Jeff Zuckerman

Hey,” my daughter said to me. “Did you see that they rescued those miners?”

It wasn’t the kind of news a father wants to break to his child when she glances at the morning paper.

Like many newspapers across the country, the StarTribune of Minneapolis blew it with a banner headline erroneously reporting that the dozen West Virginia coal miners had been rescued.

In a mea culpa, the Strib’s reader representative, Kate Parry, offered the following email message from Janet Brown, a technical writer in Plymouth, as a common reaction to the error:

"Take responsibility for your own actions. Put a sign over every writer's and editor's desk: 'How do I know this story is true?' "

Those are harsh words for a newspaper editor to stomach. Trust me: I used to be one.

How do I know this story is true?

Scholarly writers should take heed from that question. Although rarely a life-and-death matter, accuracy is paramount in social science writing. You, as a reader, should always be questioning the veracity of the scholarship you read. After all, your readers will always have the same question on their minds when reading your work:

How do I know this story is true?

In the sciences, the “truth,” at least as it’s known at any moment, is revealed through careful and replicable reporting and analysis, whether that be statistical data, interviews, or past research. The Korean cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk learned that the hard way last year, losing his job and his reputation for falsifying data on stem cell research.

Could a Walden student suffer that fate from a mere error in a course paper? I don’t know. But here are some hints to keep it from happening:

1. Consider the sources of your research. Although even a prestigious medical journal has published erroneous data, you’re better off reporting from original peer-reviewed original research than from the abridged translation that appears in a textbook, Newsweek, or the county public health association’s Web site or newsletter.

2. Examine actual survey questions, sample populations, and research methods critically. Perhaps 4 out of 5 dentists really did recommend Trident for their patients who chew gum. But for all we know, they all worked for the gum company.

3. Double-check your notes, and maybe check them a third time. Did Clemente (2004) really write what your notes say Clemente (2004) wrote in his journal article? And did you write down the reference accurately?

4. Decide whether your assertions are actually supported by the evidence at hand, or if—like those awaiting word at the top of the West Virginia mine shaft—you’re reporting not the truth, but what you want the truth to be.

No doubt what Brown wrote in that email message is good advice for all of us. Put a sign over your desk: “How do I know this is true?” 

As always, contact me or the tutors at writingsupport@waldenu.edu if you have comments or questions.