CRITIQUE

Page 578

Try to keep ballpark figures , estimates of what the numbers should be, in mind as you look at

numerical data. Question surprises before accepting them.

Analyzing data can be hard even for experts. Numerous studies exist in scholarly journals

challenging the data-based conclusions of earlier articles. One example is the fate of unmarried,

college-educated women over 30. A famous Newsweek cover story, “Too Late for Prince

Charming?” reported the Yale and Harvard study that suggested such women had only a 20%

chance of finding husbands, and only a 2.6% chance by the time they reached 40. Twenty years

later an economist at the University of Washington examined 30 years of census data. Her

figures for the decade of the original study showed that women aged 40–44 with advanced

degrees were only 25% less likely to be married than comparably aged women with just high

school diplomas. Since then, those women with post-college education were slightly more likely

to be married than those who had finished only high school. 4

Evaluating the Source of the Data

When evaluating the source of your data, question the authors, objectivity, constituent data, and

currency of the source.

Identify the Authors. Which people or organization provided the data? What credentials do

they have? If you want national figures on wages and unemployment, the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics would be a good source. But if you want the figures for your local town, your local

Chamber of Commerce might be a more credible source. Use the strategies outlined in Chapter

15 to evaluate web sources.

Assess the Objectivity of the Source. Ask yourself these questions:

Does the source give evidence to support claims?

Is the surrounding prose professional and unbiased?

If the subject supports multiple viewpoints, are other opinions referenced or explained?

When the source has a vested interest in the results, scrutinize the data with special care. To

analyze a company’s financial prospects, use independent information as well as the company’s

annual report and press releases.

Drug and medical device companies, and the researchers funded by them, keep appearing in

the news with reports of undue influence. Duke University researchers checked 746 studies of

heart stents published in one year in medical journals. They found that 83% of the papers did not

disclose whether authors were paid consultants for companies, even though many journals

require that information. Even worse, 72% of the papers did not say who funded the research.

study in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine noted that positive studies of

antidepressant trials got published and negative ones did not: “According to the published

literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA

analysis showed that 51% were positive.” 6

PRINTED BY: SHERIFAT EGBERONGBE . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted. bias? A survey of city library users may uncover information about users, but it may not find

what keeps other people away from the library.

PRINTED BY: SHERIFAT EGBERONGBE . Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.