- Education and Science»
- Colleges & University
UoP MGT/521 Week 1 Discussion Question 2 - Evaluating the credibility and validity of your sources of information.
As a recent University of Phoenix MBA program graduate, I would like to share some of the discussions from my experience with the University. These discussion questions are here to give you an idea of what to expect during the program. Of course, they are meant to encourage your own thoughts and responses. Please, please, don't simply turn in my work as your own. That's just obnoxious... and it's plagiarism, which will get you expelled from the University.
Also, please have a look at an excerpt from the course syllabus below... compare to your own to ensure that you are, in fact, following the proper course.
This is Week 1, Discussion Question 2 of MGT/521, v5.
Week 1, Discussion Question 2
How would you use credentials, impartiality, style and tone, and currency criteria in evaluating the credibility and validity of your sources of information? Be sure to provide specific examples.
Let's have a look at something other than the classic "research through books" approach. What if the most valuable information that we can receive comes from people before it's all written into law, so to speak? A direct question, after all, deserves a direct answer...
All of these factors must be considered in the context of which the information is presented. Credentials are relatively obvious... one wouldn't expect to listen to a Parkinson's disease lecture orated by a hardware store employee. Even if the possibility exists that the employee is knowledgeable in the subject, a neurologist may be just a bit (read that with sarcasm, please) more knowledgeable in the detailed fundamentals involved.
Style and tone of the delivery could also convey a formal presentation or an informal gossip session around the proverbial watercooler. Quite a difference could be observed between a member of upper management delivering a sales forcast to a group of CEOs and peers at any company quietly discussing a rumor of a colleague who is soon to be fired.
The same is true of the other factors. If information is delivered by an impartial party, chances are that the opinions expressed are unbiased points of view and as close to raw data as possible. (By currency, I assume we're talking about time rather than money...) Information that is current is often more accurate than a statement of facts that may have already become outdated. No sense in bringing up the London Fog when discussing England's current fire response standards.