Ethical Use of Research
Research allows the speaker to make accurate factual assertions, even bold assertions. It is helpful to understand the following criteria used to evaluate research:
Authority: To have authority means to have special knowledge or skill in a particular topic; to be an expert. When selecting material to cite in a presentation, consider the source’s credentials, or authority, to make statements. Ask whether this person, website, or think tank has the credentials to make the assertions. You can often find the credentials of a potential source by doing some quick background research.
Accuracy: Is the research true? Did the researchers conduct a reliable study with a large control group, or was a small random segment of the population analyzed? Are there general remarks that may not take into consideration specific anomalies? Is the information factual?
Recency: How recently was the material created? In many cases, outdated material will rapidly lower speaker credibility because the material is no longer relevant. The exception is historical topics which give background context or foundational research that created standards for particular industries or disciplines. So, for example, in a speech on the history of the paperclip, chances are that there has been no groundbreaking controversial information to emerge within the last three months. In this case, quotes from an older, print book would more than likely be acceptable to the audience. However, for a presentation based on the protocols for COVID-19 vaccinations research analysis from 2020 would instantly lower the speaker’s credibility because medical policies have changed over time. Is the research timely considering the specific subject in the larger social context in terms of controversy? How is the topic situated within the current news cycle? Even when evaluating quantitative studies and whether they are current enough, be sure to investigate whether significant changes have occurred since the study was published.
Objectivity: Neutral research facilitates objectivity. Research studies and testimony from think tanks and websites should remain objective and not favor one side over another on the topic. Is the analysis consistent with other sources? If not, does the research furnish reasonable proof of why there is an anomaly between expert statements or findings in investigations? Was the research conducted over a long period or a limited span? Sometimes, a short-term study may be reliable in drawing valid inferences. However, be sure to explain why the results are valid if an audience member raises this question.
Quantity: The last few criteria have focused on the source credentials and research quality. This last criterion focuses on the quantity of research proof provided by public speakers. Do we have enough research? Does one source paint a vivid picture, and the other provide data? Do we have sources from a variety of experts? For example, when developing a speech on the economy and its impact on the elderly, do we have sources from economists, sociologists, social workers, and think tanks?
Types of Supporting Material
Definitions: Definitions explain terms for the audience. In this way, we bring our listeners from the unfamiliar to the familiar. We clarify concepts to ensure both the speaker and audience use the same reference point for understanding terms.
Statistics: When speakers identify the total number of people impacted, associative costs in dollar amount or percentages, number of years, and trends, they are using statistics as supporting material. We establish trends, or compare and contrast items with statistics. Statistics demonstrate the severity of an issue. Statistical data can also demonstrate frequency. Time frame scenarios reference the length or brevity of a problem.
Testimony: Statements generated by experts in the news media or governmental hearings create expert testimony. Quoting field of study experts from particular subject areas can be very powerful, especially when the speaker emphasizes credentials.
Reluctant Authority Testimony: If the example is rooted in an individual undergoing a challenging circumstance and overcoming that situation, that testimony would be called reluctant authority. That person is an expert on a topic by their experience of enduring a tragic event. Reluctant authority is often compelling to an audience because it demonstrates the resiliency of the human spirit. For example, Jennifer was homeless for five years. Then, a nonprofit organization provided her with a tiny home and job training. Jennifer would be a reluctant authority in homelessness and proof that tiny homes can solve homelessness for other individuals.
Narratives: Stories provide vivid descriptions of events and humanize statistics. Narratives can be brief or extended; and narratives can be true or hypothetical. Providing two or three short narratives about different people to support an argument can be just as interesting as one long detailed account about one individual. We can tell an actual or hypothetical story about several individuals who have overcome homelessness due to a successful nonprofit organization. Alternatively, a speaker can provide a detailed account of one person's struggle to find housing and how that individual has become an inspiration in their community.