The two papers on online credibility were as clear as mud to me. Is it really necessary to write in this convoluted manner in order to be credible in the social sciences?
Personally, I do not find this kind of writing credible. I find it obnoxious. I feel like the writer is trying to impress somebody and I suspect that he or she may be bullshitting. The more names and dates the writer puts after a phrase (Whatshisname,1993; Whoosie, 2001; Otherguy, 2003; Blow, 1987; Doe, 2005) the more irritated I get. Reading papers like these leads me to make obnoxious comments like the following:
…..
RECIPE FOR A SCHOLARLY PAPER
Section 1. Say what others have said
Section 2. Say nothing
Section 3. Call for further studies
Section 4. Provide three pages of endnotes.
…..
Having gotten that off my chest, I have a somewhat more serious issue with social studies like these. I am sure that most social researchers have good intentions and simply want to understand people and their relationships. What concerns me is that there may be others who take these well-intended studies and use them to learn how to manipulate people. For example, if a researcher writes a definitive paper on what makes people trust a website, what is to stop someone else from using the findings for nefarious purposes: to create a deceptive website that looks trustworthy and to give bogus information the appearance of credibility?
I guess I’m wondering why social scientists put so much time into researching things like Credibility and Perception. It seems to me that such research encourages people to treat these as separate entities from the people and institutions with which they are associated. It encourages people to see them as commodities, to be created and managed separately from the things, institutions or individuals of which they are (or may not be) qualities. Indeed, almost all large organizations these days have Public Relations Departments or even outside P.R. consultants who operate independently from the rest of the organization and frequently present pictures that are very different from reality.
I like to think that there was a time when people simply told the truth in order to earn trust; when a company strove to make fine products in order to be perceived as a good company.
Today I get the impression that people in business, government and academia are putting “truth” and “trust” in separate boxes; treating “quality” and “perception of quality” as separate things. Perhaps it is somewhat realistic to do this, but it bugs me. I feel like it this is a very cynical and negative way of looking at the world. I feel that it gives perception too much value and is helping foster a society in which image and reality are separate things and dishonesty is encouraged.
Before embarking on projects, social scientists should do some soul searching and ask: what is the real value of this research? Will my findings help make this a better world, or just help people mess it up some more? Am I really working for humanity and science, or just for con artists and big corporations who want scientific methods for screwing people? Like gangsta rappers or makers of violent films, social scientists can claim that they are merely “reflecting reality,” but by publishing a particular view of reality, they are in a sense promoting it and helping to shape new realities.
5 responses so far ↓
Meg // May 15, 2007 at 10:40 am |
Don’t hold back Vaun! It really is an adventure to read your posts and this one was no exception. I want to focus on a couple things you mention and relate them to others posts.
The only reason I think that websites have not been used more for illegal purposes is that there are probably easier ways to go about separating people from their money. At least for now but I could see it happen.
However, the idea of “perception of quality” is perhaps the most crucial point you make. Kevin also mentioned the “perception of reality” on Tony’s post. Because trust and quality are such intangibles, we all try to find something concrete as placeholders for such intangibles. We work really hard to create something that can stand for them when there really isn’t anything that can. All we create are “perceptions.” We hope these perceptions are enough to safeguard us and most of the time they are.
Most of the time we are all too busy to go beyond the perception, we just forge on and take the perception for granted. Unfortunately, as you point out, that is what many organizations, companies, politicians are hoping for and expecting of us.
I think what is crucial is to recognize when we can rely on perception and when we need to send up the red flags of caution.
trinx // May 15, 2007 at 12:23 pm |
I’m with you–the issue of measuring “perception” of what is essentially an emotional reaction is just very confusing to me. I wallow through the best I can. I know, from working on the edge of marketing, that there are some legitimate reasons for measuring the effect of what you put up on the users. Even if you’re too ethical to try to arm-wrestle them into a sale, you don’t want to disgust them and send them packing. But a lot of the social science behind it all just seems like navel-gazing.
Week 8 Notes « Writing and Presentation For Digital Media // May 15, 2007 at 5:04 pm |
[...] Vaun [...]
swmcdm // May 15, 2007 at 5:49 pm |
Your reflection is inciteful…I “trust” and agree with your thoughts Vaun!
Today, trust is definitely something to be “managed” and created by PR firms. As a result, people are more skeptical and less likely to trust, thus earning trust might seem more valuable.
However, there are still plenty easily fooled…”accidentally” trusting a hacker site and clicking on SPAM (if only we could get rid of all those trusting people…SPAM would go out of business!?!).
Another interesting point is PRIVACY and the Internet. Many online are willing to take a risk and “trust” a site for consumer gain such as purchasing products online, but are insistent on privacy rights…is online privacy and trust and oxymoron?
Kevin // May 15, 2007 at 6:04 pm |
Amen, Bro! No B.S. for me neither. It’s really a question of who cares about this stuff? Mostly academics who have to publish in scholarly journals?
Of course, in advertising the big word is ‘impressions’. You know, this’ll get you 10,000 impressions daily. . . and perception is built into an impression, presumably. An impression is intended to get you to both remember and remain interested.
Perhaps there is a link between this and the traditional notion from B-school (business, that is) that goodwill is the value of a business – the difference between what you paid for it and the value based on the trust, customer service, relationships and ethics you employ in the business.
Anyway, you bring home an excellent point – but don’t forget that basic definition of social research: Explaining the obvious (of course, in this case, the research may have gone a bit overboard.