InterAmitica measures what others describe. This page sets out how we gather information in a difficult environment, how we test it before we publish, and how we are honest about what our work can and cannot show. Our commitment is simple: state clearly what we know, how we know it, and how confident we are.
Method serves truth, not the other way around. These four commitments hold across everything we do, whether we are mapping armed-group control or measuring how communities experience daily life in Haiti.
Nothing is published as fact until it holds up to cross-checking. Where the evidence is thin, we say so rather than fill the gap with a guess.
We show our work. Every finding carries its sources and a stated level of confidence, so readers can weigh it for themselves.
The safety of those who speak with us comes before any single finding. We collect the minimum we need and guard identities carefully.
We follow the evidence where it leads. Our analysis is not shaped to suit any government, party, or funder.
Good research follows a disciplined path. Step through the stages below to see how a piece of InterAmitica work moves from an open question to a finding we are willing to stand behind.
No single method answers every question, so we match the method to the problem and combine several where we can. Filter by area, and open any method to see how we apply it and what we watch out for.
Not everything can be known to the same degree. Rather than present every claim with equal certainty, we attach a confidence level to our assessments and explain what it means.
Several sources that do not depend on one another point to the same conclusion, often reinforced by public reporting or direct documentation.
The finding rests on a single strong source or on partial agreement across sources. It is credible but not yet fully confirmed.
A single early indication we are still testing. We publish it only when its usefulness outweighs its uncertainty, and we label it plainly.
Confidence is not fixed. An assessment can rise as corroboration accumulates or fall if new information undercuts it. When we revise a judgement, that is the method working as intended, not a failure of it.
In Haiti, information can carry real risk for the person who shares it. Our methods are built so that research never places a community or a source in danger. This is not a footnote to our work. It shapes what we collect and how.
Research is more useful when people have realistic expectations of it. We would rather state our limits plainly than let a finding carry more weight than it can bear.
Our work is strong at describing how a situation is structured and how it is changing over time, which groups hold which areas, how control shifts, and where conditions are deteriorating or improving.
Every assessment carries its sources and a stated confidence level, so a reader can see not only what we conclude but how firmly.
Where the underlying reality is uncertain or contested, we give ranges and say so. A number presented as exact when it cannot be is its own kind of error, and we avoid it.
Forward-looking assessments are reasoned judgements about what is likely, clearly labelled as analysis rather than fact, and revised as conditions change.
People who share their views and their knowledge give us their time and, in Haiti, sometimes their safety. We treat that as a trust. Getting the method right is how we honour it, and how we make sure that when we tell the world what is happening, we get it right.