Institute of Sociology NASU

A theoretico-methodological understanding of the concept of trustworthiness in sociology and adjacent branches of knowledge

stmm. 2023 (2): 83-103

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2023.02.083

Full text: http://stmm.in.ua/archive/ukr/2023-2/6.pdf

TETIANA LIUBYVA, Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, Research Fellow at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

tlubivaya@gmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5902-7046

OL’HA MAKSYMENKO, MA in Psychology, Leading Sociologist at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

olga.maksimenko.65@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2804-2790

The paper focuses on the understanding of the trustworthiness concept in various realms of academic knowledge, as well as on possible intersections of these interpretations with the understanding of trustworthiness in sociology. Despite quite a frequent usage of the word “trustworthiness” in daily life and a completely “transparent” etymology of this word (“trustworthy”, that is worthy of trust), there is not an established definition of the term “trustworthiness” in academic literature. For example, V. Shlapentokh defines trustworthiness as a property which characterises the degree of adequate reflection of particular features of the social phenomena and processes under study, whereas V. Volovych regards trustworthiness as a degree of correspondence between the gained knowledge and reality. According to Y. Elez, trustworthiness is the way the truth exists “for us”, the way that reflects the correspondence between the truth and its provenness by a cognizing subject. There may be certain difficulties in translating this term. In English, “trustworthiness” literally means “the quality of being worthy of trust”, but we can also come across the word “credibility”, which can be interpreted as “believability” or “cogency”. Besides, there are a number of other concepts such as “truthfulness”, “verifiability”, “consistency”, “certainty”, etc., which are somewhat related to trustworthiness and have similar meanings. In empirical sociological research, trustworthiness mostly relates to validity and reliability. Y. Lincoln and E. Guba developed a set of criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of qualitative research, which are comparable to validity and reliability in quantitative studies. As for factors influencing the trustworthiness of acquired sociological information, they include the following: a) trust between an interviewer and a respondent (A. Irvine, P. Drew and R. Sainsbury); b) the researcher’s awareness of social, cultural and institutional aspects of the issues in question (V. Lub). The given paper does not pretend to provide an exhaustive coverage of the concept of trustworthiness; however, it can give impetus to the discussion on this topic. For instance, designing statistical indicators that allow assessing quantitatively the trustworthiness of sociological research results can be proposed as the first issue to address.

Keywords: trustworthiness, credibility, validity, reliability, adequacy of data, assessment criteria, qualitative and quantitative research

References

1. Alreck, P.L, & Settle, R.B. (1985). The survey research handbook. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin.

2. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

3. Boichenko, I. (2002). Vienna Circle. [In Ukrainian]. In V.I. Shynkaruk (Ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of philosophy (pp. 84-85). Kyiv: Hryhorii Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

4. Borel, É. (1950). Probabilité et certitude. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

5. Campbell, D.T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040950 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040950

6. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

7. Carmines, E.G., & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985642

8. Chopovskyi, D. (2011, May 31). Journalistic standards: A reference material. [In Ukrainian]. Institute of Mass Information. Retrieved from https://imi.org.ua/monitorings/jurnalistski-standarti-informatsiyna-dovidka-i28623

9. Churylov, M. (2023). The trustworthiness of information and its simplest structure (a presentation at the round-table discussion "Trustworthiness of sociological knowledge: Theoretico-methodological, empirical and discursive aspects"). [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 1, 181-183.

10. Credible vs trustworthy: What is the difference? [Blog post]. (2014, May 27). Retrieved from https://marksinthesand.com/2014/05/27/credible-vs-trustworthy

11. Dembitskyi, S., & Liubyva, T. (2022). Requirements for designing and adapting complex measurement tools for mass surveys: Reliability, validity and trustworthiness. [In Ukrainian]. In Ye. Golovakha, & S. Dembitskyi (Eds.), Complex measurement tools in sociological research: Development, adaptation and credibility substantiation (pp. 41-67). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine.

12. Dorussen, H., Lenz, H., & Blavoukos, S. (2005). Assessing the reliability and validity of expert interviews. European Union Politics, 6(3), 315-337. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1465116505054835 https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116505054835

13. Ferber, R. (2015). Key concepts in philosophy: An introduction. Sankt Augustin: Germany: Academia Verlag. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783896658050

14. Glenton, C., Carlsen, B., Lewin, S., Munthe-Kaas, H., Colvin, C.J., Tunçalp, Ö., ... Wainwright, M. (2018). Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings - paper 5: How to assess adequacy of data. Implementation Science, 13(Suppl 1), 14. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7

15. Golovakha, Ye., Gorbachyk, A., Liubyva, T., Panina, N., Sereda, V., & Ursulenko, K. (2008). Subjective reliability: The theory and measurement method (ISR). [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 1, 166-188.

