hu Y, Liu K, Shirai K, Iso H, Dong JY. Consumption of soy products and cardiovascular mortality in people with and without cardiovascular disease: a prospective cohort study of 0.5 million individuals. European Journal of Nutrition . 2021 Jun 2:1-0.
• Lethaby A, Marjoribanks J, Kronenberg F, Roberts H, Eden J, Brown J. Phytoestrogens for menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2013 Dec 10;(12):CD001395
• Li L, Lv Y, Xu L, Zheng Q. Quantitative efficacy of soy isoflavones on menopausal hot flashes. British journal of clinical pharmacology . 2015 Apr;79(4):593-604.
• Krebs EE, Ensrud KE, MacDonald R, Wilt TJ. Phytoestrogens for treatment of menopausal symptoms: a systematic review. Obstetrics & Gynecology . 2004 Oct 1;104(4):824-36.
•  Kronenberg F, Fugh-Berman A. Complementary and alternative medicine for menopausal symptoms: a review of randomized, controlled trials. Annals of internal medicine . 2002 Nov 19;137(10):805-13.
• Nelson HD, Vesco KK, Haney E, Fu R, Nedrow A, Miller J, Nicolaidis C, Walker M, Humphrey L. Nonhormonal therapies for menopausal hot flashes: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA . 2006 May 3;295(17):2057-71.
• Chen LR, Ko NY, Chen KH. Isoflavone supplements for menopausal women: A systematic review. Nutrients . 2019 Nov;11(11):2649.
• Trock BJ, Hilakivi-Clarke L, Clarke R. Meta-analysis of soy intake and breast cancer risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute . 2006 Apr 5;98(7):459-71.
• Michels KB, Mohllajee AP, Roset-Bahmanyar E, Beehler GP, Moysich KB. Diet and breast cancer: a review of the prospective observational studies. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society . 2007 Jun 15;109:2712-49.
• Linos E, Willett WC. Diet and breast cancer risk reduction. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network . 2007 Sep 1;5(8):809-16.
• Zhao TT, Jin F, Li JG, Xu YY, Dong HT, Liu Q, Xing P, Zhu GL, Xu H, Miao ZF. Dietary isoflavones or isoflavone-rich food intake and breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Clinical nutrition . 2019 Feb 1;38(1):136-45.
• de Lemos ML. Effects of soy phytoestrogens genistein and daidzein on breast cancer growth. Annals of Pharmacotherapy . 2001 Sep;35(9):1118-21.
• Allred CD, Allred KF, Ju YH, Virant SM, Helferich WG. Soy diets containing varying amounts of genistein stimulate growth of estrogen-dependent (MCF-7) tumors in a dose-dependent manner. Cancer research . 2001 Jul 1;61(13):5045-50.
• Maskarinec G, Ju D, Morimoto Y, Franke AA, Stanczyk FZ. Soy Food Intake and Biomarkers of Breast Cancer Risk: Possible Difference in Asian Women?. Nutrition and cancer . 2017 Jan 2;69(1):146-53.
• Chen M, Rao Y, Zheng Y, Wei S, Li Y, Guo T, Yin P. Association between soy isoflavone intake and breast cancer risk for pre-and post-menopausal women: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. PloS one . 2014 Feb 20;9(2):e89288.
• Setchell KD, Brown NM, Lydeking-Olsen E. The clinical importance of the metabolite equol—a clue to the effectiveness of soy and its isoflavones. The Journal of nutrition . 2002 Dec 1;132(12):3577-84.
• Yuan JP, Wang JH, Liu X. Metabolism of dietary soy isoflavones to equol by human intestinal microflora–implications for health. Molecular nutrition & food research . 2007 Jul;51(7):765-81.
• Atkinson C, Frankenfeld CL, Lampe JW. Gut bacterial metabolism of the soy isoflavone daidzein: exploring the relevance to human health. Experimental biology and medicine . 2005 Mar;230(3):155-70.
• Lampe JW. Emerging Research on Equol and Cancer–3. The Journal of nutrition . 2010 May 26;140(7):1369S-72S.
• Lee SA, Shu XO, Li H, Yang G, Cai H, Wen W, Ji BT, Gao J, Gao YT, Zheng W. Adolescent and adult soy food intake and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Women’s Health Study–. The American journal of clinical nutrition . 2009 Apr 29;89(6):1920-6.
• Baglia ML, Zheng W, Li H, Yang G, Gao J, Gao YT, Shu XO. The association of soy food consumption with the risk of subtype of breast cancers defined by hormone receptor and HER2 status. International journal of cancer . 2016 Aug 15;139(4):742-8.
• Zhang FF, Haslam DE, Terry MB, Knight JA, Andrulis IL, Daly MB, Buys SS, John EM. Dietary isoflavone intake and all-cause mortality in breast cancer survivors: The Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer . 2017 Jun 1;123(11):2070-9.
