What is Research, and Why Should Media Practitioners Care?

Amanda Williams; Emma Duke

1 What is Research, and Why Should Media Practitioners Care?

Learning Objectives for Chapter

Describe what is meant by the term “research methods.”
Recognize factors that may lead to biased or misleading information dissemination.
Analyze the roles of researchers, communication professionals, and consumers in contributing to inaccurate research reporting.
Evaluate the significance of reporting on research accurately from the perspective of media professionals.

Reporting on Research

Research methods can be described as a systematic process of inquiry to learn about the social world, but they are not always easy to understand and decode.

Comedian John Oliver (Last Week Tonight, 2016) humorously and critically addresses the state of science reporting, shedding light on the prevalence of misinformation in media outlets. In doing so, he reminds us that research scientists, the media, and consumers all play a critical role in perpetuating the cycle of poor research reporting.

The rest of this chapter is dedicated to taking a deeper look at what factors contribute to this trend and the kinds of things Oliver (Last Week Tonight, 2016) was discussing.

The research scientist’s role

Oliver (Last Week Tonight, 2016) reminds us that researchers can inadvertently contribute to poor reporting on science through various practices or behaviours. Below are some of the key ways this can happen.

Succumbing to the pressures to publish: Researchers facing pressures to publish frequently or in high-impact journals may rush through the research process, leading to potential methodological flaws and incomplete reporting.
Exaggerating findings: Researchers may exaggerate the significance of their study’s results to attract attention from media outlets or funding agencies. This can lead to sensationalized headlines and misleading reporting. For example, a study on a new potential cancer treatment might report a slight improvement in survival rates as a groundbreaking breakthrough, leading to headlines like “Miracle Cure for Cancer Discovered!” when the actual benefits are more modest.
Poor study design and/or statistical analysis: Flawed experimental designs or improper statistical analyses can lead to misinterpretation of results and erroneous reporting. For example, Oliver (2016) emphasizes the practice of p-hacking, which occurs when a researcher plays around with the variables until they find statistically significant results. This also occurs when a study with a small sample size and flawed experimental design gets published and receives widespread media coverage, despite not meeting rigorous scientific standards.
Lack of replication studies: Failure to replicate study findings (in which a scientist recreates a study that’s already been done to see if they get the same results) can lead to the dissemination of erroneous or misleading results, contributing to a replication crisis in some scientific fields.
Conflicts of interest: Researchers with financial or other conflicts of interest may inadvertently skew their findings or downplay certain aspects of the study, affecting the accuracy of the reported results.
Neglecting to highlight limitations: Researchers may fail to adequately communicate the limitations of their study, which could lead to the misinterpretation of results by reporters and the public.

It is important to note that while some researchers may inadvertently contribute to poor reporting, many diligent scientists and communicators strive to convey scientific information to the public accurately. Responsible research communication involves clear, transparent, and honest reporting of research findings and their limitations.

The media’s role

The media can also play a significant role in contributing to poor science reporting. While the media serves as an essential bridge between the scientific community and the general public, several factors can lead to inaccuracies and sensationalism in science reporting. Some ways in which the media can contribute to the problem are outlined below.

