|
Misleading quoting of evidence
|
Misquoting |
• Inaccurately reporting objectives, methods, findings, or conclusions of studies |
|
Selective quoting |
• The ‘tweezers’ method: Reporting extracts out of context in a misleading way by partially quoting and/or omitting qualifying information |
|
Misinterpretation |
• Presenting a minor point as a main conclusion• Presenting absence of evidence as evidence of absence |
|
Mimicked scientific critique
|
Seeking methodological perfection |
• Insistence on observation of actual behaviour• Exaggerating impact of limitations• Ignoring research governance |
|
Insisting on methodological uniformity |
• Privileging marketing research• Rejecting qualitative methodology |
|
Adopting the litigation model |
• Privileging experts• Piece-by-piece review |
|
Lack of rigour |
• Incorrect reading/interpreting of studies• Double standards• Lack of clarity |
|
Evidential landscaping
|
Promoting alternative evidence |
• Citing behavioural studies of individuals to oppose a population-scale intervention |
|
Excluding relevant evidence |
• Omitting internal industry research on the role of packaging in marketing |
