{"id":37580,"date":"2014-10-05T01:03:26","date_gmt":"2014-10-05T01:03:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mixedracestudies.org\/wordpress\/?p=37580"},"modified":"2014-11-09T18:59:55","modified_gmt":"2014-11-09T18:59:55","slug":"the-10-stuff-ups-we-all-make-when-interpreting-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mixedracestudies.org\/wp\/?p=37580","title":{"rendered":"The 10 stuff-ups we all make when interpreting research"},"content":{"rendered":"

The 10 stuff-ups we all make when interpreting research<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

The Conversation: Academic rigour, journalistic flair<\/a>
\n2014-10-02<\/p>\n

Will J. Grant<\/strong><\/a>, Researcher\/Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science
\nAustralian National University<\/em><\/p>\n

Rod Lamberts<\/strong><\/a>, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science
\nAustralian National University<\/em><\/p>\n

UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH: What do we actually mean by research and how does it help inform our understanding of things? Understanding what\u2019s being said in any new research can be challenging and there are some common mistakes that people make.<\/em><\/p>\n

Have you ever tried to interpret some new research to work out what the study means in the grand scheme of things?<\/p>\n

Well maybe you\u2019re smart and didn\u2019t make any mistakes \u2013 but more likely you\u2019re like most humans and accidentally made one of these 10 stuff ups<\/a>.<\/p>\n

1. Wait! That\u2019s just one study!<\/strong><\/p>\n

You wouldn\u2019t judge all old men based on just Rolf Harris<\/a> or Nelson Mandela<\/a>. And so neither should you judge any topic based on just one study.<\/p>\n

If you do it deliberately, it\u2019s cherry-picking<\/a>. If you do it by accident, it\u2019s an example of the exception fallacy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The well-worn and thoroughly discredited case of the measles<\/a>, mumps<\/a> and rubella<\/a> (MMR<\/a>) vaccine causing autism<\/a> serves as a great example of both of these.<\/p>\n

People who blindly accepted Andrew Wakefield\u2019s<\/a> (now retracted<\/a>) study – when all the other evidence was to the contrary – fell afoul of the exception fallacy. People who selectively used it to oppose vaccination were cherry-picking…<\/p>\n

…6. Were you tricked by sciencey snake oil?<\/strong><\/p>\n