Källkritik, kognitiv auktoritet och domänanalys : Värdering av trovärdighet

Sammanfattning: The object of this explorative theoretical study is to compare similarities in three perspectives for evaluation of credibility. The perspectives are the historical method source-criticism, cognitive authority and domain analysis. These perspectives, regarded as intellectual tools for critical thinking in a process of information seeking, by asking questions about credibility related to the social and theoretical context of the intellectual background, can give support in articulating which documents that gives a specific and essential answer to a question. In this sense credibility is seen as a qualitative aspect of relevance. Patrick Wilson argues that we can attain some critical independence towards cognitive authorities and the literature by investigating the social and theoretical topography of a field. Birger Hjørlands domain analysis, I argue, is a more systematic way to pose these kinds of questions. Source-criticism has in the examples investigated here the historians Lauritz and Curt Weibull in the 1910s and Rolf Torstendahl in the 1960s mostly been used for empirical proof of true or correct statements, but it also addresses questions of credibility. A source is related to a question with theoretical connotations. Both source-criticism and domain analysis can articulate these connotations by shedding light on aspects of the intellectual background. Taken together in a comparative and rhetorical approach these perspectives can articulate reasons for judgement of which documents that contains credible knowledge. Source-criticism is suitable for handling specific and empirical aspects of credibility, cognitive authority connects aspects of status and relevance to social practice and domain analysis can give orientation on different theoretical positions within a knowledge domain.