Image source: Zizzie Fizz via Flickr
While fake news attracts much attention, fake research is also increasingly common.
“We’ve seen a rise in research, especially through clickbaits on digital media, that’s widely shared and touted as fact, but it’s based on bad science or poor methodology,” said Dr. Sarab Kochhar, director of research for the Institute of Public Relations (IPR). The IPR recently released a guide that helps communication practitioners spot fake research. The guide also helps communications professionals conduct responsible, ethical research.
These are some common red flags of fake, faulty, biased and unethical research.
Over-generalize
They infer broad conclusions from limited observations. A survey of a random sample may let researchers generalize findings about an entire population. Small sample sizes or response rates can lead to incorrect generalizations. Examine the methodology to find if results can be generalized.
Leading and Loaded Questions
The research asks biased or leading questions designed to push the respondent toward the desired answer. For example: “How does your lack of flexibility at work affect your level of job satisfaction?” A better question is: “To what degree is flexibility at work important to you?” Loaded questions are worded in a way that may force the respondent to answer in a way that does not reflect how they feel, as in: “Why are you dissatisfied in your current role?” Respondents might make up something negative about their jobs or might not respond to the question. A better question would be: “Describe your job satisfaction in your current role.” Read the survey questions to find if they are fair.
No or Thin Methodology Sections
Methodology sections address key questions about the research: who, what, when, where, why, and how. Responsible research studies reveal who was involved in the research, the sample size and response rate, its timeframe, where and how it was done, and why it was conducted in a particular way. Red flags for fake research include small geographic locations, timeframes influenced by major events, and a lack of explanation about its methodology.
Competent, ethical researchers ask questions that test the data that they hope to obtain and their ideas or viewpoints. They point out gaps or fallacies in their research.
More Tips for Spotting Fake Research
The internet is full of articles that are little more than rehashed press releases, topped with click-bait headlines based on exaggerations and misunderstandings of the original research, says Dr. Alex Berezow, a science writer and Senior Fellow of Biomedical Science for the American Council on Science and Health. Many so-called science writers lack a significant science background. They are also as biased, or sometimes more biased, than other reporters.
Berezow offers some more red flags for spotting fake, poor and biased research. The articles:
- Don’t explain their methodology or avoid technical terminology.
- Don’t indicate any limitations on the conclusions of the research. (A study on mice cannot draw firm conclusions about humans.)
- Draw huge, sweeping conclusions from a single study (common in stories on scary chemicals and miracle vegetables.)
- Are based on research from a journal that nobody has heard of.
- Are often published in the Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Natural News, or any number of environmentalist, health activist, or food fad websites.
One more way to spot fake research: Ask if the conclusions advance the agenda of the sponsor. If the research findings dovetail too closely to the selling messages about the products or services of the sponsoring organizations, then it’s likely the research was constructed to produce biased conclusions.
Bottom Line: Clickbait articles masquerading as research reports have become more common. Being able to spot those articles can help communications professionals counter the spread of fake news. Knowing best practices for producing and publishing research can also help communications pros produce research that is unbiased, transparent and ethical.
William J. Comcowich founded and served as CEO of CyberAlert LLC, the predecessor of Glean.info. He is currently serving as Interim CEO and member of the Board of Directors. Glean.info provides customized media monitoring, media measurement and analytics solutions across all types of traditional and social media.
