I keep reading it over and over, and hearing it trotted out as the ‘proof’ that whatever the so called ‘expert’ is saying is really really true…
“Research supports…”
“Studies show…”
I call bull shit on research and studies, or, more specifically the way they are used to support sensationalized claims, sell books, or make what people say seem more plausible.
Last week I admitted in a post that I have a favourite child. Yes, you read right… my middle boy is my favourite right now, and I am totally ok with that (and so is Triple T Mum!).
I am ok with that because when I use the term ‘my favourite’ what I mean is that right now, in this stage of his life and mine, we are getting along really well. We are enjoying each other, quite frankly, I am enjoying his company in a way I haven’t in the past, and it’s lovely.
What I don’t mean is that he will always be my ‘golden child’, that I don’t enjoy any of my other three children, or that they all won’t, in turn have a moment when I refer to them as ‘my favourite’.
What I don’t mean is that I love him any more than I love my other children.
Yet if you read the article in the Women’s weekly last week, or if you were listening to a certain parenting guru being interviewed on a Melbourne morning radio show this week, you would be forgiven for thinking that getting along with one child more or less than another at any given moment means that you love that child more, and always will.
Don’t you know that a ‘myriad studies’ (the words used in the Women’s weekly article) back up this claim, that all parents have a favourite child, and the research even tells us some of the terrible things that happen because of it.
What studies?
What research?
How many families were studied?
What were their circumstances?
How did researchers determine there was a favoured child?
What does the term ‘favourite child’ even mean?
(Obviously it means something different to me than it does to others.)
Who paid for the research?
None of that information is ever shared in articles or interviews that seem to be designed to rile up readers, divide opinion, sell products and ultimately get a response… any response. There is never enough information for us to decide for ourselves whether the research is valid or relevant.
The thing is, I can use the term ‘research shows’ to make just about any claim I make sound more important, more valuable and more correct. And I can probably find some study somewhere that even backs up my claims, even if I have to twist the findings a little, or leave out information, to get it to fit better.
But does all this research really have that much in common with our real lives?
People are complex. Life is complex.
Can studying one little isolated part of life really reflect all the nuances that make up our every day?
The relationship between a child and parent has so many variables, and each of us is unique, so how much should that one bit of research influence how we behave?
I’m not saying that we should stop doing researching. Research is valuable and we’ve learned so much about human behavior and everything else thanks to well conducted, transparent research.
What I am saying is that I’m over not being given enough information to question research and think for myself. And I’m over people dressing up research with fancy words and using it as a way to prop up their own personal causes, as a way to sell more copies or a way get a bigger response.
Corinne Grant called ‘bull shit’ on the way research was being reported in the media too this week, writing I’m Heaps Better than other Women for The Hoopla. I am so pleased I am not the only one rolling my eyes and then looking a little deeper each time someone trots out that phrase…. ‘research shows’
What do you think?
Do you question research as reported in the media?
What do you think about having a ‘favourite’ child.
{image: by dgray_xplane via flickr}
So very true Kate. I now just glance at most of research I get sent, who funds all this??? I do independent research with actual case studies I work with and so far it equals to Life is complex.
I am a researcher who also has a passing interest in media and have undertaken a short course in scientific journalism. I don’t read much in the way of Australian papers/magazines (mainly because of the poor journalistic standards you mentioned), so I didn’t see the article in WW you mentioned.
Some (foreign) papers are doing a good job of linking to the research paper being discussed from their articles, so that readers can look at the setup and results for themselves. Of course, the general public does not always have access to these papers — this is an ongoing problem for both researchers and the general public. It is extremely costly for research institutions to openly publish papers.
I skipped over that Hoopla piece the other day, but just had a look now. Having read the research paper for myself, I don’t think Corinne did a good job either of representing the research, however that wasn’t the point of her article. The university’s news article answers some of the questions you (quite rightly) posed and is freely available at http://www.science.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/index.php?feed=news&articleId=364. That’s another way of finding out more about research — even though it’s still journalists publicising the university’s research, they will have actually spoken to the researcher (rather than just regurgitating press releases) and are/should be skilled in reporting research outcomes to a lay audience.
Thanks Nicole… that is really great information for us non-scientific types.
I don’t object to research being used to illustrate a point, I guess I object to how it is often used to illustrate a point, and how we never seem to get the whole story.
We always laugh about research and when people comment “you know, THEY say…blah blah” who is they???? My dad is a researcher and questions every “study” that doesn’t have a large sample or questionable variables. But people believe it without thought.
I am also a researcher, but I try to make my research transparent, accessible and real. I have also done some media interviews where my research (or what I said) was distorted, sensationalised or misrepresented. It’s very frustrating for us, too.
It’s must drive you batty Bron….
As I said I have nothing against research, in fact I quite like research (especially the stuff done by cook, funky researchers like you who live in the real world)… I just have issues with the way it is twisted and used to sensationalize stuff…
I am getting all riled up thinking how crappy it must be from your end!
Was the research peer reviewed!! That’s the key missing point. That’s what science is all about. Valid peer reviewed and published research :)
I always get a laugh out of the statistics quoted in cosmetics advertising e.g. 97% of women reported a notable reduction in wrinkles after 3 weeks. Then if you look very carefully, the fine print will say something like 32 women self-reported these results. So, 32 women who got free samples without measured or supervised use of the product then filled in a survey and voila – advertising gold!
So glad I am not the only cynic.
Great soapbox moment Kate! You go get ’em!!
I totally agree! I am listening tho the radio and was just told 1 in 6 people will die from food poisoning! 1 in what 6 people?? Really? Because then a good portion of the people I know should have died of food poisoning by now. I’m with you Kate!