• Guha N, Kwan ML, Quesenberry CP, Weltzien EK, Castillo AL, Caan BJ. Soy isoflavones and risk of cancer recurrence in a cohort of breast cancer survivors: the Life After Cancer Epidemiology study. Breast cancer research and treatment . 2009 Nov 1;118(2):395-405.
• Ho SC, Yeo W, Goggins W, Kwok C, Cheng A, Chong M, Lee R, Cheung KL. Pre-diagnosis and early post-diagnosis dietary soy isoflavone intake and survival outcomes: A prospective cohort study of early stage breast cancer survivors. Cancer Treatment and Research Communications . 2021 Jan 1;27:100350.
• Nachvak SM, Moradi S, Anjom-Shoae J, Rahmani J, Nasiri M, Maleki V, Sadeghi O. Soy, soy isoflavones, and protein intake in relation to mortality from all causes, cancers, and cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics . 2019 Sep 1;119(9):1483-500.
• Finkeldey L, Schmitz E, Ellinger S. Effect of the Intake of Isoflavones on Risk Factors of Breast Cancer—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Intervention Studies. Nutrients . 2021 Jul;13(7):2309.
• van Die MD, Bone KM, Williams SG, Pirotta MV. Soy and soy isoflavones in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJU international . 2014 May;113(5b):E119-30.
• Applegate CC, Rowles JL, Ranard KM, Jeon S, Erdman JW. Soy consumption and the risk of prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients . 2018 Jan 4;10(1):40.
• Bosland MC, Schmoll J, Watanabe H, Randolph C, Kato I. Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Six-Month Intervention Study of Soy Protein Isolate in Men with Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy: A Pilot Study. Nutrition and Cancer . 2021 Mar 18:1-0.
• Jang CH, Oh J, Lim JS, Kim HJ, Kim JS. Fermented soy products: Beneficial potential in neurodegenerative diseases. Foods . 2021 Mar;10(3):636.
• Thaung Zaw JJ, Howe PR, Wong RH. Does phytoestrogen supplementation improve cognition in humans? A systematic review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences . 2017 Sep 1;1403(1):150-63.
• Ahmed T, Javed S, Tariq A, Onofrio G, Daglia M, Fazel Nabavi S, Mohammad Nabavi S. Daidzein and its Effects on Brain. Current medicinal chemistry . 2017 Feb 1;24(4):365-75.
• Kritz-Silverstein D, Von Mühlen D, Barrett-Connor E, Bressel MA. Isoflavones and cognitive function in older women: the SOy and Postmenopausal Health In Aging (SOPHIA) Study. Menopause . 2003 May 1;10(3):196-202.
• Basaria S, Wisniewski A, Dupree K, Bruno T, Song MY, Yao F, Ojumu A, John M, Dobs AS. Effect of high-dose isoflavones on cognition, quality of life, androgens, and lipoprotein in post-menopausal women. Journal of endocrinological investigation . 2009 Feb 1;32(2):150-5.
• Kreijkamp-Kaspers S, Kok L, Grobbee DE, De Haan EH, Aleman A, Lampe JW, Van Der Schouw YT. Effect of soy protein containing isoflavones on cognitive function, bone mineral density, and plasma lipids in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA . 2004 Jul 7;292(1):65-74.
• Fournier LR, Ryan-Borchers TA, Robison LM, Wiediger M, Park J, Chew BP, McGuire MK, Sclar DA, Skaer TL, Beerman KA. The effects of soy milk and isoflavone supplements on cognitive performance in healthy, postmenopausal women. Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging . 2007 Mar 1;11(2):155.
• Ho SC, Chan AS, Ho YP, So EK, Sham A, Zee B, Woo JL. Effects of soy isoflavone supplementation on cognitive function in Chinese postmenopausal women: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Menopause . 2007 May 1;14(3):489-99.
• White LR, Petrovitch H, Ross GW, Masaki K, Hardman J, Nelson J, Davis D, Markesbery W. Brain aging and midlife tofu consumption. Journal of the American College of Nutrition . 2000 Apr 1;19(2):242-55.
• Grodstein F, Mayeux R, Stampfer MJ. Tofu and cognitive function: food for thought.  J Am Coll Nutr . 2000 Apr;19(2):207-9.
• Otun J, Sahebkar A, Östlundh L, Atkin SL, Sathyapalan T. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of soy on thyroid function. Scientific reports . 2019 Mar 8;9(1):1-9.
• Sathyapalan T, Manuchehri AM, Thatcher NJ, Rigby AS, Chapman T, Kilpatrick ES, Atkin SL. The effect of soy phytoestrogen supplementation on thyroid status and cardiovascular risk markers in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism: a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism . 2011 May 1;96(5):1442-9.

