How to interpret research
The 10 most common mistakes the media make when interpreting research
- Confusing a straw poll with serious research
- Generalising results from a specific target group to the general population (or to a wider target group)
- Interpreting the results beyond what was actually measured
- Misreading the wording of the question (or of the answer options)
- Confusing research with hard data
- Telling only part of the story (trust in public figure “X” has fallen — but within the margin of error, and trust in them is still the highest of all the public figures measured)
- Comparing results of studies that are not methodologically comparable (a different sample, a different method — a straw poll against quota sampling, for instance)
- Quoting results without a source (who carried the study out, and how)
- Using data that is out of date or has been superseded
- Not checking where the research came from or how reputable the provider is
How do you recognise a trustworthy source?
- It publishes information about how the research was carried out — the research passport
- A detailed passport is publicly available (containing as much information as possible)
- The client and the purpose of the research are transparent
- It uses proven methods with a scientific basis and is willing to discuss its methodology
- A representative of the agency is easy to reach and open to debate about that methodology
- It genuinely meets the requirements of the ICC/ESOMAR Code