Overhyping scientific discoveries: Media outlets may exaggerate the significance of scientific findings, presenting them as groundbreaking or conclusive, even when the research is preliminary or inconclusive. For example, a study showing a slight increase in the risk of a specific health condition might be reported as “This Common Food Increases Your Risk of Cancer by 50%!” without providing proper context about the actual magnitude of the risk.
Cherry-picking data and studies: Media may selectively report studies that support a particular narrative while ignoring or downplaying conflicting research, leading to biased portrayals of scientific topics.
Lack of context: Sometimes, scientific findings are presented without proper context or acknowledging the broader body of research, leading to misinterpretations. For instance, consider a study that examines the effects of a new exercise regimen on weight loss. The study finds that participants who followed the new exercise routine lost slightly more weight on average compared to those in the control group. However, accurate reporting may lack the following: a baseline comparison, details on the duration of the study or sample size, or a consideration of other factors that might contribute.
Prioritizing sensationalism and clickbait headlines: Media outlets may use sensational headlines and clickbait tactics to attract readers, often at the expense of accurate and nuanced reporting. For example, a media outlet, eager to attract more readers may use the following headline: “Miracle Berry Found: Eat This Fruit Daily and Never Get Sick Again!” The public may be misled about the actual health benefits of strawberries and might make decisions based on incomplete or exaggerated information.
Rapid reporting: Just like there is pressure on academics to get their work published, the need to deliver news quickly can result in issues. While the desire for breaking news and timely reporting is essential in the fast-paced world of journalism, it’s crucial for media outlets to balance speed with accuracy. Journalists must prioritize fact-checking, verification, and corroborating information from multiple sources before publishing.
Absence of peer review: Some media outlets may report on scientific findings before they have undergone rigorous peer review, leading to unreliable or premature information being disseminated. Media outlets should exercise caution when reporting scientific findings that have not undergone peer review. They can clearly state that the research is preliminary and subject to future evaluation. Waiting for peer-reviewed publications or seeking input from independent experts can help ensure the accuracy and reliability of science reporting.
Misinterpretation of statistics: Reporters need to understand statistical data to avoid misleading interpretations and conclusions. For example, if there is a study investigating the relationship between coffee consumption and the risk of heart disease. The study involves a large sample size and carefully controlled variables. The results show a slight increase in the risk of heart disease among individuals who consume more than five cups of coffee per day compared to those who drink one cup or less. A reporter with limited statistical knowledge might misinterpret these findings and write a headline like: “Coffee Causes Heart Disease: Study Reveals the Dangers of Your Morning Brew!” The headline fails to provide context about the actual magnitude of the risk. While the study might find a statistically significant increase in risk, the actual numerical increase might be quite small in practical terms.

Oliver (Last Week Tonight, 2016) argues that the consequences of misrepresentation are serious and can make us lose faith in science and he is not wrong. To improve science reporting, media outlets should prioritize accuracy, provide appropriate context, and ensure that journalists and writers are well-informed about the scientific topics they cover. Collaboration between scientists and journalists can also help ensure that scientific information is communicated effectively and responsibly to the public.

The consumer’s role

Consumers, or the general public, can also inadvertently contribute to poor science reporting through their behaviour, preferences, and engagement with media and information. Below are some ways in which consumers may play a role in the spread of misinformation or poor science reporting,

Confirmation bias: Consumers may be more likely to believe and share information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs, amplifying misinformation and neglecting accurate science reporting. Suppose there is a contentious debate about the safety of a specific type of technology, “TechX.” Consumers who have preexisting beliefs that TechX is dangerous might be more likely to believe and share news articles or social media posts that support their views. For instance, they might share a news article titled “Experts Warn About the Hidden Dangers of TechX,” without critically evaluating the credibility of the sources or the quality of the evidence presented. This confirmation bias can amplify misinformation and neglect accurate science reporting, as consumers may dismiss or ignore information that challenges their beliefs.
Falling prey to “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles”: Consumers often seek out information from sources that echo their own perspectives, reinforcing existing beliefs and excluding diverse viewpoints. For example, individuals who are skeptical about vaccination might only consume news from sources that promote anti-vaccine views. This behaviour can create echo chambers and filter bubbles, reinforcing consumers’ existing beliefs and excluding diverse perspectives. As a result, consumers may be less exposed to accurate science reporting that challenges their preexisting notions, leading to a skewed understanding of scientific issues.
Sharing unverified information: Consumers may share news and information without doing additional research. For instance, a sensational health claim, like “This Herb Cures All Diseases!” might go viral on social media without being thoroughly vetted by experts. The rapid sharing of unverified information can lead to the spread of misinformation, as consumers unknowingly contribute to the propagation of unreliable content.
Lack of media literacy: Insufficient media literacy skills can make consumers susceptible to misinformation and poor science reporting, as they may need help to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones. This includes needing to understand who funded a specific research project and asking why it was funded.
Over-reliance on social media: Many consumers obtain news and information from social media platforms, where accuracy and fact-checking may be limited, leading to the spread of misinformation.
Misunderstanding of scientific concepts: Consumers may lack a basic understanding of scientific principles, making them susceptible to misinterpretations of scientific information. For example, a study on climate change might use complex terminology and statistical analyses, making it challenging for consumers without a scientific background to grasp the nuances of the research.
Preference for sensationalism and viral content: Consumers may prefer sensational or attention-grabbing news stories, leading media outlets to prioritize such content. For instance, a dramatic headline like “Scientists Discover Alien Life!” may attract more clicks and shares than a nuanced and accurate article about recent developments in astrobiology.

