This Is Research Done Right

It’s big!  It’s thorough!  It’s easy to read!  It’s written by a Democrat!

All wannabe researchers (which apparently includes the entire specialty on the Republican side) gather around and feast your eyes on this.  Here is research done right:

It was originally made by Link Strategies for Perry’s 2010 gubernatorial opponent Bill White (D). The book amounts to a deep dive on the governor’s tenure. Its authors were prescient in their focus, providing thorough forensics of his Perry’s job creation record and his personal wealth accrued through shady land deals, both of which have become notable issues in the 2012 campaign.

I am fond of Link Strategies’ work.  When I first started out on my own, I mimicked a lot of their format and style- partially because I felt bad about doing so for my former boss, mostly because it is really good.  It’s organized.  It flows.  Whether your manager is brilliant or a bonehead, s/he’s going to read this research and understand it.

But enough about me liking one of my competitors.  Let’s discuss why this is good research:

Narrative.  A collection of bullets is just that: a collection.  Everything needs context, and this report provides it.  Flip to anywhere in the text (as campaign professionals are wont to do) and you can sort out what you’re reading and why.  Introductions tie the bullets together.  Gray boxes sort the information.  We need these things to process the massive amount of information research provides.

Diverse sourcing.  Here’s a great snap judgment for your research (and a cute trick to flummox staff when you’re editing and pressed for time): Look at a couple of pages, any of them.  If the sources are all from, for example, clips, then at best it is mediocre research.  Someone read all the clips, threw them all together and called it a section.  If there are multiple sources, someone has spent a lot of time putting different elements together.  Someone has thought about what everything actually says instead of just aggregating and summarizing.  And most importantly, someone has tracked information down to its original source instead of relying on reporters (who are paid to report, but not necessarily to get things absolutely right).

Things to avoid.  There are different ways of doing this.  Sometimes that datum that might be an attack but is probably best left unsaid is buried at the back of the report, where no one ever reads anyway.  Sometimes it’s redirected towards a better line of attack.  Sometimes, as this report does, it just explicitly states “don’t do this.”  The method depends on the author, and on the audience.  But the imperative is clear: researchers are not just hired to find dirt.  We’re hired to prevent our clients from acting stupid.  No one has the time in a campaign to put actions in context, to remember what happened the last time someone tried this.  That’s what we’re here to do.

Everything is useful.  For a 500 page document, this report is incredibly focused.  The issues appendices are where they belong: in the back.  The main sections have a specific, easily understood message with bullets that stand by themselves as well as in support of the main point.  ”Texans are Worse Off”: look anywhere under that box and you see solid examples of Texans being worse off.  Use one of them.  Use many.  Copy and paste, or think it over.  Good research means never having to puzzle through what exactly your research said, or whether s/he said anything.