Many of us rely on information shared by industries, scientists, and economic professionals. We follow published reports—reading them in hopes we’ll learn something new, make better decisions, or plan appropriately for our lives. However, not all reports are created equal. Some of them take advantage of public trust, concealing underlying facts that could change how we view their data.
Knowing how to tell fact from fiction is a great skill to have. Use this blog to learn what to look for in economic reports, and you’ll become a savvy reader in no time!
What are economic reports?
Economics reports highlight statistics and numbers, usually financial, about the impacts particular companies, areas, or industries may have on local economies. These reports can cover economies at a community, state, or federal level and often include an outlook on job prospects, median incomes, population numbers, and tax revenues. They may also use scientific data or agency findings to back their claims.
What to look for in a report?
Most reports can be trustworthy and accurate if they use the information in a genuine way.
However, it’s important to remain skeptical: don’t just take the report at face value. Communication professionals in master’s programs (like the author of this article) learn how to vet journals and reports during school. You can learn this too, and you don’t even need to pursue higher education!
Here are a few things to look for when reading scientific or economic reports:
Questionable Funding Sources
The first thing to check is the report’s funding sources. Was the report developed independently, or did the report’s authors, university, or agency accept payment for the work done?
Funding in itself isn’t a red flag. While scientists often get grants for their projects, many universities and agencies cannot produce work without money—and many often do work for specific clients. However, there is a big difference between simply accepting funding (and then doing the work independently) and accepting funding that then directly impacts the report’s results.
Start by looking at the report topic, then look at the funding source. Could the funder be directly impacted by the results of the report?
Here’s an example:
Let’s say a lab releases a report on how Aspirin (negatively or positively) affects Alzheimer’s patients. If some of the funding comes from a company that produces Aspirin, you should assume the company is very interested in the results of the report being positive. Proceed carefully.
Here’s a real-life example:
In 2017, Arizona State University released an economic impact report on mining in Arizona. This Chamber of Commerce article reports on the “mine of tomorrow,” writing: “According to a 2017 economic impact by the L. William Seidman Research Institute at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University that was commissioned by Arizona Mining, the project would benefit Santa Cruz, Pima, and Cochise counties, and Arizona as a whole.”
Take a careful look at who funded the report. It was written by a university but commissioned—in other words, paid for—by Arizona Mining Inc. (AMI), a mining company operating in the Patagonia Mountains (they have since been purchased by South32).
As a result, this 2017 economic report is likely biased. It only talks about what the project expects to add to the economy in a perfect-world scenario; there was no discussion of the downsides of this level of industrialized mining in a biologically diverse ecosystem. A better report would forgo funding by a mining company and deliver real, honest information on the benefits and pitfalls of mining on economies in southwest Arizona. By pushing this report independently, the writers and experts would’ve had less pressure to please AMI with their final product.
For a true idea of what impact mining could have on Arizona communities, look for economic reports that are independently researched and produced. And when in doubt, always do your own fact checking.
Partial Author Affiliations
Does the report’s funding seem squeaky clean? Or perhaps it’s independently developed? We’re making progress, but the report isn’t off the hook yet. The next step is to check the authors and review their listed affiliations.
Even if a report isn’t directly funded, its writers and contributors can be. An expert that contributes to an economic report on a particular industry, for example, may work for an agency or organization that only supports that industry. A scientist may have consulted on pro-industry reports in the past and therefore does not have an unbiased perspective on the topic.
Here’s an example:
A university publishes their findings on the benefits of consuming dairy. It is funded by general grants, so the funding source is clean. However, two of the experts have a long list of publications they’ve contributed to about dairy and health. Looking deeper, several of the previous publications were funded by the dairy industry. One expert also worked as a fellow for a dairy association.
Be wary of these affiliations. Proceed with caution and vet the facts.
As for our real-life example…
The 2017 economic report by the L. William Seidman Research Institute at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University does not list who worked on the report. There are no author names attached, and the report does not indicate whether the information within was reviewed by a team of independent editors or economists. This makes it hard to give the authors a background check—and makes it even harder to know whether we should trust the data provided.
Biased Sources
If funding sources and author affiliations are A-OK, it’s likely the report is unbiased. There’s just one last thing to check now: the resources the authors used to back their claims. When looking at the sources, scan for the following red flags.
- Old sources only: A mix of old and new sources ensure there are no gaps in research.
- Many sources by one author: One author could be biased or have questionable affiliations.
- Non-peer reviewed sources: Peer-reviewed sources are vetted by a committee of scientists or editors, which makes them more likely to be accurate.
- Non-scientific sources: Don’t trust anything that quotes tabloids or clickbait materials.
- Industry sources: For a report, you want the sources to come from trustworthy sites, not from the industry that has a lot to gain from a glowing review.
As for our real-life example…
The 2017 economic report lists six references. These include a resource by Ernst & Young (a company that offers professional services, like tax and financial, to industries including mining) and a technical report provided by Arizona Mining Inc. Furthermore, the report states that inputs (e.g., the data) were provided by the Hermosa Project—not pulled or projected independently.
The bottom line
Many economic reports are valid. We don’t want you to be jaded, but we do encourage you to be skeptical of what you read. If you take reports with a grain of salt and put in a little bit of research yourself, you’ll quickly be able to determine if the information presented is accurate or not.
BONUS: Here are a few more tips for you as you foray into the world of report reading!
- If the journal article/report praises a specific agenda, it may be one-sided.
- Always look for third-party verifications of the report. Have trustworthy websites/journalists/scientists reviewed the information? Do they agree or disagree with the report? Can you find other sources that back up—or dismiss—the report?
- Do the statistics and data in the report make sense? Ask someone else to take a look, then see what conclusion they come to. Sometimes fresh eyes can be very helpful!
