fact finding in research meaning

What is fact-finding? Definition and examples

Fact-Finding refers to the gathering of information . It is often part of an initial mission, i.e., preliminary research, to gather facts for a subsequent full investigation or hearing. A fact-finding tour, for example, has the purpose of ascertaining facts . You may want to check the facts about, for instance, France, before deciding to break into the French market.

In this context, ‘market’ refers to the business environment where people buy and sell things .

The process of fact-finding is essential not only for building a case or understanding a situation but also for making informed decisions in business and governance.

In an inquiry or investigation, fact-finding is the discovery stage. During this stage, people gather information by using questionnaires and other survey tools. They then assemble all the data in a report and give it, perhaps with recommendations, to the investigator.

A government or parliamentary committee may go on a fact-finding mission to discover and establish the facts of an issue.

An advancing army will send out scouts to check out the terrain ahead. They will look out for enemy soldiers, hostile terrain, opportunities, strategic advantages, etc. The scouts go out on a fact-finding mission before the troops move forward.

A fact-finding mission, according to Collins Dictionary : “is one whose purpose is to get information about a particular situation, especially for an official group.”

Fact-Finding Rules

According to Queens University IRC in Canada, there are six golden rules in fact-finding.

Go to the source

The source may be a record or an individual. Even if the source is not readily accessible, you must strive to get the best evidence you can.

Remain objective

Do not let people sway you. It is important to focus just on the facts, rather than people’s personalities or opinions.

Persistence

Do not be put off if you are not getting the information you require. Try to find out the root of the cause.

Do not become paralyzed

It is important to separate necessary from unnecessary facts. Make sure you go where the facts take you. However, do not go beyond your mandate.

Do not make assumptions

Confirm all the facts you gather again and again. If the information you have gathered is not accurate, the whole mission is pointless.

Devise a plan and follow it

When you develop a plan, think strategically. Before you begin, determine whom you need to talk to and what you need to establish. Regularly review your plan to confirm that it is effective.

According to Queens University IRC:

“When planned and executed properly, fact-finding provides a solid foundation for conducting analyses, forming conclusions, generating options and formulating sound recommendations.”

“Fact-finding may involve researching documents or existing records and data, holding focus groups, interviewing witnesses, or using written surveys and questionnaires.”

Fact-finding techniques are crucial in post-investigation phases, often used to validate the outcomes and ensure comprehensive understanding of the findings.

 Compound Nouns Containing “ Fact-Finding”

In various professional fields, “fact-finding” is a compound term often used to describe the thorough search for truths and information. A compound noun is a term consisting of two or more words that function as a single noun. Here are six compound nouns that integrate “fact-finding” to describe different aspects of investigative processes, each with a definition and an example in context:

Fact-Finding Mission

A specific task or expedition aimed at uncovering facts about a particular event, situation, or allegation. Example: “The United Nations sent a fact-finding mission to the region to assess the humanitarian situation on the ground.”

Fact-Finding Committee

A group of people appointed to investigate an issue or a set of circumstances and to establish the facts. Example: “The government established a fact-finding committee to delve into the causes of the financial crisis.”

Fact-Finding Report

A document that outlines the findings and evidence gathered during an investigation. Example: “The fact-finding report was conclusive in showing the sequence of events that led to the system’s failure.”

Fact-Finding Inquiry

An investigation or research effort dedicated to gathering information about a specific topic or event. Example: “A fact-finding inquiry into the accident will commence next week to determine the root cause.”

Fact-Finding Panel

A selection of experts or authority figures tasked with investigating facts on a particular issue. Example: “The fact-finding panel included legal, environmental, and safety experts to ensure a well-rounded investigation.”

Fact-Finding Process

The systematic approach to uncovering information and verifying facts related to an investigation or study. Example: “The auditor relied on a detailed fact-finding process to understand the discrepancies in the financial statements.”

Video – What is Fact-Finding?

This video, from our YouTube partner channel – Marketing Business Network , explains what ‘Fact-Finding’ means using simple and easy-to-understand language and examples.

Share this:

• Renewable Energy
• Artificial Intelligence
• 3D Printing
• Financial Glossary

10 Fact Finding Skills and How to Develop Them

• Updated December 25, 2023
• Published August 12, 2023

Are you looking to learn more about Fact Finding skills? In this article, we discuss Fact Finding skills in more detail and give you tips about how you can develop and improve them.

What are Fact Finding Skills?

Fact-finding skills refer to the ability to gather accurate and relevant information from various sources in order to make informed decisions, solve problems, or develop a comprehensive understanding of a particular subject or situation. These skills are crucial in many aspects of life, including academic, professional, and personal contexts. Fact-finding skills involve several key components:

Research Skills

• Critical Thinking

Interviewing Skills

Information evaluation, documentation, synthesis and analysis, communication skills.

• Adaptability

Verification Techniques

Ethical considerations.

Fact-finding skills are particularly important in fields such as journalism, law, scientific research, business analysis, policy-making, and academic studies. In today’s digital age, where vast amounts of information are readily available, honing these skills is essential to discerning accurate and reliable information from misinformation or fake news.

Top 10 Fact Finding Skills

Below we discuss the top 10 Fact Finding skills. Each skill is discussed in more detail, and we will also give you tips on how you can improve them.

Research skills are like your compass in the vast landscape of information, guiding you to credible sources and helping you unearth the hidden gems of knowledge. They encompass a range of abilities that enable you to uncover relevant and accurate information while navigating through the sea of data.

These skills include knowing how to formulate effective research questions, utilizing various search engines and databases, and mastering the art of refining your search queries. Moreover, being able to evaluate sources for credibility and relevance critically is essential. You’ll need to discern between scholarly articles, reputable websites, and potentially biased sources. It’s not just about finding information; it’s about finding the right information.

How to Improve Research Skills

Improving research skills is a journey that involves both technique and practice. One concrete way to enhance these skills is by learning advanced search operators. For example, on search engines, using quotation marks (” “) around a phrase will help you find exact matches. Additionally, learning to use Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) can help you refine your searches.

Another effective method is to practice source evaluation. Compare information from different sources on the same topic and analyze their credibility and bias. Lastly, consider exploring your library’s databases and resources. Libraries often provide workshops on research skills and access to academic databases that can significantly enrich your research endeavors. Remember, the more you practice, the more confident and skilled you’ll become in navigating the sea of information effectively.

Related :  10 Research Skills and How To Develop Them

Critical thinking is the art of looking beyond the surface, of questioning and dissecting information to understand its essence truly. It’s about being a detective of ideas, uncovering biases, assumptions, and implications that might not be immediately apparent. With critical thinking, you don’t just accept information at face value – you actively engage with it, scrutinize it, and form well-informed judgments.

These skills encompass various techniques, such as analyzing arguments, identifying logical fallacies, and recognizing patterns and inconsistencies. It’s about understanding the context in which information is presented and assessing the credibility of sources. By sharpening your critical thinking skills, you become adept at distinguishing between facts and opinions, recognizing biases, and making sound decisions based on well-founded reasoning.

How to Improve Critical Thinking

Improving your critical thinking skills is an empowering journey. One concrete step you can take is practicing argument analysis. When encountering an argument, break it down into its premises and conclusions. Ask yourself if the premises adequately support the conclusion and if any logical fallacies are present.

For instance, if someone presents an argument claiming a certain product is the best without providing any evidence, you can identify this as an “appeal to emotion” fallacy. Another way to enhance critical thinking is by engaging in debates or discussions with others who hold different viewpoints. This challenges you to think on your feet, defend your position, and consider alternative perspectives.

Additionally, reading diverse materials and exposing yourself to different ideologies and cultures broadens your perspective and hones your critical thinking skills by forcing you to analyze information from various angles. Remember, critical thinking is a muscle that gets stronger with exercise, so keep engaging with complex ideas and questioning assumptions to refine your analytical prowess.

Interviewing skills are like a bridge that connects you with people’s experiences, expertise, and perspectives. It’s the art of asking the right questions, actively listening, and empathetically engaging in unraveling valuable knowledge that might not be found elsewhere.

These skills encompass various aspects, including formulating open-ended questions that encourage detailed responses, active listening to capture nuances, and adapting your approach based on the interviewee’s demeanor. Beyond the technicalities, effective interviewing requires building rapport and creating a comfortable environment where individuals are willing to share their thoughts openly. By mastering these skills, you become a skilled conversationalist who can extract meaningful narratives and insights from a wide array of individuals.

How to Improve Interviewing Skills

Improving your interviewing skills involves a blend of technique and practice. One concrete method is to prepare well-crafted questions in advance, ensuring they are open-ended and tailored to the interviewee’s expertise. For instance, if you’re interviewing a scientist, you might ask, “Can you describe the process behind your recent discovery?” Another way to enhance your skills is by honing your active listening abilities.

Practice fully engaging in conversations without interrupting, and make a conscious effort to focus on the speaker’s words and nonverbal cues. Additionally, consider recording your practice interviews and critically reviewing them to identify areas for improvement, such as refining your follow-up questions or reducing filler words. Remember, the more you immerse yourself in real-world interviews and learn from each experience, the more adept you’ll become at extracting valuable insights and crafting compelling narratives.

Information evaluation is like being a detective for truth, sifting through sources to determine credibility, relevance, and potential biases. It’s about separating the wheat from the chaff and ensuring that the information you gather is reliable and accurate.

These skills encompass a range of techniques, including assessing the credibility of sources based on authorship, publication date, and publisher reputation. It involves recognizing potential biases and critically analyzing the methodology used to gather information. Effective information evaluation also involves cross-referencing data from multiple sources to validate facts and ensure consistency. By honing these skills, you become a skilled information detective, equipped to navigate the digital landscape and make well-informed judgments confidently.

How to Improve Information Evaluation

Improving your information evaluation skills requires a combination of vigilance and practice. One concrete approach is always to check the source of the information you encounter. For example, when assessing an online article, look for the author’s qualifications and affiliations to gauge their expertise and potential biases. Another strategy is to engage in fact-checking exercises. When you come across a claim, take a moment to verify it using reputable fact-checking websites or trusted sources.

Additionally, try comparing information from different sources on the same topic to identify inconsistencies or discrepancies. For instance, if you’re researching a medical topic, comparing findings from reputable medical journals can help you discern accurate information from the questionable. Remember, the more you cultivate a critical and discerning mindset, the more adept you’ll become at separating accurate information from misinformation in our information-rich world.

Documentation is the art of capturing and organizing the information you gather in a systematic and accessible manner. It’s about creating a trail that leads back to your explored sources, ensuring that you can easily reference and cite your findings.

These skills encompass a range of techniques, including properly citing sources using recognized formats like APA or MLA, maintaining clear and detailed notes during your research process, and categorizing information based on themes or topics. Effective documentation also involves keeping track of important details such as publication dates, page numbers, and URLs. By honing these skills, you create a reliable roadmap that helps you retrace your steps and allows others to follow the path you’ve taken in your fact-finding journey.

How to Improve Documentation

Improving your documentation skills requires a blend of discipline and strategy. One concrete way to enhance these skills is by using note-taking tools or software that allow you to organize and search your notes easily. For instance, if you’re researching a history topic, consider using digital tools that allow you to tag notes with relevant keywords, making it effortless to retrieve them later. Another strategy is to establish a consistent citation routine. When you extract information from a source, immediately note down the necessary citation details.

This not only saves time but ensures accuracy when it comes to acknowledging the sources you’ve used. Additionally, practice summarizing and paraphrasing information in your own words, which not only aids understanding but also prevents unintentional plagiarism. Remember, your documentation skills are like a compass that ensures you always know where you’ve been and where you’re headed in your exploration of information.

Synthesis and analysis are about taking the puzzle pieces of data you’ve gathered and assembling them into a coherent and meaningful whole. It’s the art of identifying patterns, connections, and insights that might not be immediately apparent.

These skills encompass various techniques, including identifying key themes or concepts across different sources, comparing and contrasting different viewpoints, and drawing informed conclusions based on your collected evidence. Effective synthesis and analysis also involve critically evaluating the strengths and limitations of various arguments and sources. By honing these skills, you become a master storyteller, able to distill complex information into clear narratives that provide valuable insights.

How to Improve Synthesis and Analysis

Improving your synthesis and analysis skills involves a combination of practice and perspective. One concrete approach is to create visual aids, such as concept maps or diagrams, to represent the relationships between different pieces of information visually. For example, if you’re researching the effects of climate change, you could create a diagram showing how various factors interact and contribute to the overall phenomenon.

Another strategy is to engage in collaborative discussions or study groups where you can share your findings and interpretations with others. This not only exposes you to different perspectives but also sharpens your ability to articulate and defend your analysis. Additionally, challenge yourself to write concise summaries of your research that capture the main points and implications.

By distilling complex information into succinct summaries, you not only reinforce your own understanding but also enhance your communication skills. Remember, synthesis and analysis are the tools that transform raw information into insightful knowledge, so keep weaving those threads of understanding together to create a tapestry of wisdom.

Communication skills are about more than just conveying information – they involve crafting your message in a clear, engaging, and persuasive way that resonates with your audience. It’s the art of packaging your fact-finding journey into a compelling narrative that can inform, inspire, and influence others.

These skills encompass a range of techniques, including writing effectively to convey complex ideas in a simple manner, tailoring your message to suit the needs and interests of your audience, and using visuals and multimedia to enhance understanding. Effective communication also involves active listening, allowing you to comprehend others’ viewpoints and adapt your message accordingly. By honing these skills, you become a master of not only gathering information but also presenting it in a way that captivates and enlightens your audience.

How to Improve Communication Skills

Improving your communication skills involves a blend of practice and refinement. One concrete approach is to engage in regular writing exercises. Challenge yourself to explain a complex concept in a few simple sentences, or practice summarizing your research findings in a concise and engaging manner. Another strategy is to seek feedback from peers or mentors. Present your findings to someone who is not familiar with your topic and ask for their input on clarity, organization, and overall impact.

Additionally, consider utilizing different communication mediums. If you’re comfortable with public speaking, give presentations or workshops to share your research. Alternatively, create informative and visually appealing infographics or videos to present your findings in a more interactive way. Remember, communication skills are the gateway to sharing your knowledge with the world, so keep refining your craft to ensure your discoveries reach and resonate with your intended audience.

Adaptability is your ability to flex and adjust your fact-finding approach based on the unique demands of each situation. It’s about being resourceful and open-minded, ready to pivot and explore new avenues when the unexpected arises.

These skills encompass various techniques, such as being able to switch between different research methods depending on the availability of sources, adjusting your research questions to accommodate new insights, and learning to navigate different types of information platforms, from traditional libraries to online databases and social media.

Effective adaptability also involves managing your time efficiently to tackle unexpected challenges without losing focus on your ultimate goal. By honing these skills, you become a versatile information explorer, equipped to navigate the twists and turns of your fact-finding journey.

How to Improve Adaptability

Improving your adaptability skills requires a combination of flexibility and strategy. One concrete approach is to set aside time for exploration. Allocate specific time slots in your research process to explore alternative sources or approaches that might not have been part of your original plan. For example, if you’re researching a historical event, consider dedicating a day to visit local archives or speak with historians who might provide new perspectives. Another strategy is to embrace technology and new research tools.

Experiment with using digital tools for data analysis or visualization or explore emerging platforms that might offer unique insights into your topic. Additionally, practice mindfulness and stress management. Staying composed when faced with unexpected challenges allows you to maintain focus and continue your fact-finding journey with clarity and determination. Remember, adaptability is your compass to navigate the ever-evolving landscape of information, so remain open to change and ready to embrace new opportunities as you journey through your quest for knowledge.

Related :  Interview Questions About Adaptability +Answers

This skill is all about honing your ability to validate the accuracy and authenticity of the information you come across, ensuring that the data you use or share is reliable and trustworthy. In an era of abundant information and misinformation, mastering verification techniques is crucial for making informed decisions and maintaining your credibility as a discerning consumer and communicator of information.

Verification techniques encompass a range of skills that enable you to cross-reference and validate information from multiple sources. These techniques include source triangulation, where you verify facts by comparing information from different reputable sources and fact-checking through trusted fact-checking websites.

You’ll also learn to critically assess the credibility of sources, evaluating factors such as expertise, bias, and transparency. Developing these skills equips you to spot deepfakes, manipulated images, and fabricated content, empowering you to sift through the digital clutter and arrive at well-informed conclusions.

How to Improve Verification Techniques

Improving your verification techniques requires a blend of skepticism and diligence. One concrete approach is to perform a lateral reading. Instead of staying on a single website or source, open multiple tabs and cross-reference the information you encounter to validate its consistency and accuracy. For example, if you’re researching a scientific discovery, read articles from various reputable scientific journals to ensure the information is corroborated. Another strategy is to explore specialized databases and authoritative sources.

When seeking information on a specific topic, look for databases maintained by universities, government agencies, or established organizations in that field. Additionally, practice critical evaluation of sources by considering the author’s qualifications, the publication’s reputation, and the presence of citations or references to other credible works. Remember, verification techniques are your shield against misinformation, so always be curious, meticulous, and thorough in your quest for reliable information.

Ethical considerations involve being conscious of the ethical implications and potential consequences of your information-gathering process. It’s about treading carefully and thoughtfully as you navigate the sea of data, ensuring that your actions align with honesty, integrity, and respect for individuals and communities.

These skills encompass various aspects, including acknowledging and respecting copyright and intellectual property rights when using others’ work, seeking permission before sharing sensitive or private information, and avoiding plagiarism or misrepresentation of sources.

Ethical considerations also involve being aware of potential biases or conflicts of interest in the information you’re gathering and ensuring that your fact-finding process is transparent and accountable. By honing these skills, you become a conscientious information seeker dedicated to upholding ethical standards and contributing positively to collective knowledge.

How to Improve Ethical Considerations

Improving your ethical considerations involves a blend of awareness and conscious decision-making. One concrete approach is to familiarize yourself with copyright laws and fair use guidelines in your jurisdiction. When using or referencing others’ work, ensure you provide proper attribution and adhere to any licensing requirements. For instance, if you’re using images from online sources, choose those labeled for reuse or modification with proper attribution. Another strategy is to examine potential biases in your sources critically.

Be vigilant in identifying any political, commercial, or ideological biases that could impact the objectivity of the information. Additionally, practice seeking diverse perspectives and voices. When researching a topic, make an effort to include and amplify underrepresented or marginalized voices to ensure a well-rounded and inclusive understanding. Remember, ethical considerations are the foundation of responsible fact-finding, so let your actions be guided by integrity, respect, and fairness principles as you navigate the information landscape.

Fact Finding Skills Conclusion

In conclusion, honing your fact-finding skills is a pursuit of knowledge and a transformative journey toward becoming more informed, critical, and responsible. Gathering accurate and reliable information is essential in a world inundated with data, where misinformation can spread quickly. By actively working on these skills, you empower yourself to make well-informed decisions, contribute meaningfully to discussions, and navigate the complexities of today’s information-rich landscape.

Remember that improvement comes with practice and dedication. Embrace the art of research, learning to navigate vast resources and tailor your searches to uncover hidden gems. Develop a critical eye that can distinguish between trustworthy and biased sources, ensuring that the information you rely on is credible. Cultivate your interviewing skills to tap into firsthand insights and diverse perspectives, enriching your understanding.

Documenting your findings will not only aid your own understanding but also allow you to share your discoveries transparently and ethically. As you synthesize and analyze information, patterns and connections will emerge, guiding you toward deeper insights. Effective communication is your tool to share your knowledge effectively, reaching a broader audience and making a lasting impact. Lastly, your adaptability will ensure you remain versatile and resilient in the face of new challenges.

Related :  10 Implementation Skills and How to Develop Them

Related posts:

• 10 Life Skills Coach Skills and How to Develop Them
• 10 Oratory Skills and How To Develop Them
• 10 Research Skills and How To Develop Them
• 10 Walgreens Customer Service Associate Skills and How to Develop Them
• 10 Navigation Skills and How to Develop Them

Rate this article

Your page rank:

MegaInterview Company Career Coach

Step into the world of Megainterview.com, where our dedicated team of career experts, job interview trainers, and seasoned career coaches collaborates to empower individuals on their professional journeys. With decades of combined experience across diverse HR fields, our team is committed to fostering positive and impactful career development.

You may also be interested in:

10 nail technician skills and how to develop them, 10 creative writing skills and how to develop them, 10 financial management skills and how to develop them, 10 cash handling skills and how to develop them, interview categories.

