I can understand the discomfort about using the word 'expert' when talking
about 'checking one set of codes with those of an expert'. There is
something about the word which suggest that the expert knows *the*
truth. But given that many people value discussing their codes with
others, who do you seek out? (and who seeks you out). Diverse
perspectives are very valuable, yet when presenting research to peers
within the same field, don't we hope to some extent that our findings will
make sense, even if the interpretations are controversial? Does this help
to gain credibility? If not, I'd be interested to learn about what have
others done to enhance credibility.
Karen
|