Research and Data Literacy
A number is not automatically evidence. Evidence is a number with a source, a definition, a time frame, and a comparison that makes sense.
Success criteria
- I can turn a general claim into a researchable question.
- I can record the source, date, and context for every fact I use.
- I can ask questions that expose misleading statistics.
- I can explain the difference between correlation and causation.
Claim, evidence, interpretation
| Part | What it does | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | The point you want the audience to accept. | School lunchboxes produce a lot of avoidable waste. |
| Evidence | A fact, figure, example, or expert finding that supports the claim. | A school waste audit found that most lunchbox waste by weight was food, not packaging. |
| Interpretation | What the evidence means for your argument. | If most waste is food, then portion planning may reduce more waste than swapping packaging alone. |
| Source | Where the evidence came from and how it was produced. | School audit report, Term 1, method and sample size stated. |
From claim to question
| General claim | Researchable question | What to look for |
|---|---|---|
| Food waste is bad. | How much food waste does an average Australian household produce, and what happens to it? | A government or research report with a clear method and date. |
| Fast fashion harms the planet. | Which stage of a garment's life uses the most water or energy? | A lifecycle study, not a brand's marketing page. |
| Recycling fixes plastic pollution. | What share of plastic waste is actually recycled in Australia? | Government data that defines "recycled" and the year. |
| Renewables are better. | How have electricity prices and emissions changed as renewable generation increased? | Market data and independent analysis, not a single advocacy page. |
Seven questions for any statistic
1. Who counted?
Was it a government agency, university, industry group, NGO, or anonymous website? Who paid for the research?
2. When?
Sustainability data changes. A 2012 figure may not describe 2026. Check the publication and collection dates.
3. Where?
Is it Australia, your state, your city, or another country? Do not transfer a global figure to a local claim.
4. Of what?
"80% of people" - which people? What was the sample? Who was left out?
5. Compared with what?
A number means little alone. Compare over time, between places, or against a baseline.
6. Per what?
Total emissions, per person, or per dollar? A country can have high total emissions and low emissions per person.
7. Says who?
Can you trace the number to an original report, or only to a social media post quoting another post?
Bonus: what is missing?
Does the source report uncertainty, limitations, or a counter-example? A perfect number is a warning sign.
Percentages need a base
"Up 50%" is not a complete claim. It needs a starting value and a time frame.
| Statement | Problem | Better question |
|---|---|---|
| Recycling rates rose 50%. | 50% of what? From when to when? | What were the rates at the start and end, and in which area? |
| Nine out of ten students care about sustainability. | How many students were asked, and how were they selected? | What was the sample size and survey method? |
| The average household wastes 10 kg a week. | Average can hide very different households. | What is the median, and what is the range? |
| Emissions fell by 20%. | Compared with which year? Which emissions? | What is the baseline year and the scope of the measurement? |
Correlation is not causation
Two things rising or falling together does not prove one caused the other. Look for a mechanism, a time order, and a study that controls other factors.
Example: Ice-cream sales and sunburn both rise in summer. Ice cream does not cause sunburn. A third factor, sunny weather, helps explain both. In sustainability, a rise in recycling and a fall in landfill may share a cause such as a new collection service.
Record evidence properly
| Claim I want to make | Evidence | Source and date | How it supports my purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
Where to look
| Source type | Strengths | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Government data and reports | Often large samples, clear methods, public access. | Can lag behind current events; definitions change. |
| Peer-reviewed research | Checked by experts; methods are visible. | Can be narrow; may be behind a paywall. |
| Universities and research centres | Specialist expertise and transparent methods. | Check who funded the work. |
| NGOs and advocacy groups | Accessible summaries and strong local knowledge. | May select evidence that supports their campaign. |
| Industry bodies | Useful data about their own operations. | May have a commercial interest in the result. |
| News media | Useful for context and expert quotes. | Often reports a study second-hand; trace the original. |
| Social media and AI summaries | Can point you toward a source. | Not evidence. Verify before use. |
Assessment link
The assessment expects accurate sustainability content with causes, impacts, and solutions. Use at least three credible sources and put a short source line on the infographic. Your planning should record what each fact or statistic shows and how it supports your purpose.
Do not invent data. If you cannot find a reliable figure, use a well-explained example or a qualitative claim instead. A smaller, accurate infographic is stronger than a page of unsupported numbers.