• Interview Questions
• Cover Letter
• Interview Tips

Megainterview/Contact

• Career Interview Questions
• Write For Megainterview!
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy / GDPR
• Terms & Conditions
• Contact: [email protected]

Sign-up for our newsletter

🤝 We’ll never spam you or sell your data

Popular Topics

• Accomplishments
• Career Change
• Career Goals
• Communication
• Conflict Resolution
• Creative Thinking
• Cultural Fit
• Customer Service
• Entry-Level & No Experience
• Growth Potential
• Honesty & Integrity
• Job Satisfaction
• Negotiation Skills
• Performance Based
• Phone Interview
• Problem-Solving
• Questions to Ask the Interviewer
• Salary & Benefits
• Situational & Scenario-Based
• Stress Management
• Time Management & Prioritization
• Uncomfortable
• Work Experience

Popular Articles

• What Is The Most Challenging Project You Have Worked On?
• Tell Me About a Time You Had to Deal With a Difficult Customer
• What Have You Done To Improve Yourself In The Past Year?
• Interview Question: How Do You Deal With Tight Deadlines?
• Describe a Time You Demonstrated Leadership
• Tell Me About a Time When You Took Action to Resolve a Problem
• Job Interview Questions About Working in Fast-Paced Environments
• Job Interview: What Areas Need Improvement? (+ Answers)
• Tell Me About a Time You Were On a Team Project That Failed
• Tell Me About a Time You Managed an Important Project

Our mission is to

Help you get hired.

Hofplein 20

3032 AC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Turn interviews into offers

Every other Tuesday, get our Chief Coach’s best job-seeking and interviewing tips to land your dream job. 5-minute read.

Fact-checking 101

By Laura McClure on March 30, 2017 in Interviews

What are facts? Facts are the truthful answers to a reporter’s 5 key questions: who, what, when, where, and how. Facts may include names, numbers, dates, definitions, quotes, locations, research findings, historical events, statistics, survey and poll data, titles and authors, pronouns, financial data, institution names and spellings, and historical or biographical details attributed to anyone or anything. Facts are checkable.

What is fact-checking? Fact-checking is the process of confirming the factual accuracy of certain statements or claims, in order to create and share accurate, evidence-based media that relies on high-quality, reliable primary and secondary sources.

What kinds of facts do people often get wrong? The most frequent mistakes occur in the spellings of names and institutions, and the attribution or wording of quotes. These errors can be relatively harmless — for example, a throwaway remark about Ben Franklin. Or, they can be devastating — for example, listing the wrong person in a breaking news article about a bombing. If you’re a student, get in the habit of getting it right.

While the majority of factual errors are probably not nefarious, there are instances in which people may deliberately hide important facts or introduce inaccuracy. For journalists in these situations, three maxims are useful in finding the facts: ‘follow the money’, ‘consider the source’, and ‘who benefits?’ Remember, a reporter’s job is to find and share the facts that matter, even if people don’t like it.

Facts are only as good as their sources.  There are two main types of sources: primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources may include people, transcripts, videos, visitor logs, raw data, peer-reviewed scientific studies, recorded interviews, your own original research, and in-person observation. Secondary sources may include newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books. (Important note: unlike magazines, many books are not factchecked! If you’re using a book as a source, look for a bibliography or notes to track down an author’s sources, and then re-report if needed.)

As with all sources, watch out for inaccuracy, outdated information, and unconscious bias (for example, avoid disproven studies, or articles that talk about people ‘looting’ vs ‘finding’ and ‘rioting’ vs ‘protesting’).  Avoid spreading inaccuracy, outdated information, or unconscious bias. Instead, try to increase the world’s supply of truth by shining a light on facts that matter.

To learn more about the media, read “ How to tell fake news from real news .”

Art credit: iStock

Laura McClure  is an award-winning journalist and the TED-Ed Editor.  To learn something new every week, sign up here for the TED-Ed Newsletter.

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Facts & fact checking, how the political typology groups compare.

Pew Research Center’s political typology sorts Americans into cohesive, like-minded groups based on their values, beliefs, and views about politics and the political system. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics.

Many Americans are unsure whether sources of news do their own reporting

Roughly half of Americans or more were able to correctly identify whether three of the six sources asked about do their own reporting.

Around three-in-ten Americans are very confident they could fact-check news about COVID-19

Americans’ confidence in checking COVID-19 information aligns closely with their confidence in checking the accuracy of news stories broadly.

Republicans far more likely than Democrats to say fact-checkers tend to favor one side

Republicans largely say fact-checking by news outlets and other organizations favors one side. Democrats mostly think it is fair to all sides.

Younger Americans are better than older Americans at telling factual news statements from opinions

Younger U.S. adults were better than their elders at differentiating between factual and opinion statements in a survey conducted in early 2018.

Republicans and Democrats agree: They can’t agree on basic facts

Nearly eight-in-ten Americans say that when it comes to important issues facing the country, most Republican and Democratic voters not only disagree over plans and policies, but also cannot agree on basic facts. Ironically, Republicans and Democrats do agree that partisan disagreements extend to the basic facts of issues, according to a new Pew Research Center survey

Q&A: Telling the difference between factual and opinion statements in the news

Read a Q&A with Amy Mitchell, director of journalism research at Pew Research Center, on a new report that explores Americans' ability to distinguish factual news statements from opinions.

Facts on Foreign Students in the U.S.

The U.S. has more foreign students enrolled in its colleges and universities than any other country in the world. Explore data about foreign students in the U.S. higher education system.

How People Approach Facts and Information

People deal in varying ways with tensions about what information to trust and how much they want to learn. Some are interested and engaged with information; others are wary and stressed.

Education in the age of fake news and disputed facts

Lee Rainie, director of Internet, Science and Technology research at the Pew Research Center, described the Center’s research about public views related to facts and trust after the 2016 election at UPCEA's “Summit on Online Leadership.”

Refine Your Results

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7: Fact-Finding Techniques and Data

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 57129

Introduction

Information is everywhere, but where exactly do you look when you do not know enough information to accomplish your project? Do you accept the first thing that makes sense to you? Does it really matter where we collect our info from as long as it was found on the Internet? When completing a project of any nature it is very important to gather accurate information from all parties involve to meet the project requirement and satisfy the need of the clients and stakeholders.

In this chapter, we are going to discuss the various fact-finding techniques including interview, survey, document review, direct observation and research and data validation that will help collect accurate information and how we can use those statistics to meet to project requirement.

Table of contents

• 7.1: Interview
• 7.2.1: Interpreting Survey Data
• 7.2.2: Question Order in Surveys
• 7.3: Survey Sampling
• 7.4: Other Fact-Finding Techniques and Misleading Data
• 7.5: Data Validation

• Participant Portal

Accessibility

The golden rules of fact-finding: six steps to developing a fact-finding plan.

• Queen's IRC Coach Lori Aselstine
• October 21, 2013

As labour relations professionals, we are required to engage in fact-finding on a regular basis. Good fact-finding ensures that the information upon which we form our conclusions and recommendations is credible, and that our advice is evidence-based.

When planned and executed properly, fact-finding provides a solid foundation for conducting analyses, forming conclusions, generating options and formulating sound recommendations. Fact-finding may involve researching documents or existing records and data, holding focus groups, interviewing witnesses, or using written surveys and questionnaires. The techniques employed will depend on the project or issue under consideration. What is constant across all fact-finding missions is the need for a plan to guide and document your efforts.

Developing a good fact-finding plan starts with figuring out what you need to know – what information do you have to have in order to form an evidence-based opinion. The precursors to good fact-finding include scoping the issue to determine what it is you need to answer, understanding the context within which the issue has arisen, and appreciating the “political” landscape (organizational and personal relationships often play a significant role in shaping a witness’ view of a matter) – all of these things can influence the approach you take to any given fact-finding endeavour.

I like to follow what I call my Golden Rules of Fact-Finding:

• Go to the source. The source may be a person or a record, and while not always readily accessible, you should strive to obtain the best evidence available. Search existing policies and procedures and begin to understand how they affect the issue. Identify unwritten rules or practices that form the context of the issue. Establish a recording protocol to document everything that you have gathered and always obtain original copies of documents and records.
• Stay objective. Do not become unduly swayed by the people involved — focus on facts, not on opinions or personalities.
• Be persistent.   If you are not getting the information that you need, do not get derailed. Determine the root cause of why you are not getting the information. For example, have your sources signed a confidentiality agreement which precludes them from answering discussing the matter? When speaking with sources, if you are not getting the information you need, or they are deflecting your questions, probe them and get to the facts.
• Do not get paralyzed. The art of fact-finding is separating the information that is required from that which is not. Go where the facts take you, however, stay within the mandate of what it is you are investigating. Compartmentalize the facts as you gather them and delve deeper only where necessary. This will help you stay on track and avoid becoming overwhelmed.
• Do not assume. Confirm, confirm, confirm. All of the facts and information that you have gathered must be accurate. This will help you build credibility and support evidence–based decision-making.
• Have a plan and follow it. Think strategically and develop a plan. When you determine what you need to establish and whom you need to talk to before you start, the task of uncovering the facts will progress more smoothly.  As you begin to obtain facts, you may branch into new areas of enquiry, be required to clarify previous statements, connect with new sources and review additional documents. Just remember that your plan is a living document and you will need to revisit and review it regularly.

In order to succeed as a trusted, strategic advisor to business executives, today’s labour relations professional requires the ability to separate fact from fiction, and formulate options and recommendations based on evidence. Developing fact-finding skills is critical to ensure success.

About the Author

As a career civil servant, Lori Aselstine has over 33 years of experience in the fields of program management, human resources and labour relations. Lori has worked in all regions of Ontario, in small, medium and large operational ministries, as well as in central agency ministries. Lori has extensive experience conducting complex investigations, developing corporate grievance management/resolution strategies and processes, developing negotiation and bargaining mandates, and managing in a complex union-management environment. As a seasoned LR professional who has conducted hundreds of enquiries, investigations, mediations, arbitrations and negotiations, Lori has established a reputation as a skilled relationship-builder and problem-solver.

Receive email updates

You may also like.

The Ever-Increasing Digital World of Work

• By Ian Cullwick
• Date: April 5, 2024

7 Steps for a Sustainable Labour Relations Strategy

• By Elizabeth Vosburgh
• Date: March 18, 2024

Talent Mobility: Reducing Self-imposed Barriers to Increase Mobility in Your Organization

• By Mark Coulter
• Date: February 21, 2024

Performance Coaching

Workplace Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

Industrial Relations Centre Queen’s University Faculty of Arts and Science

+1 888 858-7838 +1 613 533-6628

Stay connected with updates from Queen's IRC

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Learn more about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information at Queen’s University.

Copyright © 2023 Queen’s University IRC. All Rights Reserved.

Terms & Privacy Policy

Share this article

Download the brochure.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.4: Fact or Opinion

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 81170

• Cheryl Lowry
• The Ohio State University via Ohio State University Libraries

Fact or Opinion

An author’s purpose can influence the kind of information he or she choses to include.

Thinking about the reason an author produced a source can be helpful to you because that reason was what dictated the kind of information he/she chose to include. Depending on that purpose, the author may have chosen to include factual, analytical, and objective information. Or, instead, it may have suited his/her purpose to include information that was subjective and therefore less factual and analytical. The author’s reason for producing the source also determined whether he or she included more than one perspective or just his/her own.

Authors typically want to do at least one of the following:

• Inform and educate
• Sell services or products or

Combined Purposes

Sometimes authors have a combination of purposes, as when a marketer decides he can sell more smart phones with an informative sales video that also entertains us. The same is true when a singer writes and performs a song that entertains us but that she intends to make available for sale. Other examples of authors having multiple purposes occur in most scholarly writing.

In those cases, authors certainly want to inform and educate their audiences. But they also want to persuade their audiences that what they are reporting and/or postulating is a true description of a situation, event, or phenomenon or a valid argument that their audience must take a particular action. In this blend of scholarly author’s purposes, the intent to educate and inform is considered to trump the intent to persuade.

Why Intent Matters

Authors’ intent usually matters in how useful their information can be to your research project, depending on which information need you are trying to meet. For instance, when you’re looking for sources that will help you actually decide your answer to your research question or evidence for your answer that you will share with your audience, you will want the author’s main purpose to have been to inform or educate his/her audience. That’s because, with that intent, he/she is likely to have used:

• Facts where possible.
• Multiple perspectives instead of just his/her own.
• Little subjective information.
• Seemingly unbiased, objective language that cites where he/she got the information.

The reason you want that kind of resource when trying to answer your research question or explaining that answer is that all of those characteristics will lend credibility to the argument you are making with your project. Both you and your audience will simply find it easier to believe—will have more confidence in the argument being made—when you include those types of sources.

Sources whose authors intend only to persuade others won’t meet your information need for an answer to your research question or evidence with which to convince your audience. That’s because they don’t always confine themselves to facts. Instead, they tell us their opinions without backing them up with evidence. If you used those sources, your readers will notice and not believe your argument.

Fact vs. Opinion vs. Objective vs. Subjective

Need to brush up on the differences between fact, objective information, subjective information, and opinion?

Fact – Facts are useful to inform or make an argument.

• The United States was established in 1776.
• The pH levels in acids are lower than pH levels in alkalines.
• Beethoven had a reputation as a virtuoso pianist.

Opinion – Opinions are useful to persuade, but careful readers and listeners will notice and demand evidence to back them up.

• That was a good movie.
• Strawberries taste better blueberries.
• George Clooney is the sexiest actor alive.
• The death penalty is wrong.
• Beethoven’s reputation as a virtuoso pianist is overrated.

Objective – Objective information reflects a research finding or multiple perspectives that are not biased.

• “Several studies show that an active lifestyle reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes.”
• “Studies from the Brown University Medical School show that twenty-somethings eat 25 percent more fast-food meals at this age than they did as teenagers.”

Subjective – Subjective information presents one person or organization’s perspective or interpretation. Subjective information can be meant to distort, or it can reflect educated and informed thinking. All opinions are subjective, but some are backed up with facts more than others.

• “The simple truth is this: As human beings, we were meant to move.”
• “In their thirties, women should stock up on calcium to ensure strong, dense bones and to ward off osteoporosis later in life.”*

*In this quote, it’s mostly the “should” that makes it subjective. The objective version of the last quote would read: “Studies have shown that women who begin taking calcium in their 30s show stronger bone density and fewer repercussions of osteoporosis than women who did not take calcium at all.” But perhaps there are other data showing complications from taking calcium. That’s why drawing the conclusion that requires a “should” makes the statement subjective.

Activity: Fact, Opinion, Objective, or Subjective?

Open activity in a web browser.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of fact-finding in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• adjudication
• interpretable
• interpretive
• interpretively
• investigate
• investigation
• reinvestigation
• risk assessment
• run over/through something
• run through something

Examples of fact-finding

Translations of fact-finding.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

spin your wheels

to waste time doing things that achieve nothing

Alike and analogous (Talking about similarities, Part 1)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Adjective
• Translations
• All translations

Add fact-finding to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of fact-finding adjective from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

fact-finding

• a fact-finding mission/visit

Definitions on the go

Look up any word in the dictionary offline, anytime, anywhere with the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app.

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Norman Schultz

September 2003  

Current Implications

This essay, as so many of the other BI essays, was written in 2003. Although everything in it is still true, now, in 2018, it seems extremely naive--missing the key problem that is facing us in the U.S. today. That is the apparent total disagreement over what facts are "real," which are "fake," which "experts" are "real," which are "fake," and which sources of information (such as media outlets) are honest purveyors of "the truth," and which are purveyors of "fake news" and outright lies.  More...

The Role of Information in Disputes

Disputes can occur over a seemingly endless variety of issues, and each kind of dispute carries unique challenges and management strategies. Emotional intensity, cultural contexts, value assumptions, laws, and interests differ drastically from one conflict to the next. Yet with all the differences, the vast majority of disputes have at least one common element: relevant facts.

Facts relate to conflicts in many different ways. Most often, the available information is itself disputed. Occasionally, both parties may actually agree on the available facts but disagree as to how the facts should be interpreted or applied. Many conflicts are made worse because of incomplete information, or information that is misinterpreted or misunderstood. Experts may present contradictory positions, leaving parties puzzled as to what to believe. Information can be presented in subtly biased, strategically deceptive ways. Or needed facts, for one reason or another, may be ultimately unknown, even unknowable. These kinds of factual hurdles are not just a problem for large-scale conflicts. Even the most basic interpersonal dispute often involves factual components.[1]

Sometimes facts play a core role in a conflict; they are what the fuss is all about. For example, consider the high-profile conflicts that result when a "rogue" state is thought to hide weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). While many issues are debated simultaneously ( nation-building , economic interests, human rights , justification for the use of force , and international consensus, to name a few), it would seem that these conflicts, at their core, are factual disputes over whether or not illegal weapons are actually being concealed. In the case of Iraq (2003), establishing the facts one way or the other has proven to be difficult.

In other conflicts, facts are not the central issue. Instead, they play a secondary role; while factual information may seem important and may be hotly debated, the dispute is essentially over non-factual issues. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves a dispute over historical facts, regarding who occupied what territory first or which side engaged in the first aggressive move. Yet it is hard to imagine that the conflict would end if these factual issues were resolved. Other issues, such as feelings of entitlement, loss, and cultural and religious values, are perhaps more important, and cannot be reduced to a factual debate. Instead, the information (or lack thereof) plays a complicating role in this already tangled conflict.

Getting Good Information

There are many ways to address factual issues in conflicts, but it is most important that factual issues in a conflict setting are addressed, rather than ignored. Even if some kind of consensus can be reached, there is little hope that negotiated agreements will be effective if key facts are left uninvestigated.

The way facts are handled in conflicts depends on the situation. An important initial question is, w hat kinds of facts relate to this conflict? The kinds of facts involved, to a large extent, determine the character of the subsequent inquiries. Determining the validity of one kind of fact requires a different body of experts and fact-finding method from another fact type. For example, technical facts differ from historical and legal facts in that they require experimental evidence and endorsement from scientists or technical experts, as opposed to lawyers, historians, or eyewitnesses.

It is also important to ask, w hat is the status of the information at hand? It should be noted whether or not a factual dispute actually exists. What initially looks like a factual dispute might be simply a misunderstanding or poor communication. It can even be the case that parties agree on the facts, but do not know they agree because of skepticism or polarization . If this is so, common ground might be reached by clarifying what is agreed on. Yet the process of exposing the facts can also work in the other direction; in some instances a factual dispute may be reopened when one probes the information available. This need not be considered a setback; it might be necessary to bring a latent, suppressed factual dispute out in the open.[2]

To what extent the necessary information is subject to uncertainty or knowledge gaps is also important. Where uncertainty exists, debates and distrust commonly follow. Unknowns provide the most basic fuel for debates because they allow parties to fill in knowledge gaps with whatever is to their own advantage. The ability to show both parties the difference between what is really known and what unknown, can go a long way toward settling conflicting views. It can also help as a reality check for the parties, giving them advance warning of the potential limits of fact-finding, even under the best of conditions.

In many conflicts, factual issues are blended with value concerns. Sometimes this is not an accident; it might be in a party's favor to make its values look like facts, since facts carry a lot of argumentative weight. On rare occasions, it can be strategic for parties to dress up factual information such that it sounds like a moral appeal, in the hope of gaining sympathy. Yet facts and values are inherently different and, therefore, must be addressed by different means. Exposing values that are being passed off as facts, and vice-versa, allows parties to more accurately decide what they can and cannot accept.

Once the scope of the relevant information is defined and whatever is under dispute is clarified, fact-finding can start. Fact-finding refers to the process of finding the best information available for use in making decisions and agreements, instead of relying on opinion, strategic propaganda, or biased beliefs. The ultimate goal of fact-finding is to obtain trustworthy information .[3]

There are several ways to achieve this goal. The best method depends on the kinds of facts sought, and on the character of the conflict:

• Where it is possible to get parties on opposing sides to work together, joint fact-finding is an advantageous option.
• If parties are not amenable to working together, it may be necessary to employ a neutral fact-finder or fact-finding body. In the U.S., for example, an "environmental impact assessment" is required for any major federal action that is likely to affect the environment. This impact study is usually completed by a neutral body that examines the positive and negative impacts of the proposal as well as a number of alternatives. Impact studies can also be completed as a fact-finding measure in other kinds of disputes as well.
• In extreme cases, especially where violations of international law or human rights are suspected, a truth commission or international tribunal can be used.

Joint fact-finding, neutral fact-finding, and impact studies can either start from the ground up -- meaning they can do independent research into the questions in dispute, or they can review and utilize existing research. Sometimes oversight committees are used to review the available research can provide parties with some assurance as to the accuracy and applicability of the information, without requiring that research be replicated.