16. Hautamäki, A. (2020). Viewpoint relativism: A new approach to epistemological relativism based on the concept of points of view. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34595-2

17. Hemmler, V. L., Kenney, A.W., Langley, S.D., Callahan, C.M., Gubbins, E.J., & Holder, S. (2022). Beyond a coefficient: An interactive process for achieving inter-rater consistency in qualitative coding. Qualitative Research, 22(2), 194-219. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794120976072 https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120976072

18. Hendry, J. (2020). Truth, knowledge, and religious belief. Think: Philosophy for Everyone, 19(54), 69-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1477175619000265 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175619000265

19. Higgins, P.A., & Straub, A.J. (2006). Understanding the error of our ways: Mapping the concepts of validity and reliability. Nursing Outlook, 54(1), 23-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2004.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2004.12.004

20. Huttunen, R., & Kakkori, L. (2020). Heidegger's theory of truth and its importance for the quality of qualitative research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54(3), 600-616. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12429 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12429

21. Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). "Am I not answering your questions properly?" Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87-106. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086 https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086

22. Kravchuk, M.O. (2016). The trustworthiness of knowledge as a concept and the problem of uncertainty in empirical social research. [In Ukrainian]. Collected papers of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Sociology, 1(7), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-7979/7.118

23. Li, M., Sharp, B., & Bergh, D. (2017). Assessing statistical results in MOR articles: An essay on verifiability and ways to enhance it. Management and Organization Review, 13(2), 431-441. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.18 https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.18

24. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

25. Lub, V. (2015). Validity in qualitative evaluation: Linking purposes, paradigms, and perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5). https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621406 https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621406

26. Mishchenko, M. (2022). Public opinion exists, but is it always detectable? [In Ukrainian]. In Ye. Golovakha, & S. Dembitskyi (Eds.), Complex measurement tools in sociological research: Development, adaptation and credibility substantiation (pp. 352-378). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine.

27. Oakley, I.T. (1974). Belief, truth and knowledge by D.M. Armstrong (Book reviews). The Philosophical Quarterly, 24(94), 82-84. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2218294 https://doi.org/10.2307/2218294

28. Paniotto, V.I. (1986). The quality of sociological information (methods for evaluating and procedures for ensuring). [In Russian]. Kyiv, UkrSSR: Naukova Dumka (Scientific Thought) Press.

29. Shapovalov, V.A. (2017). On the use of the "trustworthiness" concept in psychological research. [In Russian]. In V.O. Shapovalov (Ed.), Assessing trustworthiness: Academic research and practice [Collected articles] (pp. 193-200). Kyiv, Ukraine: Osvita Ukrainy (Education in Ukraine) Press.

30. Stehnii, O. (2020). Public space of the trustworthiness of sociological knowledge: The case of electoral research. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 3, 13-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.15407/sociology2020.03.013 https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2020.03.013

31. Stehnii, O. (2022). Discursive markers of the trustworthiness of empirical sociological knowledge. [In Ukrainian]. In Ye. Golovakha, & S. Dembitskyi (Eds.), Complex measurement tools in sociological research: Development, adaptation and credibility substantiation (pp. 331-351). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine.

32. Stumpfegger, E. (2017, November 7). Trustworthiness of research. Munich Business School Insights. Retrieved from https://www.munich-business-school.de/insights/en/2017/trustworthiness-of-research

33. "The First" TV Channel. (2017, October 2). Broadcast standards and practices of the National Public Broadcasting Company of Ukraine. [In Ukrainian]. Retrieved from https://tv.suspilne.media/uploads/assets/files/PBC/standarty_iformmovlennia.pdf [Телеканал «Перший» 2017]

34. The round-table discussion "Trustworthiness of sociological knowledge: Theoretico-methodological, empirical and discursive aspects". (2023). [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 1, 176-214.

35. Välikangas, L. (2017). Introduction to "Assessing statistical results in MOR articles: An essay on verifiability and ways to enhance it". Management and Organization Review, 13(2), 431. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2017.18

36. Veber, M. (2014). Knowledge with and without belief. Metaphilosophy, 45(1), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12055

37. Volovich, V.I. (1974). Trustworthiness of information in sociological research: Methodological and procedural issues. [In Russian]. Kyiv, UkrSSR: Naukova Dumka (Scientific Thought) Press.

38. Volovich, V.I. (2010). Criteria for evaluating the quality of sociological information. [In Russian]. Collected papers of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Sociology, 1-2, 34-39.

39. Williams, B. (2002). Truth and truthfulness: An essay in genealogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

40. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443), 583-632. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583

41. Worthy. (1985). [In Ukrainian]. In O.S. Melnychuk, V.T. Kolomiiets, O.B. Tkachenko (Eds.), An etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language (Vol. 2). Kyiv: O.O. Potebnia Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the UkrSSR.

42. Yemel'yanova, N.N. (2015). Truth and trustworthiness: The possible and the available. [In Russian]. Collected papers of Mariupol State University. Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Sociology, 9, 14-26.

43. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2007). Truth and truthfulness in the sociology of educational knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 5(2), 173-201. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477878507077732 https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878507077732

44. Zaiichenko, H. (2002). Neopositivism. [In Ukrainian]. In V.I. Shynkaruk (Ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of philosophy (pp. 421-422). Kyiv: Hryhorii Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy of the NAS of Ukraine.

45. Zardini, E. (2015). Truth, demonstration and knowledge: A classical solution to the paradox of knowability. THEORIA: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 30(3), 365-392. https://dx.doi.org/10.1387/theoria.14668 https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.14668

Received 18.04.2023