Last reviewed January 2022

Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

Research/Study Research/Study

Project 2025 plans to dismantle the federal agency that tracks hurricanes

Right-wing media have attacked NOAA and climate science for decades

Special Programs Climate & Energy

Written by Allison Fisher

Published 05/31/24 3:07 PM EDT

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency that predicts changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coastlines and provides data that informs lifesaving forecasts such as tracking hurricanes, is in the crosshairs of Project 2025 , the conservative battle plan for a potential second Trump presidency which describes NOAA as a “colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.” But researchers have pushed back on these charges and defended NOAA’s climate data and meteorological work — while forecasters are predicting an “ extremely active ” Atlantic hurricane season and experts say this summer could rival last year’s record heat .

Project 2025’s call to dismantle NOAA by eliminating or privatizing key functions of the agency is the endgame of years of attempts by conservatives and right-wing media to attack the credibility of the agency and the veracity of the data it produces. It also illustrates that the conservative plan is not just to dismantle U.S. climate policy , but also to scrub the climate data that underpins it.

Project 2025 calls to end NOAA’s “climate alarmism” and “fully commercialize its forecasting operations”

Project 2025, a comprehensive transition plan to guide the next GOP presidential administration organized by right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, is the conservative movement’s most robust policy and staffing proposal for a potential second Trump White House.

• Project 2025’s chapter attacking NOAA was penned by Thomas Gilman, a former Trump Commerce Department official who recommends that the agency “should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.” Among other recommendations for how NOAA “should be broken up and downsized,” Gilman’s chapter for Project 2025 calls for the National Weather Service to “fully commercialize its forecasting operations”; demands that research from the National Hurricane Center and the National Environmental Satellite Service be reviewed to ensure it is “presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate”; and suggests the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research “should be disbanded” as “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism.” [Project 2025, Mandate for Leadership , 2023 ]
• Experts say Project 2025’s cuts to NOAA could have devastating impacts on climate research and weather forecasting. E&E News notes: “The National Hurricane Center’s mission is centered on informing and warning the public about potentially deadly storms, and as part of that work, it has connected the effects of climate change to hurricane intensity. The brushback it gets in the Project 2025 playbook speaks to past insinuations from Republicans that government agencies are manipulating data to make climate change appear worse.” Speaking to The Guardian, former NOAA official Andrew Rosenberg said the agency “basically reports the science as the scientific evidence accumulates and has been quite cautious about reporting climate effects,” adding, “It’s not pushing some agenda.” And meteorologist Chris Gloninger said Project 2025’s recommendations are “a sign that the far right has ‘no interest in climate truth.’” [E&E News, 4/10/24 ; The Guardian, 4/26/24 ]

Right-wing media’s long war on climate and temperature data

For decades, climate deniers working in right-wing media, government, and fossil fuel-funded think tanks have cast doubts on climate research and falsely suggested that NOAA’s temperature data has been altered to push climate change. 