Realistic Expectations

It is important to have realistic expectations of a fact-finding endeavor. A successful fact-finding effort results in a determination of how much agreement has been achieved, where facts remain in dispute, and where there are irreducible unknowns and uncertainties, in addition to establishing some hard facts. It is unreasonable to expect that all the relevant facts can be absolutely determined. It may also be unreasonable to expect that all involved people will understand either the established facts or their implications. Facts can be complex, especially in today's world -- sometimes too complex for non-experts, such as decision-makers, stakeholders , and the public. In order for decisions to be made, these parties must be given a clear picture of the information by utilizing the best methods of factual communication. Yet in addition to enabling understanding and comprehension, diplomacy must also be used.

Ultimately, even if a conflict is at its core a factual dispute, establishing agreement on the factual issues probably will not end the conflict, as facts alone are seldom sufficient for resolving conflicts. They must be assimilated into each party's decision-making processes. This means addressing what the facts mean, how they relate to the positions of each side, how realistic the options are, what each option's repercussions might be, and what the potential costs and benefits are to each side. The party's interests, community values, conventions and cultural norms, laws, and practical concerns must all be factored in. The consideration of all these factors is what the policy-making process is all about, and the process is often messy since a perfectly logical, comprehensive, and effective analysis is bound to be impractical.[4]

Even considering such limitations, obtaining factual consensus can greatly improve a conflict's character. Agreeing on the status of the facts allows for a constructively refocused dispute of the real issues, as well as the ability to forge knowledgeable, farsighted, effective, and ultimately more stable agreements.

This essay, as so many of the other BI essays -- was written in 2003. Although everything in it is still true, now, in 2018, it seems extremely naive--missing the key problem that is facing us in the U.S. today. That is the apparent total disagreement over what facts are "real," which are "fake," which "experts" are "real," which are "fake," and which sources of information (such as media outlets) are honest purveyors of "the truth," and which are purveyors of "fake news" and outright lies.

Although different social and political groups have always had different worldviews, until recently there were some commonalities, and people on the different sides were willing to talk to each other to sort things out. The solutions offered in this original essay work when that is the case.

When I was growing up (a long time ago, I confess!) there were three television channels and CBS's evening news anchor, Walter Cronkite, was the "most trusted man in America."  If it was on the Cronkite show, it was TRUE.  

Then came cable news, and the proliferation of different versions of "truth" took hold.  This was amplified immensely by the development of the Internet, and careened completely out of control in the 2016 election when we learned about "bots" and "trolls," and we elected a President of the United States who knowingly lies about facts on a regular basis. (Although his supporters will assert that is a partisan statement, even Trump himself admitted today that he "made stuff up" in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.) Most observers note that he makes stuff up all the time.

In this climate, how does one do effective "fact-finding" that will have credibility on all sides and hence facilitate conflict de-escalation? 

One possible way to do this is to engage in what is called, in the essay, "joint fact-finding."  Republicans and Democrats together will have to work cooperatively and in good faith to determine relevant facts to the question(s) at hand, and present their findings jointly.  However, neither side seems to have any interest in doing that now--it might take a major social, political, economic, or environmental catastrophe to wake us up to the need for good facts.

As long as the two sides rely on different sources for their facts (MSNBC or Fox News, for example), there is going to be no progress.  And even when inquiries are ostensibly bi-partisan, the participants must actually act that way to be effective. 

Thus, for example, just recently, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee issued its report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.  The Republicans on the Committe found that while Russia did, indeed, meddle in the election, (who-hoo! a fact everyone--except perhaps Mr. Trump himself--agrees on) they did not find any evidence, they said, that the meddling favored Donald Trump.  The Democrats on the Committee, however, strongly objected to that assertion, asserting that the meddling most certainly did favor Donald Trump, and that concluding the investigation before all the facts were in was a clearly partisan act. 

This illustrates that to be effective in adjudicating facts, joint fact-finding must, indeed, by done in a cooperative manner, with all sides agreeing to the process and, as much as possible, with the conclusions.  

How else might we adjudicate partisan facts in our current extremely polarized and distrustful climate?  We'll be looking at this question more extensively in the Conflict Frontiers Seminar.

--Heidi Burgess, March 15, 2018

Back to Essay Top

[1] For example, your 13-year-old son comes home smelling like cigarette smoke. An argument begins because you think he has been smoking. Whether he was smoking, or he was merely standing near someone who was, is the likely subject of a factual dispute.

[2] For example, if one side is using an enormous power advantage to manipulate information, exposing the real factual dispute might be a method of empowerment , ultimately avoiding the backlash of a one-sided win. In this respect, fact-finding can be used to reach agreements that are more stable over time.

[3] Even when information is sketchy, uncertain, and inconclusive, fact-finding commonly has other good "side effects." The most important of such effects is that a fact-finding endeavor gives conflicting parties an opportunity to work together on a "neutral" topic (the facts), and in doing so can ease tensions via the pursuit of a common goal (the answers). If done properly, working together will humanize the parties and make them more amenable to forming an agreement, even if the facts themselves cannot ultimately be agreed upon.

[4] For a discussion of this problem, see Charles Lindblom, The Policy-Making Process (Prentice-Hall, 1992).

Use the following to cite this article: Schultz, Norman. "Fact-Finding." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2004 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/fact-finding >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Roles - Part 2 -- The first of two posts explaining the actor roles needed for a massively parallel peacebuilding/democracy building effort to work, which combined with an earlier post on strategy roles, makes up the current MPP role list.
• Lorelei Kelly on Strengthening Democracy at the Top and the Bottom -- Lorelei Kelly describes the work of the bipartisan Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress which passed 202 recommendations, many unanimously. Over 1/2 have been implemented and most others are in progress.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of March 24, 2024 -- A rename of our regular "colleague and context links" to highlight how these readings and the activities they describe all fit within our "massively parallel" peace and democracy building framework--or show why it is needed.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

Definition of 'fact-finding'

• fact-finding

fact-finding in American English

Fact-finding in british english, examples of 'fact-finding' in a sentence fact-finding, related word partners fact-finding, trends of fact-finding.

View usage over: Since Exist Last 10 years Last 50 years Last 100 years Last 300 years

In other languages fact-finding

• American English : fact-finding / ˈfæktfaɪndɪŋ /
• Brazilian Portuguese : de investigação
• Chinese : 调查真相的
• European Spanish : de investigación
• French : d'enquête
• German : Erkundungs-
• Italian : di indagine
• Japanese : 視察の
• Korean : 진상 조사의
• European Portuguese : de investigação
• Spanish : de investigación

Browse alphabetically fact-finding

• fact reflected in
• fact-based drama
• fact-finding mission
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'F'

Related terms of fact-finding

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Findings – Types Examples and Writing Guide

Research Findings – Types Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Findings

Definition:

Research findings refer to the results obtained from a study or investigation conducted through a systematic and scientific approach. These findings are the outcomes of the data analysis, interpretation, and evaluation carried out during the research process.

Types of Research Findings

There are two main types of research findings:

Qualitative Findings

Qualitative research is an exploratory research method used to understand the complexities of human behavior and experiences. Qualitative findings are non-numerical and descriptive data that describe the meaning and interpretation of the data collected. Examples of qualitative findings include quotes from participants, themes that emerge from the data, and descriptions of experiences and phenomena.

Quantitative Findings

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numerical data and statistical analysis to measure and quantify a phenomenon or behavior. Quantitative findings include numerical data such as mean, median, and mode, as well as statistical analyses such as t-tests, ANOVA, and regression analysis. These findings are often presented in tables, graphs, or charts.

Both qualitative and quantitative findings are important in research and can provide different insights into a research question or problem. Combining both types of findings can provide a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon and improve the validity and reliability of research results.

Parts of Research Findings

Research findings typically consist of several parts, including:

• Introduction: This section provides an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the study.
• Literature Review: This section summarizes previous research studies and findings that are relevant to the current study.
• Methodology : This section describes the research design, methods, and procedures used in the study, including details on the sample, data collection, and data analysis.
• Results : This section presents the findings of the study, including statistical analyses and data visualizations.
• Discussion : This section interprets the results and explains what they mean in relation to the research question(s) and hypotheses. It may also compare and contrast the current findings with previous research studies and explore any implications or limitations of the study.
• Conclusion : This section provides a summary of the key findings and the main conclusions of the study.
• Recommendations: This section suggests areas for further research and potential applications or implications of the study’s findings.

How to Write Research Findings

Writing research findings requires careful planning and attention to detail. Here are some general steps to follow when writing research findings:

• Organize your findings: Before you begin writing, it’s essential to organize your findings logically. Consider creating an outline or a flowchart that outlines the main points you want to make and how they relate to one another.
• Use clear and concise language : When presenting your findings, be sure to use clear and concise language that is easy to understand. Avoid using jargon or technical terms unless they are necessary to convey your meaning.
• Use visual aids : Visual aids such as tables, charts, and graphs can be helpful in presenting your findings. Be sure to label and title your visual aids clearly, and make sure they are easy to read.
• Use headings and subheadings: Using headings and subheadings can help organize your findings and make them easier to read. Make sure your headings and subheadings are clear and descriptive.
• Interpret your findings : When presenting your findings, it’s important to provide some interpretation of what the results mean. This can include discussing how your findings relate to the existing literature, identifying any limitations of your study, and suggesting areas for future research.
• Be precise and accurate : When presenting your findings, be sure to use precise and accurate language. Avoid making generalizations or overstatements and be careful not to misrepresent your data.
• Edit and revise: Once you have written your research findings, be sure to edit and revise them carefully. Check for grammar and spelling errors, make sure your formatting is consistent, and ensure that your writing is clear and concise.

Research Findings Example

Following is a Research Findings Example sample for students:

Title: The Effects of Exercise on Mental Health

Sample : 500 participants, both men and women, between the ages of 18-45.

Methodology : Participants were divided into two groups. The first group engaged in 30 minutes of moderate intensity exercise five times a week for eight weeks. The second group did not exercise during the study period. Participants in both groups completed a questionnaire that assessed their mental health before and after the study period.

Findings : The group that engaged in regular exercise reported a significant improvement in mental health compared to the control group. Specifically, they reported lower levels of anxiety and depression, improved mood, and increased self-esteem.

Conclusion : Regular exercise can have a positive impact on mental health and may be an effective intervention for individuals experiencing symptoms of anxiety or depression.

Applications of Research Findings

Research findings can be applied in various fields to improve processes, products, services, and outcomes. Here are some examples:

• Healthcare : Research findings in medicine and healthcare can be applied to improve patient outcomes, reduce morbidity and mortality rates, and develop new treatments for various diseases.
• Education : Research findings in education can be used to develop effective teaching methods, improve learning outcomes, and design new educational programs.
• Technology : Research findings in technology can be applied to develop new products, improve existing products, and enhance user experiences.
• Business : Research findings in business can be applied to develop new strategies, improve operations, and increase profitability.
• Public Policy: Research findings can be used to inform public policy decisions on issues such as environmental protection, social welfare, and economic development.
• Social Sciences: Research findings in social sciences can be used to improve understanding of human behavior and social phenomena, inform public policy decisions, and develop interventions to address social issues.
• Agriculture: Research findings in agriculture can be applied to improve crop yields, develop new farming techniques, and enhance food security.
• Sports : Research findings in sports can be applied to improve athlete performance, reduce injuries, and develop new training programs.

When to use Research Findings

Research findings can be used in a variety of situations, depending on the context and the purpose. Here are some examples of when research findings may be useful:

• Decision-making : Research findings can be used to inform decisions in various fields, such as business, education, healthcare, and public policy. For example, a business may use market research findings to make decisions about new product development or marketing strategies.
• Problem-solving : Research findings can be used to solve problems or challenges in various fields, such as healthcare, engineering, and social sciences. For example, medical researchers may use findings from clinical trials to develop new treatments for diseases.
• Policy development : Research findings can be used to inform the development of policies in various fields, such as environmental protection, social welfare, and economic development. For example, policymakers may use research findings to develop policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Program evaluation: Research findings can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions in various fields, such as education, healthcare, and social services. For example, educational researchers may use findings from evaluations of educational programs to improve teaching and learning outcomes.
• Innovation: Research findings can be used to inspire or guide innovation in various fields, such as technology and engineering. For example, engineers may use research findings on materials science to develop new and innovative products.

Purpose of Research Findings

The purpose of research findings is to contribute to the knowledge and understanding of a particular topic or issue. Research findings are the result of a systematic and rigorous investigation of a research question or hypothesis, using appropriate research methods and techniques.

The main purposes of research findings are:

• To generate new knowledge : Research findings contribute to the body of knowledge on a particular topic, by adding new information, insights, and understanding to the existing knowledge base.
• To test hypotheses or theories : Research findings can be used to test hypotheses or theories that have been proposed in a particular field or discipline. This helps to determine the validity and reliability of the hypotheses or theories, and to refine or develop new ones.
• To inform practice: Research findings can be used to inform practice in various fields, such as healthcare, education, and business. By identifying best practices and evidence-based interventions, research findings can help practitioners to make informed decisions and improve outcomes.
• To identify gaps in knowledge: Research findings can help to identify gaps in knowledge and understanding of a particular topic, which can then be addressed by further research.
• To contribute to policy development: Research findings can be used to inform policy development in various fields, such as environmental protection, social welfare, and economic development. By providing evidence-based recommendations, research findings can help policymakers to develop effective policies that address societal challenges.

Characteristics of Research Findings

Research findings have several key characteristics that distinguish them from other types of information or knowledge. Here are some of the main characteristics of research findings:

• Objective : Research findings are based on a systematic and rigorous investigation of a research question or hypothesis, using appropriate research methods and techniques. As such, they are generally considered to be more objective and reliable than other types of information.
• Empirical : Research findings are based on empirical evidence, which means that they are derived from observations or measurements of the real world. This gives them a high degree of credibility and validity.
• Generalizable : Research findings are often intended to be generalizable to a larger population or context beyond the specific study. This means that the findings can be applied to other situations or populations with similar characteristics.
• Transparent : Research findings are typically reported in a transparent manner, with a clear description of the research methods and data analysis techniques used. This allows others to assess the credibility and reliability of the findings.
• Peer-reviewed: Research findings are often subject to a rigorous peer-review process, in which experts in the field review the research methods, data analysis, and conclusions of the study. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Reproducible : Research findings are often designed to be reproducible, meaning that other researchers can replicate the study using the same methods and obtain similar results. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.

Advantages of Research Findings

Research findings have many advantages, which make them valuable sources of knowledge and information. Here are some of the main advantages of research findings:

• Evidence-based: Research findings are based on empirical evidence, which means that they are grounded in data and observations from the real world. This makes them a reliable and credible source of information.
• Inform decision-making: Research findings can be used to inform decision-making in various fields, such as healthcare, education, and business. By identifying best practices and evidence-based interventions, research findings can help practitioners and policymakers to make informed decisions and improve outcomes.
• Identify gaps in knowledge: Research findings can help to identify gaps in knowledge and understanding of a particular topic, which can then be addressed by further research. This contributes to the ongoing development of knowledge in various fields.
• Improve outcomes : Research findings can be used to develop and implement evidence-based practices and interventions, which have been shown to improve outcomes in various fields, such as healthcare, education, and social services.
• Foster innovation: Research findings can inspire or guide innovation in various fields, such as technology and engineering. By providing new information and understanding of a particular topic, research findings can stimulate new ideas and approaches to problem-solving.
• Enhance credibility: Research findings are generally considered to be more credible and reliable than other types of information, as they are based on rigorous research methods and are subject to peer-review processes.

Limitations of Research Findings

While research findings have many advantages, they also have some limitations. Here are some of the main limitations of research findings:

• Limited scope: Research findings are typically based on a particular study or set of studies, which may have a limited scope or focus. This means that they may not be applicable to other contexts or populations.
• Potential for bias : Research findings can be influenced by various sources of bias, such as researcher bias, selection bias, or measurement bias. This can affect the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Ethical considerations: Research findings can raise ethical considerations, particularly in studies involving human subjects. Researchers must ensure that their studies are conducted in an ethical and responsible manner, with appropriate measures to protect the welfare and privacy of participants.
• Time and resource constraints : Research studies can be time-consuming and require significant resources, which can limit the number and scope of studies that are conducted. This can lead to gaps in knowledge or a lack of research on certain topics.
• Complexity: Some research findings can be complex and difficult to interpret, particularly in fields such as science or medicine. This can make it challenging for practitioners and policymakers to apply the findings to their work.
• Lack of generalizability : While research findings are intended to be generalizable to larger populations or contexts, there may be factors that limit their generalizability. For example, cultural or environmental factors may influence how a particular intervention or treatment works in different populations or contexts.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

10 Fact Finding Skills and How To Improve Them

Discover 10 Fact Finding skills along with some of the best tips to help you improve these abilities.

In any given day, we are bombarded with information from a variety of sources: the news, social media, conversations with friends, etc. It can be difficult to determine what is true and what is false. Fact finding skills can help you sift through the information and find the facts that you need.

In this guide, we’ll discuss what fact finding is, why it’s important, and how you can improve your own fact finding skills.

Interviewing

Presentation, report writing, data collection, critical thinking, time management, organizational skills, communication skills.

Interviewing is an important fact finding skill because it allows you to gather information from people directly. You can use interviews to find out about people’s experiences, opinions, beliefs and attitudes. Interviewing is a good way to get information that is not available in other sources, such as documents or statistics.

When you are interviewing, it is important to be clear about what you want to know and to ask open-ended questions. Open-ended questions are those that cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no”. They encourage people to think more deeply about the topic and to give you more detailed information.

Research is an important fact finding skill because it allows you to find information that is relevant to your research topic. When you are doing research, you will often come across information that is not relevant or that is inaccurate. To avoid this, you need to be able to find the correct information and understand what it means.

To do this, you need to be able to use research skills to find the information you need, understand how to use it and understand what it means. This skill is important for both academic and non-academic research.

Analysis is the process of breaking down information or data into smaller parts in order to better understand it. When you analyze something, you’re looking at it closely and breaking it down into smaller parts in order to better understand it. This can be done with numbers, words, data or any other type of information.

Analysis is an important skill for fact finding because it allows you to break down information and data so that you can better understand it. This can be helpful in a variety of situations, such as when you’re trying to solve a problem, make a decision or understand a situation. When you can better understand the facts, you can make better decisions and solve problems more effectively.

Presentation is an important fact finding skill because it allows you to present your findings in a clear and concise way. When you are able to present your findings effectively, you are more likely to be taken seriously and your recommendations are more likely to be implemented.

Presentation skills involve more than just being able to stand in front of a group and speak. It also includes being able to engage with your audience, use visuals effectively and build rapport. If you are able to present your findings in a clear and concise way, you are more likely to be taken seriously and your recommendations are more likely to be implemented.

Report writing is an important skill for fact finders because it allows them to organize their findings into a concise and clear document. A well-written report can make a big difference in how a fact finder is perceived by their supervisor and by the client. A fact finder who is able to write clear and concise reports is more likely to be asked to do more fact finding projects in the future.

Report writing requires fact finders to be able to organize their findings into a logical order, use proper grammar and spelling, and use effective communication techniques. Fact finders should also be able to use their judgment to decide which information is important and which is not.

Data collection is an important fact finding skill because it allows you to gather information about a topic that you can then analyze and use to make a decision. Data collection can involve interviewing people, conducting surveys, observing a situation or reading literature about a topic.

Data collection is a fact finding skill because it allows you to gather information about a topic that you can then analyze and use to make a decision. Data collection can involve interviewing people, conducting surveys, observing a situation or reading literature about a topic.

Critical thinking is an important fact finding skill because it allows you to evaluate information and make decisions based on logic rather than emotion. When you are able to critically think about a situation, you are more likely to come to a well-reasoned conclusion. Critical thinking skills can be used in a variety of situations, from making decisions about what to buy to evaluating arguments in a debate.

To be an effective critical thinker, you need to be able to identify the key elements of a problem, gather information, make connections between ideas and draw conclusions. You also need to be able to understand and evaluate arguments, identify fallacies and use logic to solve problems.

Time management is an important skill for fact finders because they need to be able to gather information quickly and efficiently. Fact finders need to be able to prioritize tasks and manage their time wisely in order to complete their assignments on time.

Time management skills include the ability to plan ahead, set goals, make a schedule and stick to it, and use time-saving tools like a calendar, planner or timer. Fact finders can also improve their time management skills by practicing good time management habits and being aware of their own time-wasting habits.