The general public has the power to influence media practices by being critical consumers of news, supporting reliable and reputable sources, and engaging in science communication efforts that prioritize accuracy and context. Media literacy and critical thinking skills are essential for consumers to discern credible information from sensationalized or misleading content in the realm of science reporting.

Why Should Communication Professionals Care?

Thus far this opening chapter has shown that reporting on research is a three-way street that involves changes in practices from scientists (natural and social), reporters, and consumers alike. While change may be hard to ensure on the side of the general public and or academic researchers there are some clear benefits to you engaging more seriously with this process.

As an aspiring broadcaster or journalist, understanding how to read and interpret tables and research findings holds significant relevance in your field of communications. There are several reasons why knowledge in research can be beneficial for you:

Enhancing your journalism and storytelling skills: Familiarity with research studies allows you to gain a deeper understanding of various issues and ask more effective and thoughtful questions during interviews. This, in turn, enhances your ability to tell compelling and well-informed stories. By delving into research, you can better comprehend the responses of your sources and ask relevant follow-up questions (Ordway, 2017).
Holding public officials accountable: As a communication professional, research skills can empower you to hold public officials accountable. For instance, when policymakers implement new policies to achieve specific outcomes, your research expertise can help you assess whether similar policies have been successful elsewhere. This knowledge will guide your inquiries and enable you to critically examine the potential impacts of these policies (Ordway, 2017).
Increasing your credibility: Knowing research methodologies and statistical significance enhances your credibility as a communicator. You will be better equipped to interpret research findings accurately, avoiding misrepresenting results. Understanding the distinction between statistical significance and practical importance ensures you present information precisely and clearly. (Ordway, 2017). When encountering complex results, reaching out to researchers for clarification is a valuable practice that can help you relay their findings correctly (Ordway, 2017).
Accurate representation of academic ideas: In the world of journalism and academia, the potential for misinterpretation of academic ideas exists. For instance, “The Conversation,” a platform bridging journalism and academia, highlights the significance of accurately representing scholarly work. As a communication professional, understanding research empowers you to ask informed questions and accurately convey the ideas and findings of academics, thus maintaining the integrity of their work (Burell, 2016).

Reflection Question:

Based on what you read, identify two key strategies that you as a consumer of media could implement to improve your skills in evaluating scientific information. Explain how you could implement these strategies in your daily routine. Document your thoughts in a 200-300 word post.

Key Chapter Takeaways

Research methods are described as a systematic process of inquiry to learn about the social world.
Scientists, media professionals and consumers all play a role in the spread of untrue information regarding scientific studies.
Proficiency in reading and comprehending research is essential for you as a media professional. It will not only enhance your storytelling skills and ability to hold officials accountable but also bolster your credibility as a communicator, ensuring accurate representation of research findings and academic ideas in your reporting.

Key Terms

Research methods: a systematic process of inquiry applied to learn something about our social world.

Replication studies: When a researcher reproduces a study that’s already been done and gets the same results. Not many researchers do these studies as no one wants to be second in research.

P-hacking: Collecting all variables and playing around with them to find statistically significant results.

Peer review: Assesses the validity of research. When a piece of research is peer-reviewed, it is given the stamp of approval by other academics and researchers. Some peer review processes are more rigorous and selective than others.

Statistically significant: Asserts that the relationship between two variables likely isn’t due to chance or sampling error.

Echo Chamber: An echo chamber refers to a situation in which individuals or groups only interact with information, opinions, or ideas that reinforce their existing beliefs or ideologies. In this self-reinforcing environment, people are exposed to a narrow range of perspectives and are less likely to encounter diverse or conflicting viewpoints. As a result, their opinions and beliefs become more entrenched, making it challenging to have meaningful discussions or consider alternative views.

Filter Bubble: A filter bubble refers to the personalized information ecosystem that internet users experience when algorithms selectively show content based on their past behaviour, interests, and online activity. These algorithms analyze users’ browsing history, search queries, social media interactions, and other data to deliver content that aligns with their preferences. Consequently, users are exposed to limited information, reinforcing their existing beliefs and preferences while potentially isolating them from differing viewpoints.

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Navigating Communication Research: A Practical Guide for Media Practitioners Copyright © 2025 by Amanda Williams and Emma Duke is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.