.jpg)
MONTHS before the libel case converged, Mr. Kissoon was very pompous, and had grandstanded about his “research” on racial discrimination, as if it were the trump card that would win anything hands down. However, after reading the KN news item “Kissoon libel case … Defence concludes evidence-in-chief” (05-03-13), the reader gets the impression that the defendant is irresolute and afraid about revealing his “research.” One would expect a clear and concise report backed by scientific evidence as opposed to wishful thinking from this notable previous lecturer who taught Social Science at the University. There are daring and dexterous claims made by Mr. Kissoon; you’d think that with such confidence level, he’d be more than happy to share these ‘truths’ by making it available to the Guyanese people.
The news item reported that Mr. Kissoon “sought information from primary documents such as official government documents, national institutes, official reports and international organizations. The secondary documents, he said, came from published books and journals, while other information came from local newspapers, interviews and unpublished manuscripts”.
It is integral that Mr. Kissoon copiously footnote his sources, as the reader needs to know where the data are derived, since the source is not always trustworthy (pun intended). Guyanese would like to know, for example, which government documents were examined (and which were not), which international organisations were researched and why. We would like to know how these data are relevant, and if the data have been manipulated to facilitate a conclusion.
The defendant is a master connoisseur and ivory dome when presenting his “research” findings. KN earlier reported, “Kissoon said that it was clear that, “98 percent possession of land, commerce, financial houses, import and export trade and in general, wealth.”” Not only the court, but also many are longing to examine the empirical evidence of Mr. Kissoon as to how he came to this “clear” conclusion. In an apparent earlier research of the commercial landscape in Georgetown, Mr. Kissoon stated “almost 99.99 percent” are owned by East Indians; in other words, out of 10,000 businesses or so, about 9,999 are owned by East Indians! What research tool did Mr. Kissoon use to calibrate his figures? Were his sources primary or secondary?
I am certain that Mr. Kissoon might prove that Indians were numerically favoured, compared to Africans. He may point out that many more Indians were given scholarships, jobs, house lots, contracts, etc. I am confident, however, that Mr. Kissoon would not mention the fact that Indians are almost one-third more the population than Africans (43.5% compared to 30.2%)! So, considering all things equal, if there are 100 scholarships available, it is not a case of racial discrimination if 43 were assigned to Indians and 30 given to Africans – keeping in mind the ethnic composition in the country.
Mr. Kissoon’s secondary sources are also of interest – which include “newspapers, interviews and unpublished manuscripts.” Are the data from these sources reliable? Does the researcher present an accurate, balanced report, backed by scientific evidence? Anyone could produce an unpublished manuscript, but that does not necessarily make it a credible source of research.
Mr. Kissoon has shown himself to manipulate figures, exaggerate his points, distort the truth and concoct conclusions; his “research” is therefore, suspect. Without adequately scrutinising the data, methodology, and conclusion, one has to take Mr. Kissoon’s “research” with a grain of salt!
The news item reported that Mr. Kissoon “sought information from primary documents such as official government documents, national institutes, official reports and international organizations. The secondary documents, he said, came from published books and journals, while other information came from local newspapers, interviews and unpublished manuscripts”.
It is integral that Mr. Kissoon copiously footnote his sources, as the reader needs to know where the data are derived, since the source is not always trustworthy (pun intended). Guyanese would like to know, for example, which government documents were examined (and which were not), which international organisations were researched and why. We would like to know how these data are relevant, and if the data have been manipulated to facilitate a conclusion.
The defendant is a master connoisseur and ivory dome when presenting his “research” findings. KN earlier reported, “Kissoon said that it was clear that, “98 percent possession of land, commerce, financial houses, import and export trade and in general, wealth.”” Not only the court, but also many are longing to examine the empirical evidence of Mr. Kissoon as to how he came to this “clear” conclusion. In an apparent earlier research of the commercial landscape in Georgetown, Mr. Kissoon stated “almost 99.99 percent” are owned by East Indians; in other words, out of 10,000 businesses or so, about 9,999 are owned by East Indians! What research tool did Mr. Kissoon use to calibrate his figures? Were his sources primary or secondary?
I am certain that Mr. Kissoon might prove that Indians were numerically favoured, compared to Africans. He may point out that many more Indians were given scholarships, jobs, house lots, contracts, etc. I am confident, however, that Mr. Kissoon would not mention the fact that Indians are almost one-third more the population than Africans (43.5% compared to 30.2%)! So, considering all things equal, if there are 100 scholarships available, it is not a case of racial discrimination if 43 were assigned to Indians and 30 given to Africans – keeping in mind the ethnic composition in the country.
Mr. Kissoon’s secondary sources are also of interest – which include “newspapers, interviews and unpublished manuscripts.” Are the data from these sources reliable? Does the researcher present an accurate, balanced report, backed by scientific evidence? Anyone could produce an unpublished manuscript, but that does not necessarily make it a credible source of research.
Mr. Kissoon has shown himself to manipulate figures, exaggerate his points, distort the truth and concoct conclusions; his “research” is therefore, suspect. Without adequately scrutinising the data, methodology, and conclusion, one has to take Mr. Kissoon’s “research” with a grain of salt!