Organizational skills are important because they help you keep track of information and stay on task. When you’re researching a topic, it’s easy to get lost in the sea of information. Good organizational skills can help you find the information you need and use it effectively.

Organizational skills include:

-Keeping track of research -Making notes -Using a bibliography -Using a reference guide -Using a database -Creating a timeline -Creating a chart or diagram -Using a mind map -Using a concept map -Using a Venn diagram -Using a flow chart -Using a decision tree

Organizational skills are important because they help you stay organized and on task while you’re researching. They also help you present your research in a clear and concise way.

Communication skills are important in fact finding because they help you gather information from sources such as interviews, surveys and research. Good communication skills include active listening, asking questions, and being able to articulate what you’ve learned.

Active listening means paying attention to what the source is saying, rather than just waiting to talk. Asking questions allows you to clarify what you’ve heard and to get more information. Being able to articulate what you’ve learned means being able to communicate your findings to others in a clear and concise way.

Good communication skills are essential in fact finding because they help you gather information efficiently and effectively.

How to Improve Your Fact Finding Skills

1. Conduct practice interviews If you will be interviewing people as part of your fact-finding process, it can be helpful to conduct practice interviews. This will help you become more comfortable with the process and help you to hone your skills. You can practice interviewing people you know or even role-play with a friend or colleague.

2. Develop a research plan If you need to do research as part of your fact-finding process, it can be helpful to develop a research plan. This will help you to organize your thoughts and ensure that you are covering all of the bases. Your research plan should include what you need to research, where you will look for information and how you will document what you find.

3. Practice data analysis If you will be analyzing data as part of your fact-finding process, it can be helpful to practice beforehand. This will help you to become more comfortable with the process and ensure that you are correctly interpreting the data. You can find data sets online or even create your own.

4. Create practice presentations If you will be presenting your findings as part of your fact-finding process, it can be helpful to create practice presentations. This will help you to become more comfortable with the process and ensure that you are effectively communicating your findings. You can practice presenting to friends, family or even a mirror.

5. Write practice reports If you will be writing a report as part of your fact-finding process, it can be helpful to write practice reports. This will help you to become more comfortable with the process and ensure that you are effectively communicating your findings. You can find report templates online or in office supply stores.

10 Stakeholder Management Skills and How To Improve Them

10 documentation skills and how to improve them, you may also be interested in..., what does a head of operations do, what does a clinic operations manager do, what does a siding installer do, 16 technical engineer skills for your career and resume.

A Dialogue Between Law and History pp 11–34 Cite as

A Comparison of Fact-Finding Methodology in Evidence Law and History

• Baosheng Zhang 4 &
• Guoyang Ma 5  
• Conference paper
• First Online: 15 December 2020

274 Accesses

On the issue of fact-finding or knowledge acquisition, both history and law belong to the field of evidence science. They share the same research objects, use roughly the same method of evidential reasoning, follow the same general rules of fact-finding and face the same scientific and technological challenges. At the same time, there are obvious differences between the two in terms of research purposes, time limits and results. The process of fact-finding in historical study and judicial trials both require interpretation of evidence. On the premise of opposing factual constructionism, the law of evidence emphasizes that there must be a certain relationship between factual premise and judgment conclusion, and it uses the holistic accounts method of IBE instead of formalistic interpretation of evidence, thus revealing the essence of judicial proof and the value orientation of fundamental rights protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

See FRE 801.

The testimonial triangle concept was first popularized for the academic legal community by Professor Laurence Tribe in his article Triangulating Hearsay, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 957 (1974). For a much earlier version of the triangle, see Charles Kay Ogden and Ivor Armstrong Richards, The Meaning of Meaning 10–12 (1927).

See FRE 402.

People v. Collins (1968 Cal. 2d 319).

See Incidental Civil Judgement of the High People’s Court, Fujian (2012) No. 10, Min criminal Zhong Zi.

See Intentional Homicide by Zuohai Zhao. http://www.pkulaw.cn/case/pfnl_a25051f3312b07f36fc427f7da394b487078f987098f23c5bdfb.html?keywords=%E8%B5%B5%E4%BD%9C%E6%B5%B7&match=Exact . Accessed December 16, 2019.

See Guiding Case No. 25 from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the people’s Republic of China: Appeal by Yingsheng Yu.

Allen, Ronald J. 2010. Relevancy and Admissibility. Evidence Science 3: 365–382.

Google Scholar  

Allen, Ronald J. 2011. Evidence and Inference/Probability and Plausibility. Evidence Science 1: 113–126.

Allen, Ronald J. 2014. The Nature of Juridical Proof. In Professor Allen on Evidence , vol. I, ed. Baosheng Zhang, 87–116. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.

Anderson, Terence, David Schum, and William Twining. 2005. Analysis of Evidence . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ban, Gu. 1962. Han Shu . Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

Becker, Carl Lotus. 1967. Detachment and the Writing of History: Essays and Letters of Carl L. Becker . New York: Cornell University Press.

Bentham, Jeremy. 1823. A Fragment on Government . London: E. Wilson.

Cardozo, Benjamin N. 1946. The Nature of the Judicial Process . New Naven: Yale University Press.

Chen, Xuequan. 2010. Scientific Treatment of Probative Force of DNA Evidence. Tribune of Political Science and Law 5: 50–61.

Chen, Jinzhao. 2018. How the Law Adjusts the Changing Society: An Interpretation of the Thinking Mode of Adhering to the Rules of Flexible Application in the Spirit of Law. Tsinghua University Law Journal 6: 79–93.

Chen, Jinzhao, and Guangning Kong. 2006. Crisis of “History” and Rebirth of “Meaning”: Historical Methods (Factors) in Legal Interpretation. Journal of Henan Administrative Institute of Politics and Law 2: 95–104.

Cohen, L. Jonathan. 1986. The Dialogue of Reason: An Analysis of Analytical Philosophy . New York: Oxford University Press.

Collingwood, Robin George. 1936. Human Nature and Human History , vol. 22. New York: Ardent Media.

Damaška, Mirjan R. 1997. Evidence Law Adrift . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Enserink, Martin. 2016. Evidence on Trial. Science 351: 1128–1129.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fairfield, Joshua A.T., and Erik Luna. 2013. Digital Innocence. Cornell Law Review 99 (2013): 981–1076.

Fay, Brian. 1996. Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science: A Multicultural Approach . Oxford: Blackwell.

Garner Bryan, A. 2004. Black’s Law Dictionary . St Paul: Thomson West.

Garrett, Brandon L. 2011. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Geary, Patrick J. 2016. Geneticists and Historians Need to Work Together on Using DNA to Explore the Past. Nature 533: 437–438.

Hu, Shi. 2000. Scholarly Methods . Liaoning: Liaoning People’s Publishing House.

Hu, Shi. 2005. The Oral Autobiography of Hu Shi . Trans. Degang Tang. Anhui: Anhui Education Publishing House.

Hu, Shi. 2013. Research methods of the scholars in the Qing dynasty. In Hu Shi’s Selected Collection , ed. Zhesheng Ouyang. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Huang, Hui. 2006. An Analysis of Foucault’s Theory of Knowledge Archaeology. Etudes Francaises 2: 30–34.

Innocence Project. 2019. Overturning Wrongful Convictions Involving Misapplied Forensics. https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/misapplication-forensic-science/ . Accessed 3 July 2019.

Jin, Yuelin. 2011. On Knowledge , vol. II. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

Lang, Sheng. 2012. Amendment and Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China . Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House.

Larenz, Karl. 2004. Methodology of Law . Trans. Aie Chen. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

Liu, Jiahe. 1996. Comparative Study of History and History of the World. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Science Edition) 5: 46–51.

Liu, Yacong. 2010. Fact and Explanation: Between History and Law . Beijing: China Law Press.

Martin, Jean-Clément. 1998. La démarche historique face à la vérité judiciaire. Juges et historiens. Droit et société 38: 13–20.

McEwan, Jenny. 1992. Evidence and the Adversarial Process: The Modern Law . Cambridge, Ma.: Blackwell Publishers.

Montesquieu. 2001. The Spirit of Laws . Kitchener: Batoche Books.

Nie, Changjian. 2011. The Role Transformation of “Speaker” and “Listener”: Procedural Thinking on the Acceptability of Judicial Judgment. Tribune of Political Science and Law 2: 95–104.

Peng, Yilian. 1996. On Facts . Guangxi: Guangxi Normal University Press.

Peng, Gang. 2010. Historical Facts and Historical Interpretation: A Survey in Light of 20th Century Western Historical Theories. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences) 2: 47–55.

Posner, Richard A. 1993. The Problems of Jurisprudence . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Radbruch, Gustav. 2012. Rechtsphilosophie . Trans. Jian Mi. Beijing: Law Press.

Rüthers, Bernd. 2003. Rechtstheorie . Trans. Xiaoding Chun and Yue Wu. Beijing: China Law Press.

Schmalleger, Frank. 1996. Trial of the Century: People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schum, David. 2005. Thoughts About a Science of Evidence. http://128.40.111.250/evidence/projects/integrated/index.asp . Accessed 29 Dec 2015.

Sharer, Robert J., and Wendy Ashmore. 1987. Archaeology: Discovering Our Past . Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Shu, Weiguang. 1993. The General Design of Scientific Epistemology . Changchun: Jilin People’s Publishing House.

Simon, Herbert A. 1973. Applying Information Technology to Organization Design. Public Administration Review 33: 268–278.

Starr, Douglas. 2016. When DNA is Lying. Science 351: 1133.

Thayer, James Bradley. 1898. A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law . Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Toynbee, Arnold Joseph, and G.R. Urban. 1974. Toynbee on Toynbee: A Conversation Between Arnold J. Toynbee and GR Urban. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tribe, Laurence H. 1971. Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process. Harvard Law Review 6: 1329–1393.

Twining, William. 1985. Theories of Evidence: Bentham & Wigmore . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Twining, William. 2003. Evidence as a Multi-Disciplinary Subject. Law, Probability and Risk 2: 91–107.

Wang, Mingke. 2001. Historical Facts, Historical Memory and Historical Mentality. Historical Research 5: 136–147+191.

Wang, Hongzhi. 2003. On the Same Origin of Ancient Chinese History and Law. Tribune of Political Science and Law 2: 170.

Wang, Xiahao. 2009. The Justification Standard of Legal Decision or Judgment: From the Perspective of Legal Argument. Legal Methodology 8: 56–80.

Wei, Zhixun. 2016. Why Rule by Law Inevitably Calls for Legal Interpretation? Seeking Truth 6: 96–105.

White, Hoyden. 1995. Response to Arthur Marwick. Journal of Contemporary History 30: 233–246.

Xi, Yunshu. 2016. Hu Shi’s Philosophical Methodology and its Source. Tribune of Social Sciences 6: 21–48.

Ye, Shuxian. 2009. A Methodological Criticism of Evidences Law in Chinese Academic Tradition and its Prospect—From the Method of One Way Evidence to the Method of Four Ways Evidences. Evidence Science 4: 389–404.

Yu, Wujin. 2008. Historical Facts and Objective Law. Historical Research . 1: 4–12+190.

Zhang, Hengjun. 2003. The Application of Wang Guowei’s ‘Bi-way Evidence’ in Historical Research. Economic and Social Development 5: 152–154.

Zhang, Baosheng. 2018. Evidence Law . Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.

Zhang, Baosheng, and Ping Yang. 2019. Criticism on the Objectivity of Evidence. Tsinghua University Law Journal 6: 1–34.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Qian Duansheng Professor, Collaborative Innovation Center for Judicial Civilization and the Key Laboratory of Evidence Science, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China

Baosheng Zhang

China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baosheng Zhang .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Transnational Law, Peking University, Shenzhen, China

Thomas Yunlong Man

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Zhang, B., Ma, G. (2021). A Comparison of Fact-Finding Methodology in Evidence Law and History. In: Zhang, B., Man, T.Y., Lin, J. (eds) A Dialogue Between Law and History. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9685-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9685-8_2

Published : 15 December 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-15-9684-1

Online ISBN : 978-981-15-9685-8

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

factfinding

Legal Definition of factfinding

Note: At the trial level, factfinding is done by the jury, or by the judge in a non-jury trial. At agency proceedings, factfinding is done by an officer or by a commission, council, or other body.

Dictionary Entries Near factfinding

Cite this entry.

“Factfinding.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/factfinding. Accessed 16 Apr. 2024.

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day, inalienable.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 12, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 9 superb owl words, 15 words that used to mean something different, games & quizzes.

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Studies Review
• About the International Studies Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, situating international fact-finding missions, ios, epistemic authority, and fact-finding missions, the ad hoc working group on the human rights situation in chile, toward a comparative research agenda, acknowledgement.

• < Previous

Contested Facts: The Politics and Practice of International Fact-Finding Missions

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Max Lesch, Contested Facts: The Politics and Practice of International Fact-Finding Missions, International Studies Review , Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2023, viad034, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad034

• Permissions Icon Permissions

International organizations (IOs) dispatch fact-finding missions to establish epistemic authority by objectively and impartially assessing contested facts. Despite this technocratic promise, they are often controversial and sometimes even fuel international disputes that challenge the epistemic authority of the dispatching organizations. Although the twenty-first century has witnessed a proliferation of United Nations (UN) commissions of inquiry, they have received surprisingly little attention in international relations (IR) scholarship. How can we explain this trend and the successes and failures of fact-finding missions, which sometimes even backfire on the IO authority? Drawing on IR theories of delegation, epistemic authority, and IO field operations as well as public international law scholarship on commissions of inquiry, this article develops an analytical framework for studying the delegation, implementation, and dissemination of fact-finding missions. It theorizes how and under what conditions international fact-finding missions close or widen credibility gaps and thus help to establish, maintain, or weaken the epistemic authority of IOs. The article illustrates this framework with a case study of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Human Rights Situation in Chile, sent by the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1974 to investigate allegations of human rights violations and torture. The conclusion outlines a comparative research agenda on international fact-finding missions for IR that contributes to the study of knowledge production in IOs and the enforcement of international norms.

Las organizaciones internacionales (OOII) envían misiones de investigación de los hechos con el fin de establecer la autoridad epistémica mediante la evaluación objetiva e imparcial de los hechos controvertidos. A pesar de esta promesa tecnocrática, estas misiones resultan, con frecuencia, controvertidas y, a veces, llegan incluso a alimentar disputas internacionales que desafían la autoridad epistémica de las organizaciones las enviaron. A pesar de que el siglo XXI ha sido testigo de una gran proliferación en materia de comisiones de investigación de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), estas han recibido una atención sorprendentemente moderada dentro del ámbito académico de las relaciones internacionales (RRII). ¿Cómo podemos explicar tanto esta tendencia como los éxitos y fracasos de las misiones de investigación, los cuales, a veces, resultan incluso contraproducentes para la autoridad de las OOII? Este artículo desarrolla, sobre la base de las teorías de delegación en el ámbito de las RRII, así como de la autoridad epistémica, de las operaciones de campo de las OOII, y la bibliografía en materia de derecho internacional público sobre comisiones de investigación, un marco analítico para estudiar la delegación, la implementación y la difusión de las misiones de investigación de los hechos. El artículo teoriza acerca de cómo y bajo qué condiciones las misiones internacionales de investigación de los hechos cierran o amplían las brechas de credibilidad y, en consecuencia, ayudan a establecer, mantener o debilitar la autoridad epistémica de las OOII. El artículo ilustra este marco de trabajo con un estudio de caso sobre el Grupo de Trabajo ad hoc para la investigación de los derechos humanos en Chile, que fue enviado por la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la ONU en 1974 para investigar las denuncias de violaciones de los derechos humanos y de tortura. La conclusión de este artículo describe una agenda de investigación comparativa en materia de misiones internacionales de investigación de los hechos para el ámbito de las RRII que contribuye al estudio de la producción de conocimiento en las OOII y a la aplicación de las normas internacionales.

Les organisations internationales (OI) organisent des missions d'enquête pour établir l'autorité épistémique en évaluant de façon objective et impartiale des faits contestés. Malgré cette promesse technocratique, elles sont souvent controversées et parfois même, alimentent des désaccords internationaux qui remettent en question l'autorité épistémique des organisations à l'origine de ces missions. Bien que les commissions d'enquête des Nations unies (ONU) aient proliféré au vingt-et-unième siècle, les relations internationales (RI) ne leur ont étonnamment dédié que peu de travaux de recherche. Comment expliquer cette tendance et les réussites et échecs des missions d'enquête, qui parfois se retournent même contre l'autorité des OI ? En se fondant sur les théories de RI sur la délégation, l'autorité épistémique et les opérations de terrain des OI, ainsi que la recherche en droit international public sur les commissions d'enquête, cet article soumet un cadre d'analyse pour l’étude de la délégation, de l'application et de la diffusion des missions d'enquête. Il théorise comment et sous quelles conditions les missions d'enquête internationales resserrent ou élargissent des écarts de crédibilité, et ainsi permettent d’établir, de maintenir ou d'affaiblir l'autorité épistémique des OI. L'article illustre ce cadre à l'aide d'une étude de cas du groupe de travail spécial sur la situation des droits de l'Homme au Chili, envoyé par la Commission des droits de l'Homme de l'ONU en 1974 pour enquêter sur des allégations de violations des droits de l'Homme et de torture. La conclusion présente un programme de recherche comparative sur les missions d'enquête internationales pour les RI qui contribue à l’étude de la production du savoir dans les OI et l'application des normes internationales.

International organizations (IOs) are dispatching fact-finding missions more frequently than ever before. International fact-finding missions are groups of experts mandated by IOs to investigate a conflict situation, ideally on the ground, by establishing credible facts and ascertaining allegations of norm violations. 1 More than half of all United Nations (UN) fact-findings missions have been deployed in the last decade ( Becker 2022 , 583–84). One of the most recent examples is the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, mandated by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The commission adopted its second report in March 2023, detailing evidence of numerous violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed primarily by Russian forces ( UNHRC 2023 ). Fact-finding missions have become a central practice through which IOs produce knowledge and claim their epistemic authority to apply and ultimately enforce international norms. Yet international relations (IR) scholars have paid little attention to the politics and practice of international fact-finding missions ( Kim 2019 , 99–100; but see Heaven 2017 ; Allen 2020 ; Andrä 2022 ). This article outlines ways to close this research gap.

Despite the promise of impartial knowledge production, international fact-finding mandates, procedures (including cooperation on country visits), and reports can fuel controversies—sometimes even backfiring on IO attempts to establish epistemic authority. The controversial UNHRC mission to the Gaza strip arguably failed to overcome disputes over Israeli military attacks in 2009 as well as the polarization in the council ( Chinkin 2011 ). Fact-finding missions into the use of chemical weapons in Syria have caused deep divisions within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) ( Notte 2020 ). Today’s fact-finding missions must operate in the context of vast amounts of publicly available information, orchestrated disinformation campaigns, and a general backlash against international institutions ( Leander 2014 ). This exacerbates the “credibility gap” that international fact-finding missions have always faced: the one that exists between expert knowledge and doubts about the trustworthiness of the producers of that knowledge ( Franck and Cherkis 1967 , 1484). The “technocratic utopia” ( Steffek 2021 ) of IOs—which sees the provision of knowledge and expertise by IOs as a vital source of their autonomy and authority in itself—is under pressure ( Haas 1992 ). In this climate of increasing mistrust against and politicization of knowledge production, IOs and their agents are struggling to assert themselves as trustworthy.

This article proposes a three-pronged framework for studying international fact-finding missions and their impact on the recognition of epistemic authority, defined as the claim to provide objective and impartial knowledge. Drawing on IR theories of delegation, epistemic authority, and IO field operations, as well as public international law (PIL) scholarship on commissions of inquiry, this framework theorizes several arguments about the link between the delegation of fact-finding missions by IOs, the implementation of their mandates, and the dissemination of their findings on the one hand, and the epistemic authority of IOs on the other. More specifically, this framework and its underlying arguments are guided by three broad research questions: (1) how do the mandating body, the content of the mandate, and the mandate holders affect the trustworthiness of the mission? (2) Under what conditions is the implementation of the mandate—depending on access to the field, sources, and participation—more likely to produce credible facts? (3) Are normative-legal frameworks, which also establish accountability for norm violations, less likely to be accepted than factual-scientific frameworks, which focus on objective and value-free assessment? For each track, the article discusses the sometimes competing explanatory factors in IR and PIL scholarship for the (unintended) consequences of international fact-finding missions and links them to insights from research on human rights reporting, expertise, and on-the-ground activities of IOs.

