In brief

Activist-driven research is often rigged to validate specific viewpoints and justify policies that are really based on political preference.

This cycle undermines trust in academic research and public institutions.

Questionable evidence in reports by or for government, like studies on impossible to calculate and suspect links, for instance how many people will supposedly die from a slight increase in pollution from vehicles, mislead the public.

Other examples include studies on racism in New Zealand’s medical field and female trans athlete advantages.

Circular logic in activist research

Evidence should inform policy, but activists within academia and government often conduct research to validate their viewpoints.

Critics say this is used to propagandise the public, because it creates a self-reinforcing cycle as follows: biased research shapes public opinion and policy, which in turn justifies further research aligned with those same views.

Such “research” can polarise communities and, ultimately, undermine trust in academic research and public institutions.

For instance, overseas, there’s a wealth of research from trans athletes who specialise in researching trans athletes. Perhaps not surprisingly, there seems to be a consensus amongst this group that they do not hold an unfair advantage over natural-born female athletes.

This has raised ire of many who question the validity of their evidence, further fueling controversy and eroding confidence in the objectivity of academic studies.

These trans “studies” defy what many say they can plainly see with their own eyes and so have little chance of being persuasive to anyone that isn’t already on board.

In our view, this trend of bogus studies is particularly rampant in New Zealand. Political parties seem to want studies to support all manner of things, including political choices that cannot possibly be shown scientifically.

And much of the media parrots it, usually without question, especially when the media aligns politically.

Critiquing activist “research”

A prime example is the study titled “Racism against Māori medical students and professionals widespread,” published in JAMA Network Open.

Conducted by researchers at the Universities of Auckland and Otago, the study claims that over 90% of Māori doctors and medical students have experienced or witnessed racism in their education or work environments.

The reliance on self-reported data and the potential for respondent bias must be considered. Like the Manalagi Project’s study, which claimed the health system was discriminatory against the LGBTQ+ community, the “evidence” of discrimination appears similar to “microaggressions”.

Discrimination may be real or imagined based on such “evidence”. For example, media reports cite the failure to use the traditional te reo greeting “Kia Ora”.

Where was the control group for this study? How did the observers genuinely know who is Māori? Did they overlook individuals who looked like Pākeha? How accurate and reliable are their observations?

Journalist Graham Adams, in a recent article for The Platform, calls out the similarly flimsy evidence used to smear the multicultural volunteer staff of the Cancer Society as racist.

That said, we encourage respect in all interpersonal relationships and recognise cultural understanding is often helpful. But the lack of such a touch is not the same as racist.

The constant flow of headlines touting dodgy evidence claiming the system is racist is divisive, to say the least.

Why is questionable evidence so prevalent in NZ?

A number of our writers have considerable experience overseas. Our observation is that laughably weak reports are used in NZ far more often than elsewhere. Why is that?

Our guess is it boils down to: Kiwis having an unjustifiably high level of trust in government expertise; less practical analytical experience; weaker quality control, including by media; and a greater attempt by the government to influence the public with more “comms”.

All of these things you will see occasionally mentioned by more seasoned NZ journalists and we think there is a lot of truth to it.

Community Discussion

Latest News