• In 2010, right-wing media boosted the false claim that NASA and NOAA “cherry-picked” the locations of weather observation stations in order to bias their temperature records in favor of warmer temperatures. The claim was made by meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, a longtime climate denier who at one time received funding from the Heartland Institute, and computer programmer Michael Smith. Climate experts pushed back that Smith and D'Aleo's claims were flawed and based on “misunderstanding or misrepresentation” of how global temperature data is calculated and compiled, explaining that there is “certainly no evidence of deliberate manipulation.” [Media Matters, 1/27/10 ; Desmog.com, accessed 5/30/24 ]
• During a record 2011 heat wave, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the heat index was a government conspiracy. “They are playing games with us on this heat wave,” Limbaugh said. “The heat index manufactured by the government, they tell you what it feels like when you add the humidity in there — 116. When was the last time the heat index was reported as an actual temperature? It hasn’t been, but it looks like they’re trying to get away with doing that now.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show , 7/20/11 ]
• Citing a 2017 blog post from a former agency scientist, right-wing media and congressional Republicans insisted that NOAA “‘played fast and loose’ with temperature data to disprove the theory of a global warming ‘pause’" ahead of the 2015 Paris climate accord, though the claim of data manipulation was meritless. “Climate skeptics have called that proof of massive fraud among federal climate researchers and said it allowed world leaders to be ‘duped’ into signing the Paris climate agreement to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel use,” E&E News wrote, but the former NOAA scientist behind the claims later said “he was actually calling out a former colleague for not properly following agency standards for research” and denied the idea that there was any data fraud. [Media Matters, 9/25/17 ; E&E News, 2/7/17 ]
• In June 2023, Fox’s The Ingraham Angle hosted the Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, a former television weatherman and climate skeptic, who pushed the false claim that NOAA is manipulating temperature data. Watts claimed that “96% of the weather stations in the United States used to measure climate by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration are compromised.” Watts has been making this claim since at least 2009, when Heartland published his first study on the subject, although his conclusions have been widely debunked. [YouTube, 7/10/23 ; Wattsupwiththat.com, accessed 5/22/24 ; PolitiFact, 8/19/22 ]
• As multiple countries suffered dangerous and ongoing heat waves in July 2023, right-wing media influencer James Lindsay downplayed the severity of extreme heat and promoted a purposeful misinterpretation of “wet-bulb” temperature to his followers. A chorus of social media users also echoed his sentiment, with some even suggesting that wet-bulb temperatures — a way to measure the stress that heat puts on the body relative to humidity — are a hoax fabricated by the government to frighten people. [Media Matters, 7/21/23 ]
• When media outlets reported on the announcement that 2023 was the hottest year on record, Fox host Jesse Watters repeated the bogus claim, based on the debunked Heartland Institute study, that NOAA’s placement of thermometers on urban concrete skewed temperature data. “Concrete and asphalt attract heat and retain heat a lot more than the countryside,” Watters said. “No wonder we think the earth’s warming. We’re literally cooking the books.” [Media Matters, 2/1/24 ]

Right-wing media undermine and attack the science that links hurricanes to warming temperatures

Right-wing media have long attacked data that links increasing ocean temperatures — fueled by climate change — to increasingly intense hurricanes, suggesting those reporting the connection are politicizing or weaponizing the weather.

• After Hurricane Irma devastated parts of the U.S. in 2017, Fox News hosted climate denier scientist Roy Spencer to undermine the science that links more intense storms to a warming planet. Spencer, known as Rush Limbaugh's “official climatologist,” claimed: “As you go through time, there has been no increase in the number of major land-falling hurricanes in Florida, and there's been no increase in their intensity.” While climate scientists predict that “storm frequency will either decrease or remain unchanged” due to climate change and studies consistently show “no discernible trend in the global number of tropical cyclones,” data has confirmed that warmer temperatures have increased their intensity — including stronger wind speeds and greater precipitation. [Media Matters, 9/13/17 ; Yale Climate Communications, 7/8/19 ]
• On Fox’s Hannity , climate-denying meteorologist Joe Bastardi said that those who make the connection to climate change are “weaponizing weather” and claimed that hurricane activity was decreasing. Bastardi said: “The amount of hurricanes [in] the last 50 years, from Florida to New England, is 37% of what it was the previous 50 years, so if there’s climate change going on, it's actually decreasing the amount of major hits.” Discussing the frequency of hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. to disprove the impact of climate change on storms is a red herring that is frequently used by bad actors as climate scientists discuss the impacts of warming temperatures on the intensity of storms, not how often they occur. [Fox News, Hannity , 9/14/18 ; Media Matters, 8/17/11 ; PolitiFact, 9/9/21 ]
• While discussing Hurricane Dorian on The Story with Martha MacCallum , Spencer downplayed climate change’s impact by stating that there is “no long term trend in either their intensity or in the number of major hurricanes … that have hit Florida.” [Fox News, The Story with Martha MacCallum , 9/2/19 ]
• In the days after Hurricane Ida’s remnants ravaged the Northeast in September 2021, Fox News and Fox Business together aired at least a dozen segments that claimed Democrats were using the storm as a pretext to implement a massive climate agenda. On Tucker Carlson Tonight , guest host Brian Kilmeade claimed that President Joe Biden is “using these disasters for political purposes … to pass his infrastructure bill to stop climate change,” while Bastardi claimed that the frequency of bad storms from the past disproves this connection between climate change and the intensification of hurricanes. [Media Matters, 9/10/21 ; Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight , 9/8/21 ]
• In 2022, Fox News relentlessly attacked climate science as Hurricane Ian approached and made landfall in Florida . After citing a NOAA research overview highlighting that hurricanes are predicted to become more intense, then-Fox host Tucker Carlson insisted that “the claim is never proven” and that “there’s no science behind these claims.” Carlson later added: “They’re called natural disasters. … They’re products of nature, God is in charge.” [Media Matters, 9/30/22 ]