I illustrate this framework with the historical case of one of the first UN fact-finding missions: the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Human Rights Situation in Chile (hereafter: Ad Hoc Group). This fact-finding mission was dispatched by the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in the aftermath of Pinochet’s coup d’état and led to a “path-breaking on-site visit by the Working Group in 1978” ( Alston and Knuckey 2016 , 19). The Ad Hoc Group provided the UN with facts about the allegations against Chile. The UN used these facts as the basis for its decisions against Chile and to legitimize them. Throughout the process, the Ad Hoc Group and the UN struggled for recognition of their epistemic authority in the human rights situation in Chile. The Ad Hoc Group is a useful illustrative case because, as a critical juncture in the UNCHR’s approach to fact-finding missions and special procedures, it has generated rich debates about the purpose and prospects of international fact-finding missions (see Domínguez-Redondo 2017 , 27; Kelly 2018 , 165–66; Eckel 2019 , 268).

The article proceeds in three steps. The next section situates fact-finding missions as a salient but understudied phenomenon in world politics and discusses existing research in IR and PIL. The article then conceptualizes fact-finding missions as a practice to claim epistemic authority and introduces a framework for studying the delegation, implementation, and dissemination of fact-finding missions. It illustrates this framework with a historical case study of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Human Rights Situation in Chile. The conclusion outlines avenues for a comparative research agenda on fact-finding missions and related knowledge-production mechanisms in human rights, humanitarian law, arms control, and other issue areas.

International fact-finding missions are ad hoc expert bodies dispatched by an IO or international agreement tasked with ascertaining the facts of a particular situation in light of international norms, and to mediate in conflict situations ( Alston and Knuckey 2016 , 5; Hellestveit 2015 , 368; Becker and Nouwen 2019 , 823–24). Their purpose is to provide impartial knowledge in international disputes and to overcome political polarization ( Franck and Cherkis 1967 , 1483). Thus, the central—though not only—goal of international fact-finding missions is to establish credible facts, as is also stated in the UN General Assembly’s (UNGA) Declaration on Fact-Finding ( UNGA 1991 ; see also OHCHR 2015 ). However, the facts found by these missions are often contested. Ideally, these missions conduct country visits, but they require the consent of the target state, which is often a major obstacle. They also—and some argue increasingly—make pronouncements on international law (see Becker 2022 , 586–88). While their reports are not legally binding ( Harwood 2019 , 14), quasi-judicial bodies and informal decisions can also help to enforce international norms ( Lesch 2023 ). Their reports become important resources for IOs to respond to allegations of norm violations and escalating conflicts ( Hellestveit 2015 , 382), and international (and national) courts can use them as evidence ( Devaney 2016 , 93–112). Like other informal lawmaking mechanisms ( Lesch and Reiners 2023 ), they can contribute to norm development ( Le , Moli 2020 ).

In addition to international fact-finding missions, understood here as collective, ad hoc commissions dispatched by an IO, several other international mechanisms seek to establish facts, truth, and knowledge. An early example of UN field missions other than peacekeeping are the periodic visits under the UN Trusteeship Council reporting system. Although rarely used, international courts conduct site visits as part of their fact-finding process. The standing International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, established by the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, was first activated in the Ukrainian conflict in 2017. Individual UN special rapporteurs regularly conduct country visits, and some human rights treaty bodies have also established on-site inquiry mechanisms. The UN Security Council (UNSC) mandates panels of experts to monitor its sanctions regimes and conducts “visiting missions” to gather information and mediate conflicts.

Perhaps the most closely related mechanisms are truth commissions, which are tasked “to construct comprehensive accounts of political violence” ( Zvobgo 2020 , 609). Despite their common goal of establishing facts and truth, they can be distinguished along several lines, though any distinction must take into account that both concepts have evolved over time. For example, they typically differ in terms of the mandating authority and the applicable law: fact-finding missions are mandated by IOs and apply international law. Truth commissions—although sometimes internationalized—are established by national authorities and apply national law ( Harwood 2019 , 11; Kochanski 2020 , 116–17). They also differ in terms of their broader objectives: truth commissions usually contribute to restorative justice processes ( Ben-Josef Hirsch 2014 , 821, 824). Fact-finding missions have primarily an investigative function to report facts—although they can also be used for (soft) enforcement and accountability mechanisms (see below). Finally, they may differ in terms of timing and methods. Fact-finding missions are usually mandated to investigate ongoing conflict situations. As part of broader transitional justice processes ( Salehi 2022 , 70), truth commissions can reconstruct the truth with more hindsight and based on broader forms of knowledge than the evidence-based approach of fact-finding missions ( Salehi 2023 , 10).

The remainder of this section provides an overview of international fact-finding missions and discusses how IR and PIL scholarship have studied these missions.

International fact-finding missions can be traced back to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the League of Nations. Although fact-finding missions by the UN and other international as well as regional organizations are not a new phenomenon, their use has increased dramatically, especially in the last two decades. Not only have they expanded into additional issue areas, but they have also diversified their methods and broadened their mandates, ranging from monitoring to inquiries, and to quasi-adjudication.

Under the Hague Conventions and the League of Nations, commissions of inquiry were closely linked to the settlement of disputes between states. The few Hague commissions of inquiry dealt mainly with very specific incidents, such as those between ships at sea. The League of Nations inquiries dealt mainly with territorial disputes (for concise overviews, see e.g., Franck and Cherkis 1967 , 1492–95; Herik 2014 , 519; Becker 2022 , 567, 571). Whereas the parties to a dispute established these missions under the Hague framework, the League of Nations was authorized to dispatch international fact-finding missions of its own. Formally established with a “pure” fact-finding mandate, these commissions had already assumed an informal role as arbitrators or quasi-adjudicators ( Herik 2014 , 512,518; Becker 2022 , 592,602).

The UN Charter explicitly grants formal authority to establish fact-finding missions only to the UNSC ( Herik 2014 , 523; Hellestveit 2015 , 373). From a legal perspective, other UN organs, including the Secretary General, the General Assembly, the Commissions on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council, and the High Representative for Human Rights, are vested with implied powers to mandate fact-finding missions ( Herik 2014 , 525–27; Hellestveit 2015 , 374–76). Since 1960, the UN has authorized 78 fact-finding missions (see  Table 1 ). The UNHRC, by far the most active UN body since its establishment in 2006, has adopted almost forty such missions. This is in stark contrast to the practice of its predecessor, the UNCHR, which only mandated a total of six fact-finding missions between its establishment in 1946 and its dissolution in 2005. As I will discuss in the case study on Chile, the UNCHR has long shied away from even discussing country-specific norm violations, let alone sending its own envoys to investigate them.

UN fact-finding missions by mandating body and decade.

Own compilation based on UN Library: https://libraryresources.unog.ch/factfinding/ (last accessed May 12, 2023). Note that the UN Commission of Human Rights was replaced by the UNHRC in 2005/6; the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was established in 1993.

Several other IOs also dispatch fact-finding missions. The International Labour Organization, founded in 1919, is a long-standing example of conducting rather successful fact-finding missions ( Franck and Fairley 1980 , 332–44). Bilateral and multilateral arms control have a long tradition of on-site inspections to monitor compliance ( Abbott 1993 ). In 2014, the OPCW sent a first fact-finding mission to Syria to investigate the use of chemical weapons, quickly moving from a mandate to establish the facts of the use of such weapons to the attribution of responsibility, breaking new (but controversial) ground for the OPCW ( Koblentz 2019 ). Even the World Health Organization (WHO), which typically relies on state reporting for knowledge production ( Hanrieder 2020 , 535), has taken the unprecedented step of sending a fact-finding mission to Wuhan, China, to gain firsthand insights into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus ( WHO 2021 ). At the regional level, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has a rich record of fact-finding missions ( Becker 2022 , 574). Other examples include missions mandated by the Council of the European Union to investigate the conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008 and the African Union’s Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan in 2013. For both organizations, these were “firsts” in terms of dispatching fact-finding missions ( Grace 2017 , 66–67).

Existing Literature

Despite the proliferation of international fact-finding missions, IR scholarship has yet to systematically study them. This is surprising because international fact-finding missions have been identified as a central feature of UN peace initiatives ( Clayton, Dorussen, and Böhmelt 2021 , 173), IR scholars have shown considerable interest in international courts and tribunals as attempts to implement international prosecution (e.g., Sikkink 2011 , 21–23), and fact-finding is a crucial part of formal and informal norm enforcement mechanisms ( Lesch 2023 , 4–5). Existing IR scholarship on international fact-finding missions has taken three directions, focusing on their proliferation, their practice, and their critical evaluation. In what follows, I discuss each of these directions and link them to related IO and norm scholarship before turning to PIL scholarship on fact-finding missions and situating my own approach in this literature.

First, from a constructivist perspective, Kim (2019 , 99–100) argues that the increasing use of fact-finding missions follows an emerging international norm, similar to the diffusion of truth commissions (see, e.g., Ben-Josef Hirsch 2014 ). It could also be seen as a consequence of prosecution norms, which have increasingly shaped international responses to norm violations since the 1990s ( Deitelhoff 2009 ; Sikkink 2011 ; Fehl 2023 ). Moreover, constructivists have developed a rich body of research on how nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) report on human rights violations to induce compliance through learning and socialization processes ( Keck and Sikkink 1998 ). Rationalists have focused on the politics and effects of naming and shaming at the UN ( Lebovic and Voeten 2006 ; Hafner-Burton 2008 ) and on the conditions under which domestic courts use human rights reports as evidence ( Lupu 2013 ). However, these scholars have not explicitly focused on international fact-finding missions, nor have they examined how their reports might differ from NGO human rights reports (see also Kim 2019 , 100). This scholarship has still to take up the study of fact-finding missions in comparison to other related mechanisms, which are at the heart of its research agenda, including the questions of when IOs adopt fact-finding mandates and how they use their reports.

Second, practice-based work has mapped a “community of fact-finding practice” and shown how training, mutual learning, and standardization have led to the technocratization and depoliticization of fact-finding ( Heaven 2017 ), yet it stops short of examining the implementation of these practices and their effects. In conflict studies, the on-the-ground aspect of human rights reporting has been emphasized with regard to NGO fact-finding ( Bake and Zöhrer 2017 ) and other forms of country visits ( Bliesemann de Guevara 2017 ) as a means of performing authenticity. This scholarship provides important insights into the study of international fact-finding missions. From a slightly different angle, there is research on country visits by UN special rapporteurs ( Gaer 2017 ; Hoffmann 2023 ) and the independence of experts on sanction-monitoring panels ( Niederberger 2020 ). And while there is a growing body of scholarship on IO activities that implement, change, and contest IO mandates on the ground (e.g., Howard 2008 ; Autesserre 2014 ; Sending 2015 ; Honig 2019 ; Kortendiek 2021 ; Witt 2022 ), this literature has not yet included the study of fact-finders.

Third, critical perspectives have questioned the contingent effects of international fact-finding missions. Drawing on critical legal studies to examine the history of commissions of inquiry on Palestine, Allen (2020 ) questions their ability to improve the situation of those who are supposed to be protected by international norms. From this perspective, international fact-finding missions are part of a broader organized hypocrisy in human rights (see Cronin-Furman 2022 ). Taking a Foucauldian perspective, Andrä (2022 ) demonstrates how the commission of inquiry on the Balkan Wars (1912–13), established by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, sought to disseminate “scientific knowledge” to delegitimize war as an instrument of international politics. Bonacker (2022 , 14–15), writing about visiting missions under the UN trusteeship system, argues that visits to territories under its administration constituted a bureaucratic, apolitical form of governance. From a slightly different angle, science and technology studies focus on the plurality of experts and the contestation of expertise, for example, in UN missions to investigate the use of chemical weapons ( Leander 2014 ). This scholarship shows how fact-finding missions are entangled with power politics, hierarchies, and international rule. It links fact-finding to knowledge production and its ambiguous effects but says less about the conditions for successfully establishing credibility.

PIL scholarship has developed a large body of literature that is closely linked to practical experiences and lessons learned ( Alston and Knuckey 2016 , 6). Overall, this scholarship has mainly addressed procedural and legal issues, the close links between commissions of inquiry and international politics, and the shift toward accountability mechanisms ( Becker and Nouwen 2019 , 820–21). Although this literature has recently suggested several arguments for the success and failure of commissions of inquiry ( Becker and Nouwen 2019 , 831–39), it has also called for more theory-driven and systematic empirical research ( Alston and Knuckey 2016 , 3; Becker and Nouwen 2019 , 820–21). Moreover, PIL tends to neglect the difficulties that arise in the contested processes of knowledge production to establish credible facts, usually turning quickly to legal issues ( Chinkin 2011 , 475–76). As Krebs (2017 , 102) recently noted in discussing this literature, “[C]redibility is typically assumed, or treated as a prerequisite for fact-finding mechanisms [but] it is rarely discussed or studied as a dependent variable, influenced by the message content, its language, delivery, and source” (see also Mégret 2016 ). The same goes for IR research that treats knowledge as a commodity for IOs to cash out their autonomy and authority (see also Kortendiek 2021 , 325).

In sum, this scholarship has focused on the practice and effects of international fact-finding missions, but it has paid less attention to why and how IOs mandate them in the first place. While principal-agent accounts offer several explanations for this delegation ( Hawkins et al. 2006 ), they have not yet taken up the study of fact-finding missions (for arms control inspections, see Thompson 2020 ). One reason for this may be that this scholarship tends to focus more on headquarters politics and intergovernmental bodies and less on field operations than constructivist IO studies (but see Honig 2019 ). The next section follows an integrative approach to principal-agent and constructivist theories ( Nielson, Tierney, and Weaver 2006 ) to explain the politics of establishing international fact-finding missions and their knowledge production practices, which are key to understanding how fact-finding missions enhance or undermine the epistemic authority of their senders.

IOs are created through an act of delegation by which states grant them a certain degree of agency and autonomy ( Barnett and Finnemore 2004 , 22–23; Hawkins et al. 2006 , 7–8). However, their authority is based on more than this formal act and depends on its recognition ( Avant, Finnemore, and Sell 2010 , 9–10; Sending 2015 , 24–27). Authority connotes the “ability to induce deference in others” ( Avant, Finnemore, and Sell 2010 , 9). As recent relational approaches emphasize, IOs have to claim their de jure authority, act on it in practice, and receive recognition of their de facto authority ( Alter, Helfer, and Madsen 2016 , 6–7; Liese et al. 2021 , 356–57). Authority can be exercised both at the headquarters of IOs and in the field ( Kortendiek 2021 , 325–26; Witt 2022 , 627). Through their activities in the field, IOs can extend their authority beyond their original mandates (on “mission creep,” see Hall 2016 ; Littoz-Monnet 2020 ). When IOs intervene in international conflicts by sending fact-finding missions, they claim their de jure authority and seek to translate it into de facto authority by establishing credible facts on the ground. But whether they induce deference by gaining recognition for their factual findings as credible is an open empirical question. Before outlining a three-pronged framework for exploring the links between credibility, knowledge production, and authority in relation to fact-finding, a few words on how IOs in general can claim and maintain epistemic authority are in order.

In this article, I focus on epistemic authority based on knowledge and expertise that is seen as objective and neutral, linking it to the promise of depoliticization—which is in itself open to contestation ( Haas 1992 ). Knowledge production and claims to epistemic authority can fail. Following Barnett and Finnemore (2004 , 29–30), I understand information as raw data, knowledge as information imbued with meaning, and expertise as specialized or professional knowledge. IOs rely on various mechanisms to produce knowledge, such as providing statistics on specific issue areas ( Barnett and Finnemore 2004 , 24–25), monitoring and verification mechanisms ( Zürn, Binder, and Ecker-Ehrhardt 2012 , 91–92), and expert reports, often drawing on local knowledge ( Bueger 2015 , 11–13; Martin de Almagro 2021 , 702–3). This extends to international fact-finding missions, which “are regularly established in situations of epistemic uncertainty and contestation in an attempt to settle disputed ‘facts’ by providing, what is seen by some, an authoritative reading of events” ( Heaven 2017 , 357). In this context, facts are credible knowledge about specific events or actions that is recognized because it is based on reliable sources, procedures, and actors. Facts can become evidence of something (noncompliance, crimes, etc.) when they are linked to normative attributions and (legal) accountability. Ideally, therefore, international fact-finding missions are tools for IOs to claim, maintain, and potentially expand their epistemic authority—or, if they fail, to lose it.

Based on this literature, I suggest that the recognition of epistemic authority depends on three factors: the actors, processes, and outcomes of knowledge production. Recently, scholars have revisited early IR debates on expert-based knowledge production ( Boswell 2017 ; Littoz-Monnet 2020 ; Eijking 2023 ) and unpacked the multiple practices of knowledge production in world politics that underpin the epistemic authority of IOs ( Bueger 2015 ; Kortendiek 2021 ). They ascribe a crucial role to the actors who transform information into knowledge and the processes by which they do so ( Haas 1992 , 11; Barnett and Finnemore 2004 , 24). The procedural and actor-centered study of knowledge production is linked to a relational and recognition-based approach to epistemic authority. It has been argued that epistemic authority is more likely to be recognized because it is less prone to politicization than other forms of authority ( Zürn, Binder, and Ecker-Ehrhardt 2012 , 91). However, recent years have shown that the provision of knowledge and expertise alone is no longer sufficient to gain recognition. As Herold et al. (2021 , 671) point out, the “fact that one possesses specialized knowledge does not necessarily mean that others know this and that they trust the source.” In other words, IOs are under increasing pressure to prove the credibility of knowledge producers, production, and products—the trustworthiness of their epistemic practices.

In the remainder of this section, I outline a three-pronged framework that helps to unpack the question of the credibility and trustworthiness of international fact-finding missions along several explanatory factors and arguments: the delegation by an IO, the implementation of the mandate, and the dissemination of its findings ( Table 2 ). 2

Explanatory factors and arguments for trustworthy and credible fact-finding missions.

While each level is distinguished for heuristic purposes, the following discussion shows how they are closely intertwined and always open to contestation. The study of delegation, implementation, and dissemination sheds light on the causes and consequences of closing and widening credibility gaps that influence the impact of international fact-finding missions. This framework helps to identify the conditions under which the results of international fact-finding missions are translated into epistemic authority and, conversely, when they tend to fuel controversies instead of taming or even overcoming disputes over contested facts.

The establishment of international fact-finding missions is based on an act of delegation. As an IO agent, the fact-finding mission receives its authority from the dispatching organization, the principal, on whose behalf it acts with a certain degree of discretion ( Hawkins et al. 2006 , 7–8). Why do IOs, and which IOs (and their sub-organs), decide for or against delegating epistemic practices to a fact-finding mission in the first place? Principal-agent theories suggest a logic similar to the act of delegation from states to IOs: faced with external challenges and demands for conflict resolution, the IO turns to specialized actors to enhance the credibility of future decisions ( Hawkins et al. 2006 , 13–19). As Boswell (2017 , 19) notes, knowledge can serve different purposes for an IO. On a functionalist level, they need knowledge to implement their mandates; on a legitimacy level, they use knowledge to justify their decisions and policies (see also Eijking 2023 , 3). In other words, IOs mandate fact-finding missions because they need objective and impartial knowledge to implement their policies and norms, and/or because they seek to legitimize themselves and their actions as authorities in a given issue area.

The decision to send a fact-finding mission is shaped by negotiations between state, non-state, and IO actors within and outside the organization who seek to frame conflict situations as a problem of contested facts, to garner support for a fact-finding mission, or to obstruct its establishment (similarly on “shadow politics” of judicialization, Alter, Hafner-Burton, and Helfer 2019 , 454–55). In this context, some see fact-finding missions as a good alternative to peacekeeping missions because they are less intrusive, while others see them as a weak substitute for UNSC inaction ( Becker and Nouwen 2019 , 833). Looking beyond intra-organizational explanations and drawing on insights into the effects of NGO coalitions (see, e.g., Keck and Sikkink 1998 ; Reiners 2022 ), the delegation to fact-finding missions is more likely when NGO networks push for their adoption, which may also strengthen their design (for this argument on truth commissions, see Zvobgo 2020 ). In sum, this literature suggests that IOs mandate fact-finding missions when other means have been exhausted or are not viable, when IOs need knowledge to act on their authority or to legitimize themselves, and/or when civil society actors mobilize for such a mission.

In the next step, fact-finding mandates can be unpacked by focusing on the delegating authorities , the content of the mandate, and their agents or mandate holders . In short, a central argument in the literature is that the less politicized the mandating body, the more balanced the mandate, and the more independent and impartial the mandate-holders, the more likely it is that missions will succeed in producing credible facts that are accepted as authoritative findings.

