Trustworthiness. Be honest • Don’t deceive, cheat, or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal — stand by your family, friends, and country RESPECT Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant and accepting of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements RESPONSIBILITY Do what you are supposed to do • Plan ahead • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your words, actions, and attitudes • Set a good example for others FAIRNESS Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don’t take advantage of others • Don’t blame others carelessly • Treat all people fairly
Trustworthiness. Be honest. Be reliable– do what you say you’ll do. Have the courage to do the right thing. Build a good reputation. Be loyal– stand by your family, friends, school, and country. Don’t deceive, cheat or steal. Respect: Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule. Be tolerant of differences. Use good manners. Be considerate of the feelings of others. Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone, or use bad language. Deal peacefully with anger, insults and disagreements.
Trustworthiness. People tended to return relatively more to ingroup members, compared with outgroup members and strangers (b = 0.95; P = 0.001). People also tended to return more in the common knowledge condition, compared with the unilateral knowledge condition (b = 1.24; P < 0.001), regardless of their partner’s group membership; there was not a statistically significant interaction (b = 0.43; P = 0.18). Thus, our findings on trustworthiness replicated the findings of trust behavior.
Trustworthiness. People react favorably when they believe the police are benevolent, caring, and sincerely trying to do what is best.* Legitimacy flows from procedural justice. When community members feel that the police are treating them in a procedurally just manner, they are more likely to view the police as a legitimate authority and a trusted partner. When that happens, residents are more inclined to accept and follow police directions and also to assist and partner with the police in community policing and problem-solving efforts. That is why the dual concepts of procedural justice and legitimacy are so fundamental to the practice of community policing. “In essence, legitimacy and procedural justice are measurements of the extent to which members of the public trust and have confidence in the police, believe that the police are honest and competent, think that the police treat people fairly and with respect, and are willing to defer to the law and to police authority.”† Community members make their own judgments about whether officers’ actions, including their uses of force, are “legitimate.” Police agencies must understand and acknowledge these judgments, because the success of an agency depends in large part on the public’s willingness to cooperate and work with the police. These principles should be evident in policy, department systems and processes, and training. It is important that agencies ensure their policies and training are consistent with one another and that both are reinforced in daily practice. This is especially important with regard to police encounters with persons with behavioral health issues and police use of force. Ideally, policies will include language that enables the department to create indicators and mechanisms for assessing community policing performance. Personnel evaluations, for example, should be based on the community policing activities that are expected of an officer. First-line supervisors should establish clear expectations for community interactions and problem solving on a daily basis. Officer performance measurement systems should include indicators of activities that support community policing such as the time an officer spends working with community members to remedy a problem that facilitates crime or that detracts from quality of life in a neighborhood. A useful resource when exploring policy and procedure changes is the community oriented policing checklist. Two leading researchers in the field of community policing deve...
Trustworthiness be honest; don’t deceive, cheat, or steal; be reliable
Trustworthiness. This is, probably, the most difficult requirement to define. The event understanding must be reliable, and precise. For example: It is obvious that there should be a minimum set of famous people that the system should recognize (from all kind of sources). It must be able to recognize current and former presidents or prime ministers of every country but, where is the limit? How can be determined the set of famous people that should be automatically recognized? It is clear that a system unable to recognize the presence of the British prime minister in a video is not meeting the requirements. The same reasoning applies to places, remarkable dates, monuments, etc. In the online processing scenario, the suggested content must be related with the input of the journalist. If the system returns content that has nothing to do with the journalist text, the system will be useless and the users will lose confidence and be reluctant to use it.
Trustworthiness. The use of peer review is recommended to provide an external check of the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). This research project was conducted with input from a dissertation committee, whose members collectively have extensive experience in qualitative and feminist research. I kept a written record of all meetings. The credibility of the findings depends on researcher self- awareness and reflexivity as an instrument of data collection and analysis (Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxx, 1993). I kept a research journal to clarify my biases and assumptions as well as ideas about the research, as recommended by Xxxx (1994). The process of member checking can be problematic. Sandelowski (1996) posits that the researcher and participant both have investments in the research that may shape the process of member checking. Social norms about politeness and social desirability may influence what participants communicate. Participants may not recognize their story in the abstract, scientific summary of the findings. The researcher has the challenge of deciding what synthesis of the data should be presented. For these reasons, I did not ask participants for feedback on the analysis, although they have indicated an interest in reading the results and a summary of the findings was made available to them at the completion of the study. Xxxxxxx (2013) identifies two broad threats to validity in a qualitative study: researcher bias, and reactivity. Bias is the researcher’s theories, beliefs, and perceptual lenses that influences what data are collected, how they are collected and how they are analyzed. While it is impossible to detach the researcher’s bias from the study, it is possible to own and acknowledge it. My work with women in labor and women who have experienced violence have made me more sensitive to how these elements influence women’s lives, their embodied experiences and their births. I care deeply about the ethics of the provider-patient relationship when the patient is in a vulnerable state. I am interested in supporting the normal physiology of birth because I have seen the iatrogenic effects of the over-medicalization of healthy pregnancies. I became aware of how these beliefs shaped my data collection, and in working with the dissertation committee, was able to identify how they were shaping the analysis. For example, in the initial readings of the data, the issue of medicalization was very prominent for me, and it seemed that everything rela...
Trustworthiness be worthy of trust in all I do.
Trustworthiness. I will be worthy of trust, honor, and confidence. • I will keep my commitments by attending all sessions of the planned event. If I am not feeling well or have a scheduled conflict, I will inform my chaperon or a per- son in charge. • I will be in the assigned area (dorms, buildings, etc.) at all times. • I will be a model of integrity by doing the right thing even when the cost is high. • I will be honest in all my activities. 4-H does not permit dishonesty by lying, deception, or omission. Caring • I will be caring in my relationship with others. • I will help members in my group have a pleasant experi- ence by striving to include all participants. • I will be kind and show compassion for others. • I will treat others the way I want to be treated. • I will show appreciation for the efforts of others. Citizenship • I will be a contributing and law-abiding citizen. • I will follow the hours and room rules established for the event. • I will not possess, distribute, or use alcohol, drugs, or tobacco products. • I will be respectful to the environment and contribute to the greater good. Responsibility • I will be responsible, accountable, and self-disciplined in the pursuit of excellence. • I will live up to high expectations so I can be proud of my work and conduct. • I will be on time to all program events. • I will be accountable by accepting responsibility for my choices and actions. • I will be responsible for any damage, theft, or miscon- duct in which I participate. Fairness • I will be just, fair, and open. • I will participate in events fairly by following the rules and by not taking advantage of others.
Trustworthiness. Academic staff and students ground their views as academics on scientific evidence. This entails that: • They do not fabricate, falsify or suppress evidence. The selective omission of research results is reported and justified. • In presenting results of their activities, they do so with the corresponding uncertainties. • In scientific communication, they strive for precision and nuance. • They do not present as established facts speculations, personal opinions and claims that go beyond available evidence.
