A certain source or person may be considered an “authority” on a topic if they are highly regarded by peers as an expert in a field (ex: Stephen Hawking, a science expert), if they hold a position of importance (ex: Joe Biden, American President), or if they personally participated in an important historical event (ex: Rosa Parks, Civil Rights Movement).
It’s important to understand that just because a person is an authority in one field, it doesn’t mean she’s an authority in all fields. For example, Joe Biden is an authority on American government, but is not an authority on science. Stephen Hawking is an authority on science, but not on American government. It’s also important to know that authority often changes over time, either as we learn new information or as positions of importance change. For example, Barack Obama used to be an authority on American politics, but no longer is, since he is no longer President. Authority changes are especially common in science, as new information comes to light that contradict what previous scientists theorized.
Can you think of some problems with the concept of “authority?” Does everyone agree on who is an authority? Who gets to decide who’s an authority? These are all good questions, and ones that you should consider as you learn to do research. Because of all these factors, it is always important to consider the authority of your sources, but also to keep an open mind about how that authority was created.
Keep in mind these two important points:
Authority is contextual, and authority is constructed.
Authority is contextual. This means that whether someone is considered an authority depends on the context of what kind of information is needed. If you have a cold, the school nurse is an acceptable authority to treat you. If you have cancer, the nurse would not suffice and you’d go to an oncologist instead.
The more serious or important your need for information, the greater the authority your sources need to have.
For example, if you need to know how to put air in a bike tire, you don't need to consult highest biking authority Lance Armstrong to show you how. One of your neighborhood friends who has changed a tire before would suffice. But, if you are writing an academic analysis of the various stages of the Tour de France, then you should consult a source, like Lance Armstrong, with more authority on the subject than your neighborhood friend.
Authority is constructed. This means that various communities may recognize different authorities, and your own cultural, geographic, or personal factors might dictate who you will consider an authority.
For example, the community within the Catholic church generally recognizes the Pope as the highest authority on religious and ethical matters. Other religious communities may have their own religious leaders who they consider authorities on those topics. Non-religious people may have some respect for what religious leaders say, but are unlikely to consider any of those religious leaders as authorities.
Even in academic settings, certain topics create so much disagreement that experts in the field can be split on who should be considered an authority on a topic. For example, two world renowned economists, Adam Smith and John Keynes, are both well-respected despite having nearly opposite opinions about how economies work. Smith supported a free market economy, while Keynes supported heavy government intervention. If you believe in a free market and laissez faire economy, you are likely to consider Adam Smith the authority. If you prefer more economic regulation, you are more likely to consider Keynes the authority.