How do you determine credible and relevant sources from diverse backgrounds?

In my experience it is also critical to be clear on the end goal and the solution you wish to strive for. This helps in ensuring a focussed approach.

While preparing for your research, I believe it is critical to focus on your audience. Are they managers and leaders who need practical solutions ? Or they are academics who need strong impact resources and journals? The idea is to find the sources that would have better impact on the audience. Mckinsey, BCG White papers are good for corporate research, however research databases; clarivate, Jstor and others are more rigorous for academia.

Having a clear goal puts the whole project in perspective. Everything you do will be guided towards achieving that goal. What purpose do you intend to achieve with your project and how you aim to deliver it will be a driving force to you achieving your set goals.

We are in a world which is very dynamic and changes every day if not in every 15 days. No Industry is perfect if they don't include diverse experience, who can lead the industry to next level. Goal may change but learning journey with diverse expertise will help you to grow in your profession instead of limiting yourself or setting a goal.

Start with Wikipedia or YouTube or Quora or similars to have a basic idea of the topic which can provide you better terms, deepen the information with chatGPT or similar, then move to google scholar or your university library portal to find papers related. When reading publications try to select journals that have a high rating which have a good peer review process like nature, read the abstract and the conclusions, if you find it relevant, If is from a low rank journal read with more care the discussion section the methodology and if it has statistics that is interpreted properly. Avoid any bias like a company that funded the research if it has interests aligned with the results of the research or if is the first publication of an author

When searching diverse sources also take into account the date of the publication, the latest publications might bring better statistics, better peer review process, bigger sample sizes, with DOE with example double blind experiments, might have independent labs corroborating results, and specially can have information that invalidates older publications.

Especially when searching don’t rely on Google to be the truth all source. It would have to take some digging to make sure it’s a valid source.

Diversity is great, but diversity without purpose is checking a box in both research and real life. Your search for diverse sources should be very specifically defined. Diversity doesn’t just mean you found a scholarly article, a news report, and a video that all speak to a particular topic. It’s entirely possible they are all just reciting what that one study said, and that study could be critically flawed in its methodology. Circular reporting is more common than you’d think. Remember - there are a number of viewpoints, but only one ground truth. A population of sources may be diverse, but many could be in their own silos and have an incorrect or highly biased (conscious or unconscious, stated or hidden) view, or state mistruths.

I agree with the analogy provided. It effectively illustrates the concept of seeking diverse sources to gain a more complete understanding of a research topic.

I find Google Scholar is a great place to start. Then I like to work through validated research journals as I find relevant articles and publications on the topic I am researching.

This section is key, if the information is not validated in some way the knowledge acquired is not much different than an opinion, you have to be responsible to find compelling evidence which does not fall in credentials, that is just a big step towards knowledge. Clear examples of credentials that where wrong was research related to tobacco, with time our peer review process has improved but is not flawless.

If you are using graphs from a source - check where they got their information from if available. Graphs can visually skew data depending on the type and actual data set used. Skewed graphs often include pie graphs, and can indicate a stronger bias from the writer at times. Sometimes it can also be beneficial to use larger data sets of similar studies to help understand your results. They often have comparable key takeaways while also help identify pitfalls you may need to call out in either study. Running a correlation matrix, for example, can be a great indicator of a potential relationships between variables you may not have perceived related before.

This is a key point that is usually overlooked. I believe most people do not question their data sources' credibility, and this can lead to biased results. It would be great do add to the article several data sources that are relatively unbiased such as academic sources etc.

Assessing source credibility resembles examining a jigsaw puzzle piece. Just as you study its shape and fit in the puzzle, scrutinize the author's expertise, source reliability, timeliness, and potential bias to ensure it aligns with your research's integrity.

Many of the questions here are great. Another thing I look at is vocabulary. If the author/publisher is trying to use fancy vocabulary but doesn’t seem to provide credible information, talks in circles or doesn’t cite good sources, they may be trying to sway the reader. You often see this from politicians and corporate executives.

Does the source have personal experience with the subject matter? Can they offer real-life examples of trial and error, rather than statistical data that may or may not counter what has been presented?

This might not be the right question. Information can be relevant or irrelevant, but a source is different. think less about relevant and more about motivation. Why does your source care? Why are they providing this information to the broader community? This is where you can really start to uncover biases and develop a sense of credibility. Biases aren’t bad here if we know what they are. Someone motivated to convince people that their government is corrupt or incompetent has a clear, strong bias. However, they might for instance provide photo evidence of infrastructure degradation in their area that is irrefutable. If they do this over time, we understand their motive, bias, and can evaluate their credibility.

Evaluating source relevance is akin to choosing the right tools for a specific task. Just as you select the most suitable tool for a job, you must assess whether a source aligns with your research's main question, scope, and goals.

How does it add new perspective to achieving goals? Remember if things are not working a new perspective should not be ruled out.

Making sure not to infer assumptions onto the selected quote or excerpt is key. The citations you choose have to tie in and match the purpose in their original context and your use in your article or paper.

Citations in academic contexts usually depend on rules established by the institution first (law school, professional association) and then, probably, by standards in general settings.

Best practice here, be as precise as possible when stating what your source says. “Say what you mean, and mean what you say” is a good mantra. Too often the original fact is obscured behind softened or distorted language, for good or for bad. At times it’s necessary for source protection, but in open source research, the source is “right there” and there’s no need for obfuscation. Make sure your work directly follows the flow of your Executive Summary that directly answers your PIR/SIR: “This is our conclusion based on A, B, and C factors/truths, despite D fact to the contrary. Discussion of fact A and supporting sources Discussion of fact B and supporting sources etc.” It’s okay if your institution desires a different format.

Integrating sources is like blending ingredients into a recipe. Summarize, paraphrase, or quote based on your purpose. Cite sources as per your task's style. Comparing and contrasting sources adds flavor to your work. Synthesizing shows their harmony, while evaluating reveals their quality and relevance to your topic.

When evaluating sources for credibility, always consider the provider of the source. I always try to trace information back to the beginning. Please do not be against spending a little more time researching when your answer is not clear. Take your personal feelings out of play.