In any in-depth study and analysis, data should be authenticated and fair so that your intended audience is able to draw their own conclusions.
Data/information should be presented to the audience, along with one's interpretation and conclusion, so that the audience can also draw their own conclusions.
In the case of Dr. Keen Gibson's book titled, "The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana," this was not done.
For example, when she wrote about a victory march in Corentyne by East Indians during the 1960s, she only quoted Sidney King's version of the event when there were other publications on that event which showed a different interpretation of the event.
A good researcher would have utilized at least two different opinions of the one event, thereby striking an equal balance and giving the audience a wider range of focus.
I somehow doubt that Dr. Gibson is unaware of this research protocol; maybe it’s a way of trying to get away with sloppy work
Elizabeth Reid