Mandating Body

Does it make a difference which IO adopts the mandate for a fact-finding mission? PIL scholarship has argued that the UNSC is better positioned to garner cooperation and succeed in addressing international conflicts than the more politicized UNHRC, deploring the shift in practice toward the latter ( Frulli 2012 , 1332). Farrell and Murphy (2017 , 37) note that it remains to be tested whether supposedly less politicized international bodies are more likely to establish successful fact-finding missions. A principal-agent approach would suggest that politicized bodies are more likely to delegate to experts in order to facilitate conflict resolution through the provision of expert knowledge ( Hawkins et al. 2006 , 16–17). In the field of human rights, for example, less politicized bodies, such as the human rights treaty bodies, are more successful in inducing compliance than the highly politicized UNHRC ( Carraro 2017 ). This suggests that the trustworthiness of fact-finding missions and the credibility of their findings is a variable of the degree of politicization of the delegating body and the perception of other advocates of such a mission.

Mandate Content

Similar to other IO agents, such as peacekeeping missions, the mandate is a crucial factor, as it outlines their “marching orders” ( Hellmüller, Tan, and Bara 2023 , 2), which also reflect the political origins of international fact-finding missions. Due to their ad hoc nature, they almost by definition single out individual countries or conflict situations ( Franck and Fairley 1980 , 312). Fact-finding missions established without the consent of the target state “are particularly vulnerable to accusations of bias or politicization” ( Harwood 2019 , 64; see also Kim 2019 , 107). Closely related to selectivity is the perception of the impartiality of fact-finding mandates. Two aspects stand out: whether the mandate authorizes fact-finding missions to investigate all sides of a conflict, and whether the mandate is framed in a biased way, for example by “already stating that human rights violations have occurred” ( Vries 2022 , 499). The epistemic task of gathering information and establishing credible facts is already imbued with normative attributions because “it is the norms that tell us what facts one is looking for” ( Mégret 2016 , 35). These arguments suggest that non-selective, broad, and balanced mandates are more likely to be perceived as trustworthy, resulting in credible fact-finding reports.

Mandate Holders

The agents acting as the IO’s envoys are crucial to the credibility of the mission as a whole, as it “typically invests a high degree of faith in the finder of facts” ( Mégret 2016 , 29). When the mandate holders are appointed, they are supposed to assume the role of independent and impartial experts without political bias ( Franck and Cherkis 1967 , 1487; Heaven 2017 , 359). Like the judges of international courts ( Voeten 2008 , 417–18), expert members of human rights treaty bodies ( Carraro 2019 , 826; Reiners 2022 , 29–30), and IO bureaucrats ( Barnett and Finnemore 2004 , 21), fact-finders are supposed to distance themselves from incentives related to their personal backgrounds, and to treat similar cases and actors under equal scrutiny ( Mégret 2016 , 31). Similarly, studies of IO authority argue that the recognition of epistemic authority and credible knowledge production depend on perceptions of depoliticization, impersonality, and technocracy ( Barnett and Finnemore 2004 , 21; Liese et al. 2021 , 360).

In addition to the absence of national loyalties, the professional backgrounds and reputations of fact-finders can shape the likelihood of cooperation and the struggle to have their reports recognized ( Franck and Cherkis 1967 , 1523). In the human rights treaty bodies, for example, international lawyers are less likely to be criticized than experts from other professions ( Carraro 2019 , 839). After a shift away from diplomats and government representatives in the staffing of fact-finding missions to international lawyers ( Chinkin 2011 , 490; Alston 2013 , 61), the community of fact-finders today can be said to be interdisciplinary in nature ( Heaven 2017 , 338–39). Based on different training and professional networks, they are likely to “draw from different sources of evidence” ( Reiners 2022 , 60). A focus on composition and professional backgrounds allows for further research questions about the competition between different professions, such as diplomats and international lawyers or chemists and arms control experts ( Sending 2015 , 34–35; Leander 2014 , 28), the role conflicts of individual envoys ( Niederberger 2020 ), and the impact on the unanimity among each mission ( Franck and Cherkis 1967 , 1524). While the professionalization of fact-finding may contribute to its “de-politicization” ( Heaven 2017 , 358), it may also induce short-term, career-oriented incentives that could undermine impartiality (see, e.g., Seabrooke and Sending 2020 ). This suggests that the credibility of fact-finding missions increases with the impartiality of the mandate holders, depending on their personal and professional backgrounds.

Implementation

International fact-finding missions have a growing set of techniques at their disposal to produce knowledge and establish facts. While fact-finding mandates are ideally implemented in the field, they also include the collection of evidence by third parties, the hearing of witnesses, and, more recently, the use of technologies such as satellite imagery or social media ( Alston and Knuckey 2016 , 9; Heaven 2017 , 341). Recognition of these practices is particularly important because they usually take place against the backdrop of competing recollections of the same facts ( Mégret 2016 , 37). Although recognition varies across institutions and professional fields (see Sending 2015 , 24–25), and IOs often privilege certain types of “evidence-making” over others ( Littoz-Monnet and Uribe 2023 ), the literature discusses three central factors that shape the trustworthiness and credibility of fact-finding in the implementation phase: the locale where it is primarily conducted, either on- or off-site; the sources of knowledge production, such as witness and/or perpetrator testimony and (forensic) expert reports; and the participation of the parties to the conflict. In short, a central argument in the literature is that fact-finding missions are more likely to produce credible facts if they conduct on-site visits, hear both victims and perpetrators, and involve all parties to the conflict equally. Conversely, remote information-gathering techniques, unbalanced reliance on sources, and the exclusion of accused states are more likely to fuel conflicts.

What distinguishes fact-finding missions from many other epistemic practices conducted by IOs is their ambition to enter the field and to visit the sites of alleged norm violations themselves ( Lesch 2023 , 4–5). But “On-site admission, essential to the authority and trustworthiness of fact-finding, is in most cases subject to the will of the state in question” ( Hellestveit 2015 , 390). The conditions under which IO envoys are allowed to conduct country visits are determined by the legitimacy of the sending IOs, as well as their agents and mandates (see above; for a similar discussion with regard to UN special rapporteurs, see Gaer 2017 ). The politicization of the sending IO, the impartiality of its envoys, and the objectivity of the mandate are likely to shape the willingness of target states to cooperate.

The on-site visit itself is considered an essential part of a fact-finding mission, and a key factor in establishing credible facts. Similar to human rights reporting by NGOs, the underlying rationale is to go “on-site, talking to those involved and affected, and ideally also visiting the scenes of abuses” ( Bake and Zöhrer 2017 , 87). Perhaps more important than the objective expertise of the fact-finders is their performance on the ground, which underpins the authenticity of fact-finding reports based on having been there (see Bliesemann de Guevara 2017 , 73–74). Beyond the potential performative effects of field visits, it is often assumed that the fact that mandate-holders have gotten as close as possible to the actual events and actions they are supposed to investigate enhances the credibility of their reports. As Sending (2015 , 55) argues, such an “ethnographic sagacity,” that is, the “ability to deploy local knowledge,” is a prerequisite for international authority. A focus on on-site visits also opens up a broader understanding of the exercise of authority by linking it to the relations with and reception by societal and sub-state actors, the ultimate subjects of authority ( Witt 2022 ; see also Becker and Nouwen 2019 , 835). In contrast to the argument that in situ fact-finding will enhance epistemic authority, PIL scholars of international courts have cautioned that site visits can only provide “snapshots,” obscuring the full factual picture ( Becker and Rose 2017 , 240), and that “breaking the distance from the scene [. . .] might lead to a politicization of the case” ( Benatar 2012 , para. 21). Similarly, IR scholarship on country visits by IO delegations has shown that the short time spent in (usually a limited number of) sites can also be seen as a weakness, for example by NGOs that have spent much more time in the field ( Hoffmann 2023 , 17–18). Comparing the outcomes of fact-finding missions with and without access to the field will improve our understanding of the effects of field visits, including in relation to other IO epistemic practices.

The implementation of fact-finding mandates and their recognition are shaped by the sources on which they rely. In addition to site visits, these include testimony, mainly from victims but also from perpetrators, and the use of forensic expertise. Whether on-site or off-site, fact-finding, particularly in the human rights field, usually relies heavily on the use of victim testimony as a source of information ( Alston and Knuckey 2016 , 12). The burden of witness testimony increases when field visits are not possible, which also creates problems with witness selection. Furthermore, scholarship on truth commissions argues that their legitimacy increases when the testimonies of victims and perpetrators are taken into account ( Zvobgo 2019 , 94). A more fundamental critique concerns the general utility of testimony in the proceedings of international tribunals, arguing that forensic evidence and expert testimony are more reliable sources than witnesses ( Combs 2010 ). The increasing reliance of international fact-finding missions on different types of evidence and the use of new technologies (see Alston and Knuckey 2016 , 11–15) provide ample room to test which types of sources are considered to be more credible.

Participation

Unlike judicial proceedings, fact-finding missions do not rely on standardized procedures for the admission of evidence. The role that the target state, as the “responding government,” can play in the production and cross-examination of witnesses often differs. This procedural issue has been a constant point of criticism in PIL scholarship ( Franck and Cherkis 1967 , 1524; Franck and Fairley 1980 , 317). In IR, the lack of transparency and equal participation by the subjects of authority is also seen as one of the main reasons for contestation ( Zürn, Binder, and Ecker-Ehrhardt 2012 , 90; Dingwerth et al. 2019 ; Zimmermann et al. 2023 , 25–26). Against this background, fact-finding missions providing for more channels of participation by target states and NGOs should be more likely to receive recognition.

Dissemination

Fact-finding missions report back to the dispatching IO, which usually includes communicating their findings to a wider international audience. Similar to other knowledge production processes, these reports are “tools through which IOs claim expertise” ( Martin de Almagro 2021 , 702; see also Littoz-Monnet 2020 ; Eijking 2023 ). Fact-finding reports record their factual findings and, ideally, how they were established as credible information. This may, for example, relate to the use of particular interrogation techniques or the use of specific weapons. In addition, these reports implicitly or explicitly make normative and legal attributions about these findings, identifying them as norm violations and even, as noted above, increasingly establishing accountability. Framing interrogation practices as an act of torture already marks them as a norm violation, and identifying responsible individuals and states establishes accountability.

The reception of fact-finding mission reports within the organization, its decision-making bodies, and the broader international discourse is a key indicator of whether fact-finding missions have been able to establish de facto epistemic authority. This can happen at three levels: socially, fact-finding reports can become important reference points in broader “information politics” ( Keck and Sikkink 1998 , 18–19; Kim 2019 , 100). Politically, the reports return to the sending IO, which can take further action by adopting resolutions and decisions. Legally, the reports may also be referred to or used by international and national courts in their proceedings. Depending on the purpose and audience, the perception of fact-finding reports is likely to vary, but in any case, their epistemic authority ultimately rests on the recognition of the established facts as credible.

Objectivity

With the adoption of the report, the sending IO’s attempt to claim epistemic authority comes full circle, as the credibility of the information gathered as valid facts is put to a recognition test ( Sending 2015 , 28–29). In addition to the actor- and process-related factors discussed above, the recognition or non-recognition of fact-finding reports is influenced by how the reports are presented. Depending on the social, political, or legal “use” of fact-finding reports, they are evaluated differently. Keck and Sikkink (1998 , 18), for instance, argue that NGO reports have to strike a delicate balance between “credibility and drama” for successful campaigns. For legal purposes, reports have to meet specific procedural norms and standards of proof ( Lupu 2013 , 481–82; Devaney 2016 , 99–112). Regarding the recognition of the authority of the sending IO, it can be assumed that the “greater the appearance of depoliticization, the greater the authority associated with the expertise” ( Barnett and Finnemore 2004 , 25). From this perspective, an ideal fact-finding report would focus on presenting facts in an almost scientific manner in order to establish epistemic authority (see Perez 2015 , 397).

Normativity

IR scholars view legalization as a counterweight to politics ( Abbott et al. 2000 ), suggesting that a legal framing of fact-finding reports would be more likely to gain recognition. In contrast, PIL scholars have argued that legal frames and a move toward accountability undermine the authority of fact-finding missions. 3 Observing a general shift away from de-escalating conflicts through fact-finding, Herik (2014 , 536) notes that “contemporary human rights commissions rather aim to stir, to evoke action, to opine, and to condemn.” Linking this finding to the recognition of fact-finding missions, Krebs (2017 , 113–14) argues that legal framings are “ineffective in creating a shared history, disseminating an authoritative account of contested facts , and mobilizing domestic attitudes to condemn in-group offenders” (emphasis added). 4 An important research question is whether fact-finding missions that are more committed to a purely factual mandate are more likely to establish epistemic authority than those that conclude with legal attributions and accountability.

This section has outlined several arguments about when and how international fact-finding missions succeed or fail in establishing epistemic authority that still need to be systematically tested as a first step in developing an analytical framework for a comparative research agenda on international fact-finding missions.

In 1975, the UNCHR dispatched the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Human Rights Situation in Chile. After providing a brief background and outlining the case selection strategy and methods, I analyze how the delegation, implementation, and dissemination of the Ad Hoc Group affected the epistemic authority of the UN in this case of contested facts.

In 1973, the military coup in Chile led by Augusto Pinochet violently ended the socialist presidency and the life of Salvador Allende. By decree, a four-man military junta led by Pinochet took control of the country, beginning more than sixteen years of military rule. The months and years that followed were marked by the violent persecution of political opponents and the imprisonment of thousands throughout the country. While the military and police forces carried out this first wave of repression, the creation of the Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia (DINA) 5 in 1974 institutionalized mechanisms of repression, including the systematic use of violent interrogation techniques ( Ensalaco 2000 , 55). Estimates put the number of dead or disappeared at more than 3,000 and the number of torture victims at tens of thousands ( Ensalaco 2000 , 46; Eckel 2019 , 246).

Early on, Pinochet’s junta found itself on the docket of a “Court of World Opinion” ( Ensalaco 2000 , 98). Several international actors—including a mission of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, various NGOs such as Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, and the International Committee of the Red Cross—had already provided ample information about the human rights situation in Chile ( Ensalaco 2000 , 104; Clark 2001 , 51–52; Hawkins 2002 , 57–58). Despite this information, the allegations of human rights violations at the UN and their factual basis remained highly contested. Contested facts and epistemic uncertainty characterized the debates, compounded by the polarizing East-West dynamics of the Cold War. The UNCHR, the body formally responsible for human rights issues, struggled to respond.

Soon after its establishment in 1946, the UNCHR had adopted a resolution ruling out the addressing of violations of human rights in order to avoid politicization ( Lauterpacht 1950 , 229–30). The UNCHR rejected its authority to address human rights violations in UN member states and instead focused primarily on norm development and diffusion ( Lebovic and Voeten 2006 , 863–64). Departing from this policy, the UNCHR adopted the 1235 and 1503 procedures in 1967 and 1970, respectively, which reasserted the UNCHR's authority to address human rights violations through public and confidential investigations and studies ( Lebovic and Voeten 2006 , 864). Yet this formal authority still had to be translated into practice. It was first put to the test when the human rights situation in Chile began to dominate international agendas, leading to the establishment of the Ad Hoc Group that visited Chile in 1978.

Case Selection and Method

I use the Ad Hoc Working on the Human Rights Situation in Chile as a historical case study to illustrate the framework developed above. While a single-case study cannot substitute for a comparative analysis and systematic testing, focusing on a “critical case” is useful for the further development of theoretical heuristics ( Flyvbjerg 2016 , 229–30). The Ad Hoc Group is a critical case of international fact-finding missions for two main reasons. It was the first fact-finding mission established by the UNCHR after the adoption of the new 1235 and 1530 procedures. While the UNCHR and other UN bodies had previously mandated similar expert committees ( Jensen 2016 , 241–42; Franck and Cherkis 1967 , 1469–1505), 6 the Ad Hoc Group was the first UNCHR fact-finding mission not mandated in the context of racial discrimination, which had previously been the only exception to allow for greater latitude in responding to norm violations ( Ramcharan 2009 , 93). Indeed, the “organization had never previously taken such resolute or persistent action against any country, with the exception of South Africa,” including an unprecedented field visit to Chile ( Eckel 2019 , 268). On an institutional level, the Ad Hoc Group “signalled a radical change of direction” for the UNCHR ( Domínguez-Redondo 2017 , 27). Not only did it set a precedent for future missions, but it also led to the institutionalization of the UN special procedures regime ( Ramcharan 2009 , 125–26; Kelly 2018 , 165–66).

A historical case study of such a critical juncture, rather than a more recent one such as the commissions of inquiry on Syria or Ukraine, allows for a unique perspective on how UN decision-makers and the members of the commissions themselves perceived the notion of IO fact-finding and its prospects. Because mandates, procedures, and reports were less routinized, I expected more intense and substantive debates at the time of this precedent than today, which would also allow for a critical assessment of contemporary arguments in IR and PIL scholarship on fact-finding.

The following analysis is based on archival research at the UN, secondary literature, including accounts of the actors involved, and historical studies of human rights. The empirical analysis focuses primarily on who the relevant actors were, what resources they had at their disposal, how they carried out their mandate, and with what result or outcome. To analyze the procedural and substantive dimensions of its implementation, the analysis concentrates on the group’s first progress report and considers follow-up reports to track developments over time—for instance, in the case of the long-delayed on-site visit. Although the reports address a range of human rights violations, the article focuses on allegations of torture as one of the core charges against the Pinochet junta.

Beginning in 1973, a combined UNCHR agenda item addressed “the study of situations which reveal a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights” under the 1235 and 1503 procedures, allowing for NGO statements ( Jensen 2016 , 246–47). These new UN procedures, combined with the heated debate following Pinochet's coup, opened the space for the dispatch of a UNCHR fact-finding mission. The desire for a fact-finding mission was driven by the demand for credible facts as a precondition for the UN to make decisions on the sweeping allegations against the Chilean regime, pushed by NGO actors seeking to establish the authority of the world organization.

During the first UNCHR session after Pinochet’s coup, several states and NGOs pushed for UN action to protect human rights and confronted the Chilean delegation with the allegations. Chile responded that a lack of information was the main reason for the misperception of the human rights situation in Chile ( Jensen 2016 , 247–48). The facts themselves were contested. At this point, the roles of the Dutch delegate, Theo van Boven, and Amnesty International’s legal advisor, Frank Newman, were crucial. Similar to other NGO-government relations at the time ( Srivastava 2022 ), Newman and van Boven, along with other delegates such as Antonio Cassese (Italy), urged the UNCHR to conduct its own investigation ( UNCHR 1974 , 166–68). Arguing for a fact-finding mission to Chile, they built on the recently adopted 1253 procedure to allow for public UN action ( Boven 2000 , 97).

These efforts paid off in 1975, when the UNCHR adopted by majority vote its mandate for the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Human Rights Situation in Chile ( UNCHR 1975b ). An agreement became possible after a group of African and Asian countries proposed a moderate resolution that the Eastern bloc could also agree to ( Kelly 2018 , 160). Yet even Western states were concerned about the selective approach, focusing on a single country, that would shape the debates about the group. The broad, international civil society campaign in the wake of the coup ( Clark 2001 ) and the coalition between government delegates and NGO representatives at the operational level underscore the influence of NGO networks on decisions to dispatch fact-finding missions. However, the polarized debates within the UNCHR could never be completely overcome. UN members continued to debate whether the Ad Hoc Group was a promising model ( UNGA 1978b , para. 2) or a dangerous precedent in singling out individual countries and overstepping norms of non-interference ( UNGA 1977a , para. 44).

The mandate of the Ad Hoc Group was to “inquire into the present situation of human rights in Chile on the basis [. . .] of a visit to Chile and of oral and written evidence to be gathered from all relevant sources” ( UNCHR 1975a , 66 at para. 1). Cassese emphasized that only a “thorough, impartial, and objective study” could “reveal the extent to which the Chilean authorities were living up to the basic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” On the basis of such a factual assessment, the UNCHR could then decide “if the allegation of gross violations of human rights were well founded” ( UNCHR 1975d , 47). Indeed, Chile itself favored such an approach “as an attempt to seek the truth without prejudice” ( UNCHR 1975c , para. 79). The Chilean plea, surprising to many, stimulated growing support for the deployment of a UN fact-finding mission and underscored the appeal of establishing a factual and impartial basis for addressing the dispute ( Eckel 2019 , 267). The rather open framing of the mandate has to be seen in the context of already-adopted UN resolutions calling on Chile to comply with human rights. It underlines the functional demand for knowledge and the urge to legitimize further UN decisions on the human rights situation in Chile.