During Donald Trump’s presidency, he attempted to remake NOAA and took several steps to roll back climate action and undermine the science that underpins it — all while being cheered on and supported by right-wing media

• On Trump’s Inauguration Day in 2017, “climate” was scrubbed from the White House website. Six months later he withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accord – a move that drew cheers from the right-wing media, and over the course of his presidency he systematically rolled back more than 100 climate and environmental policies. [The Atlantic, 12/4/23 ; Media Matters, 6/1/17 ; The Washington Post, 10/30/20 ]
• In 2018, Trump attempted to bury a landmark scientific report produced by the federal government’s own scientists including those working for NOAA . In the aftermath of the release, climate deniers and right-wing media figures fanned out on TV news networks to spread falsehoods and ridiculous claims about the report — including suggestions that climate scientists who contributed to the report are driven by money. [The New York Times, 11/25/18 ; Media Matters, 12/4/18 ]
• In one bizarre example of Trump undermining weather forecasting in 2019, also know as Sharpiegate, the former president baselessly claimed that Hurricane Dorian would hit Alabama despite assurances from the National Weather Service that the state was not in its path. NOAA then rebuked the NWS scientists in support of the former president. The New York Times reported that NOAA knew the hurricane would not hit Alabama when it chastised the scientists, noting that the emails proving that “shed new light on how the weather can turn political in an administration that demands loyalty to Mr. Trump even when his positions are at odds with scientific facts.” [The Guardian, 9/4/19 ; The Washington Post, 9/6/19 ; The New York Times, 11/7/19 ]
• In 2020, while in California visiting the site of a destructive wildfire, Trump claimed that the Earth was actually cooling and blamed forest management for the fires. While national cable and broadcast coverage pushed back against Trump’s comments, Fox News ran cover for Trump by keeping up a steady drumbeat of climate denial and misinformation. [Media Matters, 9/24/20 , 9/17/20 ]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Serv Res
• v.34(5 Pt 2); 1999 Dec

Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.

Varying philosophical and theoretical orientations to qualitative inquiry remind us that issues of quality and credibility intersect with audience and intended research purposes. This overview examines ways of enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis by dealing with three distinct but related inquiry concerns: rigorous techniques and methods for gathering and analyzing qualitative data, including attention to validity, reliability, and triangulation; the credibility, competence, and perceived trustworthiness of the qualitative researcher; and the philosophical beliefs of evaluation users about such paradigm-based preferences as objectivity versus subjectivity, truth versus perspective, and generalizations versus extrapolations. Although this overview examines some general approaches to issues of credibility and data quality in qualitative analysis, it is important to acknowledge that particular philosophical underpinnings, specific paradigms, and special purposes for qualitative inquiry will typically include additional or substitute criteria for assuring and judging quality, validity, and credibility. Moreover, the context for these considerations has evolved. In early literature on evaluation methods the debate between qualitative and quantitative methodologists was often strident. In recent years the debate has softened. A consensus has gradually emerged that the important challenge is to match appropriately the methods to empirical questions and issues, and not to universally advocate any single methodological approach for all problems.

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (2.0M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page.