The members of the Ad Hoc Group were recruited from the diplomatic delegations to the UNCHR. The commission appointed the Pakistani delegate Ghulam Ali Allana as chair. Leopoldo Benites (Ecuador), Adboulaye Biéye (Senegal), Felix Ermacora (Austria), and M.J.T. Kamara (Sierra Leone) completed the group. The professional backgrounds of the group were diverse: Allana had extensive diplomatic experience as a Pakistani delegate to several international conferences and organizations; Biéye and Ermacora were lawyers with national and international careers; Benites was a social scientist, a former Ecuadorian ambassador, and then a UN diplomat; Kamara was a social worker from Sierra Leone. The solemn oath to exercise their mandate “impartially” underscores the goal of dissociating their mission from the political debates at the UN ( UNGA 1975c , Annex II, Rule 4). The mandate holders had to distance themselves from their political mandates and assume the roles of independent experts.

From May 20 to 24, 1975, the Ad Hoc Group held constitutive meetings in Geneva and established its rules of procedure ( UNGA 1975c , para. 21). These rules, drafted on the assumption of Chilean cooperation, stated that the Group “may visit any place within Chile as it may decide for the purpose of gathering information relevant” ( UNGA 1975c , Annex II, Rule 17). On July 7, 1975, the group convened in Lima, Peru, to travel to Santiago de Chile. At the last moment, however, the Chilean authorities withdrew their consent to the country visit ( UNGA 1975c , para. 33). After several communications between Chilean representatives, UN officials, and members of the group ( UNGA 1975c , paras. 40–62), the visit had to be postponed. It was not until 1978 that Chile granted access to the Ad Hoc Group, not least because of growing pressure from the United States under the Carter administration ( Vargas Viancos 1990 , 40).

Back in 1975, the members of the group decided to improvise and gather information from other available sources ( UNGA 1975c , para. 33). The Ad Hoc Group heard eighty-three witnesses in Geneva, Caracas, Paris, and New York ( UNGA 1975c , para. 35), followed by further testimonies taken in Europe and the Americas in 1976 and 1977 ( UNGA 1976a , para. 27, 1977 , para. 20). In general, the Group did not explicitly invite specific individuals, nor did the Chilean authorities or others officially present witnesses: “The persons heard were those who sought to be heard” ( Shelton 1980 , 22). These included Chileans who had left the country, those who had recently visited Chile, and those who spoke on behalf of domestic civil society organizations ( UNGA 1975c , para. 35). The 1975 progress report made special mention of a group of thirty-seven witnesses, interviewed in Caracas, who “were in a certain way organised” ( UNGA 1975c , para. 36). Since they had come directly from Chile with government authorization, Ermacora (1976 , 150) considered them to be “witnesses for the ‘defence’”. Nevertheless, as he lamented, these hearings could not compensate for the fact that there was no procedure for producing (or corroborating the statements of) witnesses, nor was there any possibility of cross-examination ( Ermacora 1976 , 151). In the absence of Chilean cooperation, Ermacora (1976 , 150) was highly skeptical that the group could accomplish more than an act of information gathering, as opposed to “‘fact-finding’ in the legal sense.” What was to become a feature of human rights fact-finding was its distinction from “judicial process, including not only its decorum but also, most importantly, its procedure” ( Mégret 2016 , 29). This procedural issue was also a sticking point in the ongoing disputes with Chile, and a persistent challenge to the epistemic authority of the group and the UNCHR.

When the field visit finally took place in 1978, the group was able to gather more “objective and balanced information from all relevant sources,” including from Chilean authorities ( UNGA 1978 , para. 27). Since Allana had decided to stay behind to facilitate Chilean approval and Benites could not travel due to health problems, only a group of three arrived in Chile ( UNGA 1978 , para. 24). They were accompanied and assisted by the UN Human Rights Division, by then headed by van Boven ( UNGA 1978 , para. 46). During the sixteen-day visit, the group heard testimony, met with members of civil society organizations, held meetings with government, ministry, intelligence, and judicial officials, and visited prisons and detention centers ( UNGA 1978 , paras. 29–41). The visit allowed the Group to consider further information, although it did not always receive the cooperation it requested. In the resulting report, the Group corroborated its findings with the most detailed examination of individual cases to date. This included the examination of documents provided by the Chilean government and medical expert reports on signs of torture ( UNGA 1978 , paras. 337–346).

From the outset, the Chilean role in the fact-finding process was uncertain. The terms of reference stated that Chile could “present any observation or comments on either report to the organ to which the report is submitted” ( UNGA 1975c , para. 26, and Annex II). But Chile was not a formally responding government, as Ermacora (1976 , 149–50) noted, drawing on his experience with the European Commission on Human Rights: there were not “two parties (UN and Chilean Government) or three parties (UN, Government, and alleged victims) with a conciliatory body above them.” For Ermacora (1976 , 149), the rules of procedure did “not succeed in resolving all the difficulties arising in a confrontation between an international body of inquiry and a sovereign state.” The question of how Chile should and could participate in the investigation would shape the performance, perception, and recognition of the entire fact-finding process as Chile continued to contest it.

Soon after the Ad Hoc Group began its work, Chile challenged “the objectivity and methodology of international organizations” ( Ropp and Sikkink 1999 , 179; see also Eckel 2019 , 269–70). There was a dispute over what information should count as fact. The Chilean delegation challenged the group’s procedures, calling to take “the accused country’s defence into account” ( UNGA 1975a , para. 59) and protesting that “any report on human rights produced without the participation of the country being investigated lacks legal validity” ( UNGA 1975e , para. 120). The group, by contrast, emphasized that it had considered “all the information reaching it, in particular the information provided by the Government of Chile” ( UNCHR 1977 , para. 45). Nonetheless, Chile denounced this information as “untrue” and “false”: the events described “never occurred, except in the imagination of politically biased persons, which the Working Group and later this resolution accepted without any analysis” ( UNGA 1975e , para. 123). The controversies within the Working Group concerned the focus on testimony on the one hand, and the procedural fairness of international fact-finding missions on the other—questioning the credibility of procedures and findings.

The Ad Hoc Group’s approach to the selection of witnesses, the participation of Chile, and the on-site visit shaped the struggles for recognition of the UN’s epistemic authority. Political tensions between Chile and the UN peaked in 1977, and Chile at times continued to reject the Ad Hoc Group as a form of undue interference. But by 1978, the year of the site visit, the contestation of Chile and its allies of the Ad Hoc Group and related UN resolutions had subsided ( Zimmermann et al. 2023 , 47–48). Although the eventual facilitation of the on-site visit has to be understood in a broader political context, the Ad Hoc Group used it to validate its information as fact by visiting places of detention, hearing at least some of those allegedly responsible, and obtaining reports from forensic experts. To a certain extent, this allayed Chilean concerns. For the majority of UN members, the fact-finding mission would provide the credible facts they sought to make decisions about Chile's human rights record.

The Ad Hoc Group documented and disseminated the results of its fact-finding mission in a series of reports to the UNCHR and the UNGA. The reports were based on detailed accounts of their observations, including visual illustrations. In New York and Geneva, as Ermacora (1976 , 154) noted, it was up to the dispatching bodies to use the factual findings to develop an opinion and arrive at a judgment—something the Group did not formally do. However, the Ad Hoc Group had also identified the international norms that guided its inquiry. The normative assessments in its reports and the UN resolutions based on them were intended to give effect to the UN’s authority in the field of human rights. In the Chilean view, it was precisely this normative—or even legal—conclusion that particularly overstepped the UN’s authority.

On the factual level, the Ad Hoc Group established facts—also obtained in the field in 1978—which formed the basis for the assessment of the allegations against Chile. The report listed methods that the group understood to be “forms of torture [. . .] common to several cases,” including but not limited to the use of electricity, rape and other sexual abuse, beatings, and stress positions ( UNGA 1975c , para. 193). In the 1976 report, this list was expanded to include the violent use of water and various forms of physical injury ( UNGA 1976a , para. 315). The group found it “beyond any reasonable doubt” that the methods used by Chilean security forces constituted ill treatment and torture ( UNGA 1978 , para. 166). The use of “beyond any reasonable doubt” in the 1978 report is the first example of a standard of proof that would become part of many future fact-finding missions (Le Moli 2020 , 652–53). The Ad Hoc Group used it as a benchmark for establishing credible facts, linking the factual findings to normative evaluations.

On a normative level, the Ad Hoc Group relied on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the recently adopted international human rights covenants as “a kind of internal law of the UN” ( Ermacora 1976 , 149; see also UNGA 1975c , para. 22 (c)). This included the interpretation of the torture prohibition as a non-derogable norm, further specified in light of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the 1975 UN Declaration on Torture ( UNGA 1975c , para. 185; UNCHR 1976 , para. 127). The Ad Hoc Group identified poor prison conditions, physical abuse during interrogation, and psychological pressure as the three categories of ill treatment in Chile ( UNGA 1975c , para. 192). The group expressed its “profound disgust,” explicitly stated that “such acts are forbidden by international law even under an emergency situation,” and that they constitute an “affront to the elementary moral standards of mankind” ( UNGA 1975c , para. 195). The Ad Hoc Group used the facts of interrogation techniques and detention conditions as evidence of norm violations. In 1976, the group concluded that an “institutionalized practice of torture” as a systematic pattern of government policy existed in Chile ( UNGA 1976a , paras. 311, 516–517). This normative-legal framing in particular was contested by Chile, which claimed that the Group lacked evidence and did not take into account the broader situation of civil war, during which respect for human rights might diminish ( UNGA 1975e , para. 124; 1976b , 50). Thus, even this early UNCHR fact-finding mission made statements about international law and findings of non-compliance—something that, as discussed above, is mainly associated with more recent commissions of inquiry.

The UNCHR and the UNGA used each of the reports as a basis for condemning Chilean human rights violations in their resolutions ( Vargas Viancos 1990 ). In 1975, the UNGA expressed “its profound distress at the constant flagrant violations of human rights, including the institutionalized practice of torture” ( UNGA 1975d , para. 1) and called upon the Chilean authorities to ensure the “full respect of article 7” (the torture prohibition) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( UNGA 1975d , para. 2(b)). From 1977 onwards, resolutions no longer used the term institutionalized torture and acknowledged the overall improvement of the situation. Nevertheless, after receiving the report of the field visit, the UNGA expressed its grave concern that violations of the prohibition of torture were still taking place. The resolutions—adopted by a majority vote—translated the factual findings into normative decisions. In other words, the UNCHR and the UNGA not only claimed epistemic authority but also sought to confer normative authority on the allegations against Chile. This claim did not go unchallenged. Chile and several other Latin American countries continued to contest the selective approach and the role of the UNGA as a “judicial body” or “would-be tribunal” that inappropriately treated Chile as an “accused prisoner” ( UNGA 1976c , para. 4, 1974 , para. 18, 1975b , para. 17). In addition to criticizing the fact-finding mission, Chile and its allies also challenged the role of the UN bodies in New York and Geneva, which they perceived to be making unwarranted judgments. Chile’s accusation that the UN acted like a court and its criticism of the fact-finding reports show that the normative or even legal framing of its findings fueled rather than tamed controversies over contested facts.

From the UN’s perspective, the Ad Hoc Group fulfilled its primary function: to produce the knowledge and establish the credible facts needed to make an informed decision about the allegations of human rights violations against Chile. At least at this functional level, the group helped the UN to translate its claims to epistemic authority into de facto authority. Closely related to this, the fact-finding reports were also important sources for legitimizing UN decisions. A majority of UN member states deferred to the findings of the Ad Hoc Group and relied on them in their resolutions to put international norms into effect. While the reports by the Ad Hoc Group shifted the debate to a common point of reference, complete deference to the authority of the UN in the sense of full acceptance of the findings of the Ad Hoc Group was difficult to achieve. The human rights situation improved only slowly in the long process of moving toward democracy ( Ropp and Sikkink 1999 , 193; Hawkins 2002 , 129). Illustrating the differences between fact-finding missions and truth commissions discussed above, this process included the creation of the National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation in 1990 “to make an official accounting of the past” amid ongoing tensions between the military and the transition government—but explicitly without the goal of legal accountability ( Ensalaco 2000 , 183–84). The production of knowledge in fact-finding and truth commissions was a key factor in how the UN and other actors engaged with Chile under Pinochet.

IOs dispatch fact-finding missions in order to establish epistemic authority. This epistemic practice has often been overlooked in IR scholarship. This article proposed a three-pronged framework to shed light on (1) the act of delegating a fact-finding mission, (2) the implementation of the mandate, and (3) the dissemination of its findings for use by other international actors. The case study of the UNCHR’s fact-finding mission to Chile has illustrated that even in highly polarized debates, the promise of objective knowledge production is strong, that on-site visits can help to establish credible facts, and that normative and legal framings of these findings are more likely to be contested. This concluding section outlines three partly overlapping avenues for a comparative research agenda, including mechanisms other than fact-finding missions.

First, future research should conduct a comparative analysis of UN fact-finding missions to systematically assess the competing arguments outlined in this article. This should be based on the variation in delegating authorities, especially the UNHCR versus the UNSC, the professional and personal backgrounds of the mandate holders, the implementation of the mandate—especially comparing cases with and without access to the field—and the final reports with respect to the question of whether a normative-legal framing is more likely to generate controversy than a factual-scientific framing. Importantly, this should also consider cases of non-adoption after a fact-finding mission has been proposed, as in the case of the human rights situation in Uganda in the late 1970s ( Eckel 2019 , 211–12). In addition, fact-finding missions should be compared over time: how have routinization, professionalization, and innovation affected the practice of fact-finding missions? While witness interviews remain key to information gathering, newer fact-finding missions may also rely on social media accounts or forensic evidence, such as satellite imagery, as in recent commissions of inquiry on Myanmar, Syria, and Ukraine. Finally, the alleged shift in accountability should be systematically tracked and examined to determine whether fact-finding missions actually contribute to the prosecution of international crimes.

Second, future research should compare international fact-finding missions with related mechanisms such as country visits by UN-thematic and country-specific rapporteurs, human rights treaty bodies, and the UNSC. Are countries more likely to cooperate with special rapporteurs than with international fact-finding missions, and if so, why? The system of country visits by special rapporteurs is much broader and is thus likely less selective than the ad hoc dispatch of fact-finding missions ( Gaer 2017 ). Is this more regularized approach less prone to contestation? Though only occasionally used, the Committee against Torture and other human rights treaty bodies also conduct on-site visits as part of their inquiry procedures. Since the human rights treaty bodies are perceived to be less politicized, it can be assumed that their fact-finding mechanisms are more likely to be recognized. Looking beyond human rights issues, the various forms of fact-finding missions, the production of expert knowledge, and country visits by the UNSC should be examined more closely, as the legal literature considers the UNSC to be more authoritative in mandating such mechanisms. For example, the UNSC makes good use of its “visiting missions,” which are arguably less intrusive than a fact-finding mission but also aim to gather information on the ground.

Third, future research should compare fact-finding missions in the fields of human rights, humanitarian law, and peace and security law with commissions in other areas of world politics, notably inspections under arms control regimes. This will shed light on the question of whether scientific facts about the production or use of certain weapons systems are less susceptible to dispute than cases concerning human rights violations. The inspections of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have shifted from monitoring compliance to inquiring into alleged non-compliance ( Weichselbraun 2020 ). How has this shift affected the (epistemic) authority of the IAEA? How does its commitment to and perception of on-site inspections differ from that of human rights fact-finding missions? If a more scientific approach to fact-finding is more likely to establish epistemic authority, this has important implications for international fact-finding more broadly. Several fact-finding missions by the UN and the OPCW into the use of chemical weapons in Syria can provide further comparative insights. These missions began with a fact-finding mandate but shifted to accountability mechanisms. The resulting hybridity of the fact-finding missions has been identified as one of the reasons for the deterioration of cooperation at the OPCW ( Notte 2020 , 224). In addition to several arguments echoing the criticism of procedures in the Chilean case, and in particular the challenging of off-site procedures ( Notte 2020 , 215), Russia launched disinformation campaigns that fueled controversies among OPCW members ( Koblentz 2019 , 590–91). As the OPCW struggles to establish its epistemic authority, it appears to be more polarized today than it was before the first fact-finding mission on Syria was mandated.

This comparative research agenda on international fact-finding missions will advance recent scholarship on the politics of expertise, knowledge production, and evidence-making in both IR and international law. It will contribute to our understanding of how IOs respond to contestation and contribute to norm enforcement in various issue areas, including but not limited to human rights, humanitarian law, and arms control.

The author would like to thank Christine Andrä, Matthias Ecker-Erhardt, Farnaz Dezfouli Asl, Katharina Glaab, Alvina Hoffmann, Nele Kortendiek, Andrea Liese, Nina Reiners, Mariam Salehi, Sebastian Schindler, Bernhard Zangl, and Lisbeth Zimmermann for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. The author would also like to thank Sara von Skerst of the UN Depository Library in Heidelberg for her assistance in researching the United Nations archives, and Ann-Sophie Lorych and Michael Hißen for their valuable research assistance.

I use the terms “fact-finding mission” and “commission of inquiry” interchangeably.

This builds on early ( Franck and Cherkis 1967 ) and recent ( Becker and Nouwen 2019 ) calls for systematic research on commissions of inquiry in PIL (see also Chinkin 2011 , 485–86).

Similarly, Perez (2015 , 398) has demonstrated that the hybridization of different forms of authority in transnational scientific institutions (RSIs) can “diminish the epistemic trustworthiness of RSI output—its level of scientificity—because it reduces the extent to which this output meets the conditions of “proper” scientific work.”

Krebs (2017 ) distinguishes between moral and legal frames.

In 1977, DINA was replaced by the Central Nacional de Informaciones .

Note that the UN Library lists the Ad Hoc Group on Chile as the first UNCHR fact-finding mission, while it catalogs the Commissions of Experts on South Africa (1967) and Israel/Palestine (1971) as UN Special Procedures; the UN Secretary-General mandated a fact-finding mission to Malaysia in 1963, and the UN General Assembly sent a fact-finding mission to Vietnam in 1969 (see also  table 1 ).

Abbott Kenneth W . 1993 . “ Trust but Verify: The Production of Information in Arms Control Treaties and Other International Agreements .” Cornell International Law Journal . 26 ( 1 ): 1 – 58 .

Google Scholar

Abbott Kenneth W. , Keohane Robert O. , Moravcsik Andrew , Slaughter Anne-Marie , Snidal Duncan . 2000 . “ The Concept of Legalization .” International Organization . 54 ( 3 ): 401 – 19 .

Allen Lori . 2020 . A History of False Hope: Investigative Commissions in Palestine . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press .

Google Preview

Alston Philip . 2013 . “ Introduction: Third Generation Human Rights Fact-Finding .” ASIL Proceedings . 107 : 61 – 2 .

Alston Philip , Knuckey Sarah . 2016 . “ The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding: Challenges and Opportunities .” In The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding , edited by Alston Philip , Knuckey Sarah , 3 – 24 .. Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Alter Karen J. , Hafner-Burton Emilie M. , Helfer Laurence R. . 2019 . “ Theorizing the Judicialization of International Relations .” International Studies Quarterly . 63 ( 3 ): 449 – 63 .

Alter Karen J. , Helfer Laurence R. , Madsen Mikael Rask . 2016 . “ How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts .” Law & Contemporary Problems . 79 ( 1 ): 1 – 36 .

Andrä Christine . 2022 . “ Problematising War: Towards a Reconstructive Critique of War as a Problem of Deviance .” Review of International Studies . 48 ( 4 ): 705 – 24 .

Autesserre Séverine . 2014 . Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Avant Deborah Denise , Finnemore Martha , Sell Susan K. . 2010 . “ Who Governs the Globe? ” In Who Governs the Globe? . edited by Avant Deborah D. , Finnemore Martha , Sell Susan K. , 1 – 31 .. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Bake Julika , Zöhrer Michaela . 2017 . “ Telling the Stories of Others: Claims of Authenticity in Human Rights Reporting and Comics Journalism .” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding . 11 ( 1 ): 81 – 97 .

Barnett Michael N. , Finnemore Martha . 2004 . Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics . Ithaca : Cornell University Press .

Becker Michael A . 2022 . “ Challenging Some Baseline Assumptions About the Evolution of International Commissions of Inquiry .” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law . 55 ( 3 ): 559 – 629 .

Becker Michael A. , Nouwen Sarah M. H. . 2019 . “ International Commissions of Inquiry: What Difference Do They Make? Taking an Empirical Approach .” European Journal of International Law . 30 ( 3 ): 819 – 41 .

Becker Michael A. , Rose Cecily . 2017 . “ Investigating the Value of Site Visits in Inter-State Arbitration and Adjudication .” Journal of International Dispute Settlement . 8 ( 2 ): 219 – 49 .

Benatar Marco . 2012 . “ Site Visits .” In The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law , edited by Wolfrum Rüdiger . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Ben-Josef Hirsch Michal . 2014 . “ Ideational Change and the Emergence of the International Norm of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions .” European Journal of International Relations . 20 ( 3 ): 810 – 33 .

Bliesemann de Guevara Berit . 2017 . “ Intervention Theatre: Performance, Authenticity and Expert Knowledge in Politicians’ Travel to Post-/Conflict Spaces .” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding . 11 ( 1 ): 58 – 80 .

Bonacker Thorsten . 2022 . “ Reporting Security: Postcolonial Governmentality in the United Nations’ Trusteeship System .” International Political Sociology . 16 ( 1 ): 1 – 19 .

Boswell Christina . 2017 . “ The Role of Expert Knowledge in International Organizations .” In The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations: How International Bureaucracies Produce and Mobilize Knowledge , edited by Littoz-Monnet Annabelle , 19 – 36 .. London : Routledge .

van Boven Theo C. . 2000 . “ Creative and Dynamic Strategies for Using United Nations Institutions and Procedures: the Frank Newman File [1989] ” In Human Rights from Exclusion to Inclusion: Principles and Practices: An Anthology from the Work of Theo Van Boven , edited by Coomans Fons , Flinterman Cees , Grünfeld Fred , Westendorp Ingrid , Willems Jan , 89 – 101 .. The Hague : Kluwer Law International .

Bueger Christian . 2015 . “ Making Things Known: Epistemic Practices, the United Nations, and the Translation of Piracy .” International Political Sociology . 9 ( 1 ): 1 – 18 .

Carraro Valentina . 2017 . “ The United Nations Treaty Bodies and Universal Periodic Review: Advancing Human Rights by Preventing Politicization? ” Human Rights Quarterly . 39 ( 4 ): 943 – 70 .

Carraro Valentina . 2019 . “ Electing the Experts: Expertise and Independence in the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies .” European Journal of International Relations . 25 ( 3 ): 826 – 51 .

Chinkin Christine M . 2011 . “ U.N. Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Missions: Lessons from Gaza .” In Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman , edited by Arsanjani Mahnoush H. , Cogan Jacob K. , Sloane Robert , Wiessner Siegfried , 475 – 98 .. Leiden : Nijhoff .

Clark Ann Marie . 2001 . Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press .

Clayton Govinda , Dorussen Han , Böhmelt Tobias . 2021 . “ United Nations Peace Initiatives 1946–2015: Introducing a New Dataset .” International Interactions . 47 ( 1 ): 161 – 80 .

Combs Nancy A . 2010 . Fact-Finding without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Cronin-Furman Kate . 2022 . Hypocrisy and Human Rights: Resisting Accountability for Mass Atrocities . Ithaca : Cornell University Press .

Deitelhoff Nicole . 2009 . “ The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case .” International Organization . 63 ( 1 ): 33 – 65 .

Devaney James Gerard . 2016 . Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Dingwerth Klaus , Witt Antonia , Lehmann Ina , Reichel Ellen , Weise Tobias . 2019 . International Organizations under Pressure: Legitimating Global Governance in Challenging Times . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Domínguez-Redondo Elvira . 2017 . “ The History of the Special Procedures: a ‘Learning-by-Doing’ Approach to Human Rights Implementation .” In The United Nations Special Procedures System , edited by Nolan Aoife , Freedman Rosa , Murphy Thérèse , 11 – 51 .. Leiden : Brill .

Eckel , Jan. 2019 . The Ambivalence of Good: Human Rights in International Politics Since the 1940s . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Eijking , Jan. 2023 . “ Historical Claims to the International: the Case of the Suez Canal Experts .” International Studies Quarterly . 67 ( 3 ): 1 – 12 .

Ensalaco Mark . 2000 . Chile under Pinochet: Recovering the Truth . Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania Press .

Ermacora Felix . 1976 . “ UN and Human Rights in Chile .” Human Rights Review . 1 ( 2 ): 145 – 56 .

Farrell Michelle , Murphy Ben . 2017 . “ Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony: the Politics of Establishing United Nations Commissions of Inquiry .” In Commissions of Inquiry: Problems and Prospects , edited by Henderson Christian , 34 – 64 .. Oxford : Hart Publishing .

Fehl Caroline . 2023 . “ Protect and Punish: Norm Linkage and International Responses to Mass Atrocities .” European Journal of International Relations . 1 – 29 .. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231158548 .

Flyvbjerg Bent . 2016 . “ Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research .” Qualitative Inquiry . 12 ( 2 ): 219 – 45 .

Franck Thomas M. , Cherkis Laurence D. . 1967 . “ The Problem of Fact-Finding in International Disputes .” Western Reserve Law Review . 18 ( 5 ): 1483 – 524 .

Franck Thomas M. , Fairley H. Scott . 1980 . “ Procedural Due Process in Human Rights Fact-Finding by International Agencies .” American Journal of International Law . 74 ( 2 ): 308 – 45 .

Frulli Micaela . 2012 . “ Fact-Finding or Paving the Road to Criminal Justice? Some Reflections on United Nations Commissions of Inquiry .” Journal of International Criminal Justice . 10 ( 5 ): 1323 – 38 .

Gaer Felice D . 2017 . “ Picking and Choosing? Country Visits by Thematic Special Procedures .” In The United Nations Special Procedures System , edited by Nolan Aoife , Freedman Rosa , Murphy Thérèse , 87 – 130 .. Leiden : Brill .

Grace Rob . 2017 . “ Lessons from Two Regional Missions: Fact-Finding in Georgia and South Sudan .” In Commissions of Inquiry: Problems and Prospects , edited by Henderson Christian , 63 – 87 .. Oxford : Hart Publishing .

Haas Peter M . 1992 . “ Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination .” International Organization . 46 ( 1 ): 1 – 35 .

Hafner-Burton Emilie M . 2008 . “ Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem .” International Organization . 62 ( 4 ): 689 – 716 .

Hall Nina . 2016 . Displacement, Development, and Climate Change: International Organizations Moving beyond Their Mandates . London : Routledge .

Hanrieder Tine . 2020 . “ Priorities, Partners, Politics: the WHO's Mandate beyond the Crisis .” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations . 26 ( 4 ): 534 – 43 .

Harwood Catherine . 2019 . The Roles and Functions of Atrocity-Related United Nations Commissions of Inquiry in the International Legal Order: Navigating between Principle and Pragmatism . Leiden : Brill | Nijhoff .

Hawkins Darren G . 2002 . International Human Rights and Authoritarian Rule in Chile . Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press .

Hawkins Darren G. , Lake David A. , Nielson Daniel L. , Tierney Michael J. . 2006 . “ Delegation under Anarchy: States, International Organizations, and Principal-Agent-Theory .” In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations , edited by Hawkins Darren G. , Lake David A. , Nielson Daniel L. , Tierney Michael J. , 3 – 38 .. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Heaven Corinne . 2017 . “ A Visible College: the Community of Fact-Finding Practice .” In Commissions of Inquiry: Problems and Prospects , edited by Henderson Christian , 337 – 59 .. Oxford : Hart Publishing .

Hellestveit Cecilie . 2015 . “ International Fact-Finding Mechanisms: Lighting Candles or Cursing Darkness? ” In Promoting Peace through International Law , edited by Bailliet Cecilia M. , Larsen Kjetil M. , 368 – 94 .. Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Hellmüller Sara , Tan Xiang-Yun Rosalind , Bara Corinne . 2023 . “ What is in a Mandate? Introducing the UN Peace Mission Mandates Dataset ” Journal of Conflict Resolution . 1 – 27 .. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027231159830 .

van den Herik Larissa . 2014 . “ An Inquiry into the Role of Commissions of Inquiry in International Law: Navigating the Tensions between Fact-Finding and Application of International Law .” Chinese Journal of International Law . 13 ( 3 ): 507 – 37 .

Herold Jana , Liese Andrea , Busch Per-Olof , Feil Hauke . 2021 . “ Why National Ministries Consider the Policy Advice of International Bureaucracies: Survey Evidence from 106 Countries .” International Studies Quarterly . 65 ( 3 ): 669 – 82 .

Hoffmann Alvina . 2023 . “ What Makes a Spokesperson? Delegation and Symbolic Power in Crimea .” European Journal of International Relations . 1 – 25 .. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231151233 .

Honig Dan . 2019 . “ When Reporting Undermines Performance: the Costs of Politically Constrained Organizational Autonomy in Foreign Aid Implementation .” International Organization . 73 ( 1 ): 171 – 201 .

Howard Lise M . 2008 . UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Jensen Steven L. B . 2016 . The Making of International Human Rights: The 1960s, Decolonization, and the Reconstruction of Global Values . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Keck Margaret E. , Sikkink Kathryn . 1998 . Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics . Ithaca : Cornell University Press .

Kelly Patrick W . 2018 . Sovereign Emergencies: Latin America and the Making of Global Human Rights Politics . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Kim Hun Joon . 2019 . “ Are UN Investigations into Human Rights Violations a Viable Solution? An Assessment of UN Commissions of Inquiry .” Journal of Human Rights Practice . 11 ( 1 ): 96 – 115 .

Koblentz Gregory D . 2019 . “ Chemical-Weapon Use in Syria: Atrocities, Attribution, and Accountability .” The Nonproliferation Review . 26 ( 5–6 ): 575 – 98 .

Kochanski Adam . 2020 . “ Mandating Truth: Patterns and Trends in Truth Commission Design .” Human Rights Review . 21 ( 2 ): 113 – 37 .

Kortendiek Nele . 2021 . “ How to Govern Mixed Migration in Europe: Transnational Expert Networks and Knowledge Creation in International Organizations .” Global Networks . 21 ( 2 ): 320 – 38 .

Krebs Shiri . 2017 . “ The Legalization of Truth in International Fact-Finding .” Chicago Journal of International Law . 18 ( 1 ): 83 – 163 .

Lauterpacht Hersch . 1950 . International Law and Human Rights . London : Stevens & Sons Limited .

Le Moli Ginevra . 2020 . “ From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: the Development of Normative Powers of UN Investigative Mechanisms .” Chinese Journal of International Law . 19 ( 4 ): 625 – 81 .

Leander Anna . 2014 . “ Essential and Embattled Expertise: Knowledge/Expert/Policy Nexus around the Sarin Gas Attack in Syria .” Politik . 17 ( 2 ): 26 – 37 .

Lebovic James H. , Voeten Erik . 2006 . “ The Politics of Shame: the Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNCHR .” International Studies Quarterly . 50 ( 4 ): 861 – 88 .

Lesch Max . 2023 . “ From Norm Violations to Norm Development: Deviance, International Institutions, and the Torture Prohibition .” International Studies Quarterly . 67 ( 3 ): 1 – 13 .

Lesch Max , Reiners Nina . 2023 . “ Informal Human Rights Law-Making: How Treaty Bodies Use ‘General Comments’ to Develop International Law .” Global Constitutionalism . 12 ( 2 ): 378 – 401 .

Liese Andrea , Herold Jana , Feil Hauke , Busch Per-Olof . 2021 . “ The Heart of Bureaucratic Power: Explaining International Bureaucracies’ Expert Authority .” Review of International Studies . 47 ( 3 ): 353 – 76 .

Littoz-Monnet Annabelle . 2020 . Governing through Expertise: The Politics of Bioethics . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Littoz-Monnet Annabelle , Uribe Juanita . 2023 . “ Methods Regimes in Global Governance: the Politics of Evidence-Making in Global Health .” International Political Sociology . 17 ( 2 ): 1 – 22 .

Lupu Yonatan . 2013 . “ Best Evidence: the Role of Information in Domestic Judicial Enforcement of International Human Rights Agreements .” International Organization . 67 ( 3 ): 469 – 503 .

Martin de Almagro Maria . 2021 . “ Indicators and Success Stories: the UN Sustaining Peace Agenda, Bureaucratic Power, and Knowledge Production in Post-War Settings .” International Studies Quarterly . 65 ( 3 ): 699 – 711 .

Mégret Frédéric . 2016 . “ Do Facts Exist, Can They Be ‘Found’, and Does It Matter?”  ,” The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding , edited by Alston Philip , Knuckey Sarah , 27 – 48 .. Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Niederberger Aurel . 2020 . “ Independent Experts with Political Mandates: ‘Role Distance’ in the Production of Political Knowledge .” European Journal of International Security . 5 ( 3 ): 350 – 71 .

Nielson Daniel L. , Tierney Michael J. , Weaver Catherine E. . 2006 . “ Bridging the Rationalist–constructivist Divide: Re-Engineering the Culture of the World Bank .” Journal of International Relations and Development . 9 ( 2 ): 107 – 39 .

Notte Hanna . 2020 . “ The United States, Russia, and Syria's Chemical Weapons: a Tale of Cooperation and Its Unravelling .” The Nonproliferation Review . 27 ( 1–3 ): 201 – 24 .

OHCHR . 2015 . Commissions of Inquiry and Fact-Finding Missions on International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Guidance and Practice . New York and Geneva : United Nations .

Perez Oren . 2015 . “ The Hybrid Legal-Scientific Dynamic of Transnational Scientific Institutions .” European Journal of International Law . 26 ( 2 ): 391 – 416 .

Ramcharan B. G . 2009 . The Protection Roles of UN Human Rights Special Procedures . Leiden : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers .

Reiners Nina . 2022 . Transnational Lawmaking Coalitions for Human Rights . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Ropp Stephen C. , Sikkink Kathryn . 1999 . “ International Norms and Domestic Politics in Chile and Guatemala .” In The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change , edited by Risse Thomas , Ropp Stephen C. , Sikkink Kathryn , 172 – 204 .. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Salehi Mariam . 2022 . Transitional Justice in Process: Plans and Politics in Tunisia . Manchester : Manchester University Press .

Salehi Mariam . 2023 . “ Confined Knowledge Flows in Transitional Justice .” Territory, Politics, Governance . 1 – 19 .. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2023.2195435 .

Seabrooke Leonard , Sending Ole Jacob . 2020 . “ Contracting Development: Managerialism and Consultants in Intergovernmental Organizations .” Review of International Political Economy . 27 ( 4 ): 802 – 27 .

Sending Ole Jacob . 2015 . The Politics of Expertise: Competing for Authority in Global Governance . Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press .

Shelton Dinah . 1980 . “ Utilization of Fact-Finding Missions to Promote and Protect Human Rights: the Chile Case .” Human Rights Law Journal . 2 ( 1-2 ): 1 – 36 .

Sikkink Kathryn . 2011 . “ The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics .” New York, NY : Norton .

Srivastava Swati . 2022 . “ Navigating NGO–Government Relations in Human Rights: New Archival Evidence from Amnesty International, 1961–1986 ” International Studies Quarterly . 66 ( 1 ): 1 – 8 .

Steffek Jens . 2021 . International Organization as Technocratic Utopia . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Thompson Alexander . 2020 . “ Competence over Control: the Politics of Multilateral Weapons Inspections .” In The Governor's Dilemma: Indirect Governance beyond Principals and Agents , edited by Abbott Kenneth W. , Zangl Bernhard , Snidal Duncan , Genschel Philipp , 78 – 99 .. Oxford : Oxford University Press .

UNCHR . 1974 . UN Doc E/CN.4/SR.1279, March 1 .

UNCHR . 1975a . UN Doc. E/CN.4/1179 .

UNCHR . 1975b . Resolution 8 (XXXI), February 27 .

UNCHR . 1975c . UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.1323, February 27 .

UNCHR . 1975d . UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.1319, February 25 .

UNCHR . 1976 . UN Doc. E/CN.4/1188, February 4 .

UNCHR . 1977 . UN Doc. E/CN.4/1221, February 10 .

UNGA . 1974 . UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.2071, October 23 .

UNGA . 1975a . UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.2155, November 11 .

UNGA . 1975b . UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.2151, November 6 .

UNGA . 1975c . UN Doc. A/10285, October 7 .

UNGA . 1975d . Resolution 3448 (XXX), December 9 .

UNGA . 1975e . UN Doc. A/PV.2433, December 9 .

UNGA . 1976a . UN Doc. A/31/253, October 8 .

UNGA . 1976b . UN Doc. A/C.3/31/6, October 27 .

UNGA . 1976c . UN Doc. A/C.3/31/SR.56, November 22 .

UNGA . 1977 . UN Doc. A/32/227, September 29 .

UNGA . 1978 . UN Doc. A/33/311, October 25 .

UNGA . 1991 . Resolution 46/59, December 9 .

UNHRC . 2023 . UN Doc. A /HRC/52/62, March 15 .

Viancos Vargas , C María . 1990 . “ El Caso Chileno En la Asamblea General Y La Comisión de Derechos Humans de la Organización de Las Naciones Unidas .” Revista Chilena de Derechos Humanos . 12 : 31 – 59 .

Voeten Erik . 2008 . “ The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights .” American Political Science Review . 102 ( 4 ): 417 – 33 .

de Vries Barry . 2022 . “ The Use of Fact-Finding within the Human Rights Council: Shaping Perceptions .” Journal of Human Rights Practice . 13 ( 3 ): 489 – 506 .

Weichselbraun Anna . 2020 . “ From Accountants to Detectives: How Nuclear Safeguards Inspectors Make Knowledge at the International Atomic Energy Agency ” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review . 43 ( 1 ): 120 – 35 .

WHO . 2021 . “ WHO-Convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part .” Joint WHO-China Study, 14 January-10 February 2021 , Geneva : World Health Organisation .

Witt Antonia . 2022 . “ Beyond Formal Powers: Understanding the African Union's Authority on the Ground .” Review of International Studies . 48 ( 4 ): 626 – 45 .

Zimmermann Lisbeth , Deitelhoff Nicole , Lesch Max , Arcudi Antonio , Peez Anton . 2023 . International Norm Disputes: The Link between Contestation and Norm Robustness . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Zürn Michael , Binder Martin , Ecker-Ehrhardt Matthias . 2012 . “ International Authority and Its Politicization .” International Theory . 4 ( 1 ): 69 – 106 .

Zvobgo Kelebogile . 2019 . “ Designing Truth: Facilitating Perpetrator Testimony at Truth Commissions .” Journal of Human Rights . 18 ( 1 ): 92 – 110 .

Zvobgo Kelebogile . 2020 . “ Demanding Truth: the Global Transitional Justice Network and the Creation of Truth Commissions .” International Studies Quarterly . 64 ( 3 ): 609 – 25 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2486
• Print ISSN 1521-9488
• Copyright © 2024 International Studies Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Factual Research: Home

• Freedom of Information Act
• Florida Public Records Law
• Science & Env.
• International

Credibility of sources

Once you venture outside of trusted legal databases like Westlaw and LexisNexis to do non-legal research on the web, you need to evaluate the credibility of the resources you are using.

Ask yourself the following questions to help determine credibility of a website:

• What does the URL reveal? (.gov, .mil, .edu, or country codes like .uk)
• Who wrote the page? Is the author a qualified authority?
• Is it information outdated or current and timely?
• Is information cited authentic and verifiable?
• Does the page have overall integrity and reliability as a source?
• What's the bias?
• Could the page or site be ironic, like a satire or a spoof?

(Adapted from Evaluating Web Pages: Questions to Ask & Strategies for Getting the Answers .)

General Reference

• Justia finding facts A great website with links to encyclopedia, almanacs, statistics, quotations, and many more.

Factual research versus Legal research

If legal research involves searching for cases, statutes, laws, rules, and regulations, what is factual research? Fact-finding or information gathering involves searching for people, corporations, scientific & medical reports, public records or any other non-legal research.  Factual research is necessary to provide background information, find expert witnesses, or fulfill required due diligence.  

Resources on factual research

• Legal, Factual and Other Internet Sites for Attorneys and Others Article in 12 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 17 (2005)
• More Nancy Drew than Marian the Librarian: Hunting for Vital Records Online Article in Library Lights (53 Law Libr. Lights 8 2009-2010 issue 4)

We're Here to Help!

Click on a photo for contact information.

• Next: People >>
• Last Updated: Sep 25, 2023 8:51 AM
• URL: https://guides.law.fsu.edu/factualresearch